Drug Addicted Women Paid $300 To Go On Birth Control

joyy
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 03:42 pm: [report]

I like it.  This looks like one form of harm reduction.  You can’t force someone to seek treatment, and treatment doesn’t ensure a sober life. 

But this strategy targets two consequence of substance abuse: preventing children from being born exposed to substances and preventing pregnancies that will likely end with the child in foster care - two things which are costly to society, goverment coffers, and the well-being of the child. 

If they aren’t forcing anyone into it, it may *remind* you of past episodes of government-forced sterilization, it doesn’t look like that’s what it is.

And if you actually read through their site, they don’t ignore the addiction, they refer participants to treatment when participants are willing.

snap
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 06:17 pm: [report]

I disagree with this author.  I think it’s a great idea to prevent births.  Prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Is the money better spent on resources for a mother and unwanted child or preventing unwanted conception?  Resources are important for the mother, of course, but preventing unwanted pregnancy is paramount.

snap
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 06:21 pm: [report]

“How disconcerting, then, to read that Project Prevention offers the birth control cash “incentives” to both men and women, but 3,000 women and only 27 men have used it, according to WATE.com in Knoxville. Perhaps the women are considered more “responsible” for preventing pregnancies.”

1.  Perhaps women are considered more responsible for preventing pregnancies?  Didn’t you just admit that they offer the services to both men and women?  That women are accessing them more than men doesn’t indicate that the organization is sexist.

2.  Pause and think for a moment.  Who gets pregnant?  The woman.  Who does an addict care about?  Him/herself.  If a male addict is having sex, the burden of pregnancy doesn’t rest on him.  What’s the worst that’s going to happen to him?  The State will garnish his wages—what wages?  He isn’t going to carry the child and has no plans to stick around, so he is less likely to care about contraception.  The woman, on the other hand, will be the one getting pregnant.  Maybe she doesn’t plan to stick around either, but for 9 months (or until she gets an abortion that she probably can’t afford), it will be uniquely HER problem.  It’s really not rocket science to figure out why more female addicts rather than male addicts are accessing this service.

Tetrine
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 06:24 pm: [report]

Are the people that are being targeted by this campaign—supposedly people so desperate and drug-addicted that we don’t think they can handle their own life, much less that of a child—really in the position to fully understand the implications of sterilization? 

I live in a big city and you see people on the streets that would do damn near anything for a few dollars, so I can only imagine that a truly desperate drug addict may do whatever it takes to get that $300 incentive.  It just doesn’t seem right dangle the cash in front of these people who are so desperate for money in order to sterilize them.  I think the long-term birth control idea is much more plausible and less shady… but do these people really need a cash incentive?  How about using that money instead for some sort of social service or female wellness counseling being made available to these people?

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 06:27 pm: [report]

@Tetrine Exactly. Just because someone is a drug addict or an alcoholic for a portion of their life DOES NOT mean that they will be abusing drugs their whole lives. People go clean. I’ve seen it happen. It’s wrong to offer someone $300, which they might be incentivized to take and use to buy drugs to feed their addiction, and get them potentially sterilized when in 5 years, they could be clean & sober. You just manipulated someone into taking away their reproductive freedom.

sam04
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 06:40 pm: [report]

I think the option to be sterilized is a little frightening.  Even though I don’t want children, it would be sad for someone who really wanted children later in life (when they were prepared to be a responsible parent) and couldn’t because of a choice they made when they WEREN’T responsible.  I suspect drug addicts likely have more difficulty with pregnancy if they get cleaned up due to the stress they put their bodies through.  I like the idea of the birth control, though.

crustee
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 07:44 pm: [report]

Wait, I’ve read about this before, I swear.  Isn’t this what those Nazi dudes were doing?  Ridding the world of undesirable genetic lineage?

