Subscribe
Previous Post
Pay women who are drug addicts to be sterilized. Good or bad? What about if men can be sterilized (and paid) too? Would that make a difference? What if committing to long-term contraception was an option – how would you feel then?
Does this smack of preserving the ultimate race, keeping quality control of babies, or a smart thing to do? Well, regardless of how you feel about it, it’s already happening in the United States, thanks to Project Prevention.
Project Prevention’s mission statement:
Project Prevention offers cash incentives to women that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long-term or permanent birth control.
Project Prevention is a national, 501 (C) 3 organization that has paid clients in 39 states and the District of Columbia.
Our mission is to reduce the number of substance exposed births to zero.
Because every baby deserves a sober start!
The organization has been subject to many criticisms, from accusations of racism to social engineering and yet, it is still here and still receiving donations from people who believe in the cause.
According to an article that appeared last year in the LA Times, the organization, created and directed by Barbara Harris, pays 300.00 for a tubal ligation (sterilization). However, women may get an IUD and receive 75.00 when the device is inserted, another 100.00 when she goes for a 6-month check up, and an additional 125.00 at the end of each year the IUD is in place.
At first glance, it’s easy to look at it through different angles. Drug-addicted mothers who get pregnant often give birth to babies who are also addicted to drugs. The babies are often underweight and sickly. Many end up having medical needs that may not have been present had the child been born of a non-addicted mother. The economic cost of caring for such babies in the “system” is astronomical, but the social cost even more so. Many of these babies end up in a foster system that is ill-equipped to deal with them. The babies grow into older children and often end up being bounced from foster home to foster home, for a variety of reasons. The life can be a horrible one for many who aren’t lucky enough to end up in foster homes that love and nurture them as a child should be loved and nurtured.
By keeping the mothers from getting pregnant in the first place, these babies wouldn’t be born. But that brings the other argument. Who are we to say who should and shouldn’t be born? What if so many of the adults who make an enormous impact on the lives of others now weren’t born because someone else made the decision that their mother shouldn’t become pregnant?
The option does seem to be attractive to many women. According to the organization’s website, over 3,000 women have been paid for either sterilization or long-term birth control.
So, what do you think about it? Good idea? Bad idea?
~~~
Image: iStock.com
What a stupid idea. She should be ashamed of herself for suggesting such a thing, but instead, she babbled on about how some women were having twelve babies, etc. What needs to be dealt with is psychopathy. No one should be having babies when they’re addicted to drugs. But drug addicts aren’t the only ones who make bad decisions. Many people have babies they don’t have the time or money to raise.
f**k me, people are taking this seriously!
Brooke, I whole heartedly agree. My sister is raising her meth-born grandson (now a preteen) and he has so many issues – Aspberges, bi-polar, the list goes on and on. He is kid and deserves all the best that world can offer. Unfortunately he is very difficult to be around and he will sadly be unable to care for himself as an adult . Not being born to wealthy folks who can set up financial care for his life time, he may become one of the thousands of mental ill homeless on the street when no one will be there to financially aford to care for him. He is unable to bond with others, is dishonest and doesn’t show true empathy for others; although appears happy most of the time and very talkative. Sadly he behaves like the many adults I have worked with who have used meth for a long period of time. Meth creates larges fissures and eats away at the brain… He is here and we have all learned many things from him being here – compassion, tolerance… but I also fear what he is capable of (he has very dark moments and loves war, guns and anything violent).
I have been employed with the Division of Children & Family services for the last 16 years. My job is to make sure that children who are removed from their parents and placed in the system, get medicaid. I see how many innocent babies that are removed from their drug addicted families every day. I have been ranting around my office until I am blue in the face to start a program such as Project Prevention to sterilze these women who fail time and time again. I can’t believe that there are WOMEN who believe that it is a woman’s right to chose to have a baby if this said woman is a drug addicted prostitute???? One such mother that is known to our DCFS system, has brought into this world 8 kids horrifically addicted to herion, meth, and crack!!! I would just love for THESE WOMEN who believe that this woman has rights, to come and visit her latest bundle of joy… BORN WITH ONLY A BRAIN STEM because this sorry excuse for a human being used every drug she could get her hands on. I would love for Amy, Tracey, and Sarah to financially provide for this baby. Take this baby home and provide for her for the rest of her helpless life.
