Facing reality: Why our Age of Civil Responsibility Bill matters

In the weeks since the public became aware of the bill to reduce the Age of Civil Responsibility (ACR).

Much has been said about the bill. That it:

1.  Strips parents of their sacred role to guide, love, and protect their children
2.  Assaults parental rights and erodes family values
3.  Gives politicians power over children

But these claims, while emotionally charged and understandable, overlook the harsh realities confronting Grenadian adolescents.

If we had perfect families, we would not need the ACR Bill.

The truth is that intimate partner violence is rampant; teenage pregnancy is high; sexually transmitted diseases are high and rising among teenagers; the incidence of incest is appalling; and parents too infrequently speak to their children about sex.

However unpleasant, the fact is that sexual activity begins by age 10 and younger in some instances, whether voluntary or coerced. By age 15, 25% of adolescent females report sexual activity. By age 17, that figure balloons to 71%.  Delaying lawful access to healthcare until age 18 is simply out of step with our social reality. No responsible government can ignore this data.

It is irresponsible, and worse, dangerous for the health and well-being of the nation’s adolescents when we ignore the evidence and make statements that border on misinformation and scare tactics.

1. The bill does not in any way diminish the parental duty to guide, love and protect their children. Instead, it simply provides another avenue by which adolescents who need sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services can do so. Parents who are willing to facilitate their children’s access to SRH services can and are encouraged to continue to do so
2. The bill is not an assault on parental rights. On the contrary, it is an alarm reminding parents of their responsibilities and urging them to exercise those responsibilities to protect the SRH of adolescents
3. The bill does not give politicians power over children. It offers some adolescents access to care. The bill gives recognition to long-established legal precedent, but has actually chosen not to go as far as it could have gone in empowering those children under the age of 16. In fact, the bill currently addresses only those children who are 16 and over, leaving the under-16-year-olds to be dealt with at a subsequent point if deemed necessary, and in any event, requiring that the matter go back to Parliament for affirmative resolution

Let us disagree on the merits of the bill and how we can make it stronger to protect the nation’s adolescents, but please, let us rise above sensationalism and misinformation.

Sincerely,
Tonia Frame, President, Grenada Planned Parenthood Association (GPPA)
Fred Nunes, Consultant, Advocates for Safe Parenthood: Improving Reproductive Equity (ASPIRE)