My Christmas wish is that people would just stop looking at people who suffer from mental illness as lesser people.  A sickness is a sickness, no matter what part of the body it inflicts.

cadyms
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 07:51 pm: [report]

We are concerned that someone is not responsible enough to make a decision regarding their reproductive rights, yet these same individuals are viewed as responsible enough to have a child? 

I’ve spent a good deal of time working with foster kids, and what they go through is beyond belief.  50% of the kids who age out of foster care end up homeless, and substance abuse rates are high. 

I am more comfortable with the long-term birth control vs the permanent sterility, but overall I have no problem with this program.  It’s nice for us to debate ideals, but I want kids who can grow up with their moms, not in foster care.  Period.

joyy
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 08:33 pm: [report]

@JessicaW - it’s not just sterilization as an option, it’s also long term birth control.  And just because you’ve seen people get clean doesn’t mean that’s the norm for, say, your average meth addict. 

Try actually doing a little additional research, boning up on your reading comprehension skills, and putting the two together to draw a logical conclusion instead of skimming over something and going with your kneejerk reaction and posting your panties-in-a-wad whining.  I mean, I thought I remember you mentioning somewhere that you have a journalism degree - USE YOUR HEAD.

cadyms
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 10:42 pm: [report]

@crustee - No, this is not the same as the eugenics movement.  The eugenics movement often relied on forced sterilization, for the purpose of (as you stated) cleansing the gene pool of “undesirables.” 

This program is designed to prevent children from suffering due to their mothers’ addiction and subsequent inability to care for them. 

While eugenics led to unspeakable tortures, this program is motivated to reduce suffering. 

Also, I appreciate joyy’s note that getting clean may not be the norm for your typical meth addict.

Forgive me if I get pissy about this - but my dad’s worked in drug/alcohol rehab for 30 years and I’ve worked with foster kids who more often than not come from homes full of drug abuse.  Adults get clean or not, they have a choice, but children don’t have the option of saying “I’d like to not be born to a drug addicted mom who is incapable of giving me the love and care I need.  Even if she provides for my basic necessities, she won’t be able to provide me much in the way of emotional stability and the feeling that everything is going to be okay.  I’ll grow up caring for myself and often for her.  I’d like to wait until she’s clean and sober/drug free or perhaps have parents who are already in that positon. Thanks.”

Nope, they don’t get that option. 

And drug addiction as a mental illness?  I’m asking here, cause I don’t know - is drug addiction listed in the DSM?  I see an intuitive difference between e.g. schizophrenia and drug addiction.  And yes, I’m putting some blame on these women - this is a choice.  If it wasn’t a choice, how could they ever stop using? 

I’ll get off my high horse now.  There but for the grace of God - I never tried anything, otherwise my body chemistry could have reacted in such a way that I would have plummeted into addiction.  I get that.  My stroke of luck was in never trying it, and getting safely to an age where I understood that I never wanted to. 

But none of that - whether it is or isn’t a mental illness, how much control ppl have over their substance issues - really matters.  What matters is kids deserve parents who can care for them, and you can’t do a good job caring for your child if you’re in the grip of a serious addiction.

Chebs
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 04:26 am: [report]

@cadyms - You sound like you have more experience than I, so I’ll direct this question to you: aren’t some children conceived to addicts born with the same drug addiction as their parents?  So not only do they not get the choice to be born to parents who may or may not clean up and provide a stable environment, but they also don’t get the choice in being born with an addiction?  Please correct me if I’m wrong, this was just something I thought I remembered from hs health class.

In any case, I support the idea of giving these men and women long-term birth control. Paying them to take it just feels wrong somehow though, in the same vein as NC paying teenage girls to not get pregnant.  Neither group can really care for a child (although exceptions do exist!), so paying them to not do something they shouldn’t be doing anyway just seems odd.  It’s sad that you have to pay someone to not get pregnant, but if it works and ends up being cheaper in the long-run than putting the child through foster care or having the family on welfare for life, then I’d much rather pay them to stop.

