South Africa’s 2007 Children’s Act

In the quest to keep HIV from spreading at the extremely rapid rate it has been in South Africa, the 2007 Children’s Act was brought forth. This act allowed young children ages 12 and up the right to have access to all types of information concerning reproductive health. The most controversial aspect of this act, however, came in the rights it gave these youngsters to have access to contraceptives like condoms. While the act itself is very proactive in its quest to halt the spread of HIV, it goes up against the current policies in place which grants each school the decision of whether or not they feel it is appropriate to hand out condoms. In a recent study, researchers Juliana Han from Harvard Law School and Michael Bennish from John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health feel that these policies could be detrimental to the already sinking health of South Africa’s youngsters.

Of the entire world, South Africa has the most people currently afflicted with HIV. Young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 are reported to make up almost 35% of all new HIV cases. Han and Bennish, both involved with Mpilonhle (a South African health organization not affiliated with the government), feel that the act is a reflection of the nation’s desire to prevent the spread of HIV, especially in its youth. They state, “Despite the high incidence of HIV in adolescents and the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, condom use rates among adolescents remain low, due at least in part to limited access.” In order to increase access to these contraceptives, schools would need to decide to make them available to those young adults that seek them.

However, because many school staff members are uninformed of policies which govern condom distribution at schools, the Children’s Act is proving to be not as effective. “Because of confusing and contradictory government policies and public pronouncements regarding provision of condoms in public schools, few schools have undertaken to provide condoms, leaving students, especially in rural areas, with few options for obtaining them,” state Han and Bennish. Both Han and Bennish fully understand that the issue of condoms and their distribution in an educational setting is a controversial one. There are those who feel that handing out condoms to youth will only serve to encourage them to have sex, while those who support the act are quick to point out that educating the youth on HIV prevention and then failing to offer contraceptives is a battle that cannot be won.

Han and Bennish interviewed students, teachers and parents throughout the rural north and point out that, for the most part, most are supportive of condom distribution but do not understand fully what the government policy would allow. In addition, many agencies providing funding towards HIV preventative measures do not allow condoms to be distributed in school settings nor do they allow condom information to be released to teenagers under 14 years old, lest the funding get pulled. One such funding agency, PEPFAR (the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS) is a prime example.