If drug addicts decide to clean up and turn their lives around… they can adopt one of the millions of children that are in foster care due to their parents being on drugs.
Are smokers next?
Gloria, Tina, S Saxon – agreed.
My understanding is that 1) the women have to be registered drug addicts i.e. the form to be signed by the doctor (I assume a doctor would not sign a form for a perfectly healthy un-addicted man or woman) 2) they have the choice (choice is the relevant word) either a tie off or an IED both of which can be reversed 3) if at some later stage they get straight and regret the decision a benefactor will pay for the reversal 4) currently the resultant babies that grow to be children or adults have, some severe, problems even if it is only being in county or foster home and DO NOT have the CHOICE. I have listened to the interview by Fergal Keane, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qhmfm , researched on the web and I believe that Barbara Harris is both genuinely caring and is doing the right thing. Indeed I would go as far as to say that some of her detractors, like the NAPW, are misguided; is there a ‘right’ for all women to have a child or children? If so what are her responsibilities? Today it seems that people often claim ‘our rights’ without a thought for ‘our responsibilities’; is this attitude any more civilised?
I am a social worker who works with PG and parenting teens. Many of these teens were themselves born to teenagers, many use drugs and/or alc. Most are have not completed HS, most are on cach aide. I have seen meth addicts give birth and lose to the system, SIX drug addicted babies in a 9 year period of time. My niece adopted such a child and he will always require care and social services.
When one reads articles that state that babies born to drug addicted mothers have DOUBLED in the past 5 years, and that educated, financially stable women are more and more choosing to not have children. When you see the families of your teen clients having 3-5 children and your professional coworkers having maybe 1 or 2 children, you begin to get that there is a problem.
Look at the extrapolated progeny of two hypothetical couples:
X couple starts their family at 25 years of age and has 2 children.
Y couple starts their family at age 17 years and has–let’s say–only 3 children.
Let’s say that each generation follows their parent’s example- (starting their family at the same age and having the same amount of children). At the end of 100 years the total progeny of X couple will be 72 children and grandchildren, etc. born. Whereas, the total progeny of Y couple, over 100 years, will be 3,279 children born!
If you extrapolate out to 325 years and look at the number of potential children born to this generation, the ratio is 1 to 3000!!
Now I am the biggest of bleeding heart liberals, but when I look at this, I applaud what these folk are trying to do. The idea that “where will it lead” ss a reason NOT to do what is right, is absurd!! We talk about the value of human life, the right of a woman’s right to choose, the right of women to be safe from abuse–even to the point where rapists are cemically castrated as a consquence of abuse–but woman can continue to procriate time and again while causing undo harm to their children by using drugs and nothing is done to stop them!
So I for one think what Project Prevention is doing is extremely important and I thank them!
I think its a great idea-I see no porblem with the IUD. What about men-can they be sterilized also? I mean they can run around creating many more children than women. Think of all the drug dealers using the drug addicted women for sex-they obviously don’t care if they impregnate them. But I guess it would cost much more to make it worthwhile for them. Obviously something needs to be done, and if this is what it takes, then so be it. You know, these babies grow into troubled adults and go out into the world and have to try to make it. How do you think they turn out? It would seem to be a vicious cycle. So yes, I am all for it.
If the woman voluntarily chooses to be sterilized then that is her decision, and given the dangerous lifestyle these woman live it is actually a responsible decision. The article says, “Who are we to say who should and shouldn’t be born?,” but that does not apply to these woman, because it is the woman and only the woman who makes the decision to be sterilized. Project Prevention helps to empower woman by giving them control over their reproduction, and it helps to end child abuse by preventing children from being raised in hostile environments, so I support Project Prevention. Just look up their webstie and read testimonies from the woman, and statistics on children born from drug addicts. You’ll be amazed.
This is a monumentally bad idea. They are completely exploiting women and their bodies at their lowest points. How can these women make an informed decision? How can they give informed consent if their addictions are ruling their choices? I would love it if there were no more babies born drug-addicted, but this is not the way to do it.
Long-term birth control (I’m assuming something like Depo Provera or an IUD which can be reversed)–sure. Sterilization, no, because they might turn their lives around and deserve to be able to have children in the future.
I think this is a bad idea. If you do this, where do you stop? How about really poor people or people with disabilities? And if you do this, how do you obtain any type of informed consent when drug addicts will do anything for $ for a fix?