I also agree with the others who’ve said the sterilization is wrong.  That is taking advantage of them, and it also seems like they could potentially get smacked with a lawsuit later on.

prgirl
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 05:01 am: [report]

I don’t mind the idea of paying for long term birth control, but sterilization crosses the line, imo, because people who are mentally ill and/or drug addicts are likely not be capable of making a rational decision.  And $300? seriously? That is just cheap. I think they need to rethink that amount and the way it’s given.  How about free treatment for their illness/drug rehab, food vouchers, etc.,  in addition to $300+. We are asking them to do stuff to their bodies long term.  $300 doesn’t pay the rent for one month, nor the food bill, even in areas where the cost of living is low.  Imagine offering Heidi Montag $300 not to have kids…

avalari
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 05:17 am: [report]

On a completely non-high horse note, (there is enough of that going on here) I couldn’t help but feel a little indignant. When I asked about sterilization - I’m dead seroius on never wanting to procreate - I was told it wasn’t possible until I’ve already popped out a few kids and that I’d have to undergo a psych eval. (Because not wanting to add one more resource sucking mouth to this world must mean I’m insane? God forbid I’d prefer to adopt one of these crack mom’s offspring that gets left by the wayside) But apparently all I need to do is shoot some meth and poof! I have that option? wtf.

Chebs
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 05:34 am: [report]

@avalari - Shoot some meth, you get the option and you get *paid* for it.  Wtf indeed.  I imagine your doctor gave you a “oh, you’re young, you’ll change your mind when the right man comes around” look/speech too? 

Warning: conspiracy theory inbound!  I tend to think that doctors and pharma companies would rather keep women on continuous birth control than sterilizing them so they can keep getting your money.  If you were a business, it only makes sense to put as many roadblocks in place as possible so they have to take your drug and pay you.

writergirl
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 05:56 am: [report]

@avalari—who’s your doctor?  Most doctors won’t sterilize a patient (tie her tubes) until she is in her 30’s, that’s true. I’ve never heard of a woman who was sure she didn’t want to have kids be denied having her tubes tied once she was in her 30’s and have to undergo a psychological evaluation.  Not sure why 30-35 is the magic number but that seems to be the concensus amongst the cases I have heard.

Anyway, in regards to the article—Joyy said exactly what I would say.  I just want to point out—yes, sometimes people get clean—SOMETIMES—and my understanding is it takes several visits to rehab for that to occur.  It’s not a once and done action. 

As for mental illness and drug/alcohol abuse—56% of people who suffer from Bipolar Disease (Manic Depressives) are drug abusers and/or alcoholics. They use the drugs/alcohol to control their mood swings.  If they are lucky enough to get treatment (often times they are treated as drug addicts/alcoholics NOT mentally ill they will often go off the lithium, thinking they are better and revert back to the former behavior. 

So it is a never ending cycle, at least with a portion of this group.  Having a cousin who is the result of a crack-addicted daddy and a former coke-addict/alcoholic mommy—yeah…long term birth control isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

avalari
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 06:28 am: [report]

@chebs—That’s EXACTLY what I said. Why would they allow it when there is more money to be made off of Pills, Condoms and Tampons?

@writergrl—I’m 26. SO that explains that.

AnonyMISS
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 06:58 am: [report]

First let me begin by noting that both of my sisters were adopted as infants and their biological mother is a crack addict.  The biological mother of my sisters has been a friend of my family for about 18 years.  She is 32 years old and has 6 children who have all either been adopted or are in foster care.  One of my sisters is her oldest child (who the mother had when she was 15) and the other is youngest child (who she had 3 years ago).  My youngest sister was born with crack in her system.  I also have a few crack addicts in my family.  Therefore, I have seen the devastating effects of drug dependency and I have a high level of resentment toward my sisters’ biological mother. 

