The upfront cost of this type of contraceptive can be high, as much as $1,000, but over a woman’s reproductive life it is cheaper than the pill. Research by my former Brookings colleagues Adam Thomas and Emily Monea shows that for every dollar invested in birth control, taxpayers save roughly five dollars on Medicaid-supported births and on social welfare payments for the mother and child. If these accidental births could be avoided, these 20-somethings might reach an age at which stable relationships are finally possible, unencumbered by a child from a previous relationship. And whether a woman finds a partner or not, by waiting she would be better prepared to raise a child by herself. Because the conversation has focused so heavily on marriage, we have lost sight of the fact that it is the quality of parenting that really matters, not just the structure of the family.

It is in this context that any efforts, like the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby to curtail access to the most effective forms of birth control, are misguided. If we could make the most effective forms of birth control available to all women with no co-payment, we would not only have healthier children and lower child poverty rates, we would limit the extent of government assistance people need in the process.

The Affordable Care Act required most insurance plans to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, while also expanding Medicaid and community health centers. But the full implementation of these provisions is far from guaranteed. Current court challenges to the contraceptive coverage provision, the unwillingness of some states to expand Medicaid, and a lack of clinics and of doctors knowledgeable about and trained in the provision of LARCs are all impediments to an era of more responsible parenthood

But greater access to the most effective forms of contraception is not enough. We also need a new ethic of responsible parenthood. That means not having a child before you and your partner really want one and have thought about how you will care for that child. Those from less privileged backgrounds may worry that they will never be able to afford a child. But two full-time $10-an-hour jobs bring in roughly $40,000 a year, hardly a princely sum yet enough to support a family well above the poverty line, even after child care and other expenses. These families should be receiving child-care subsidies and other forms of help. I can even imagine making certain benefits conditional on greater responsibility on their part, but think that might be too great a threat to individual rights. Softer nudges toward more responsible behavior can work just as well.

SOCIAL norms do evolve. Fewer people now smoke and more of them wear seatbelts. Attitudes toward gays and women have shifted dramatically. Teenage pregnancy and birthrates have declined sharply in recent decades, partly because of new media messages (like the TV show “16 and Pregnant”) and an emerging consensus that it is simply not a good idea to have a child as a teenager. The problem of unintended births has moved up the age scale; a similar consensus could eventually emerge here too. Government or foundation-funded social marketing campaigns can change attitudes. Campaigns devoted to reducing teenage smoking and drunken driving have succeeded. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (on whose board I serve) has pioneered efforts of this kind to reduce pregnancy.

We need more (and better quality) child care and a higher minimum wage, as well as serious education and training for those who are struggling to care for their families. But government alone can’t solve this problem. Younger people must begin to take greater responsibility for their choices. The old social norm was, “Don’t have a child outside of marriage.” The new norm needs to be, “Don’t have a child until you and your partner are ready to be parents.” Whether or not it was a realistic norm in the past, it is now — precisely because newer forms of contraception make planning a family so much easier.

Well-functioning democracies are built on the premise that government has an obligation to promote the general welfare. But so do citizens. More support for those who are drifting is in order, but less drifting is also essential.