With that said, I still don’t agree with offering a $300 incentive for drug addicts to be sterilized.  I’m more comfortable with the long term birth control but incentives for sterilization goes too far. I agree with the author of this post who noted that this program is VERY SIMILAR to the sterilization programs Puerto Ricans and Native Americans were coerced into by the government.  Additionally there are other implications.  I wonder what populations are being hit?  How often does that RV find itself in the inner city or urban areas where a number of these drug addicts are people of minority?  How many of these drug addicts have other mental issues which prevent them from making an informed decision.  How many of these addicts are high at the time they sign up to be sterilized.  Oh and by the way—to the poster that asked—YES DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCY IS A MENTAL HEALTH.  It is listed in the DSM-IV (for those of you who don’t know the DSM is a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association which lists all of the currently recognizable mental health disorders). 

Due to my personal background with witnessing the effects of drug abuse, I understand why so many people seem to be ok with this.  The addicts aren’t capable of raising children, the costs for the rest of us, and the child’s well-being are all reasons to offer at the most an incentive for birth control and to pay for the birth control fees.  However, sterilization is permanent and I fear that many of these women, due to their addiction, don’t understand the repercussions behind their choices. It seems somewhat immoral to take advantage of or disregard that dilemma.

AnonyMISS
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 07:00 am: [report]

edit—yes drug and alcohol dependency is a mental health disorder…

Infamous
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 07:31 am: [report]

Perhaps sterilization is a severe choice, but maybe the women taking advantage of that option are older. If I was a drug addict, just in it for the money, I would choose to receive $300/year, simply for the fact that you get more. But whatever.

I think it’s an absolutely fabulous program and I think it needs to be expanded. I live in rural PA and we have MAJOR problems with crack, meth and heroin and a ridiculous birth rate. I was exposed to babies born addicted during a clinical rotation through OB. Until you’ve heard their pitiful, meowing cries, and tried in vain to comfort these miserable little babies then you can’t fully appreciate the effect of drugs on these babies. My boyfriend’s brother and his wife have adopted 6 “crack babies” and they still have long-lasting effects. They’re on the list, for whenever the mother of two of their kids has another baby. How sad is that?

Infamous
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 07:34 am: [report]

From their website, I though this was a good point: “If you can not trust someone with their reproductive choices, how can you trust them with a child?”

jimnist10
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 07:50 am: [report]

Yeah, I don’t see a problem with having either sterilizaton or the long-term birth control as an option.  And I don’t see why people have a problem paying these people? What other incentive is there for a drug addict? Ok, so $300 for sterilization is pretty cheap and if I were a druggie, I’d totaly go with the long-term birth control since it’s $300/year. It’s enough to buy a little of their drug of choice, but it’s certainly not enough to live on, so hopefully these addicts will still be exposed to programs to get the help they need. And reducing the number of children in “the system” is fantastic!

@avalari: I have no desire to have my own babies and people all seem to think I’m “weird” or that I’ll “change my mind” or “haven’t met the right person”.  No, I WANT to adopt. I can’t believe a doctor would acutally make you have a psych evaluation before being sterilized in your 20’s if you’ve never had a child! UGH! I guess you don’t need one in your 30’s because you’re already an old maid by then…sexist AND ageist!!!!

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 08:15 am: [report]

I understand some people get sterilized and some get birth control. However, I’m talking about the larger issue of stopping “undesirable” women from procreating, which is intensely problematic from a moral standpoint. I don’t think some people are better than others and some people are worthy of parenthood, while others aren’t. Women who might consent to being sterilized when they’re in a vulnerable position — drug addicted and being offered $300 — could clean up, get their lives together and want kids later on in life. It’s not right to take that away from them because it makes the rest of us feel better.

In any case, let’s be realistic — taking birth control involves responsiblity. I don’t know what, specifically, these women are doing, but that scarcely matters. If it’s Depo Provera, they need to get a shot every three months. If it’s birth control pills, they need to take them every single day. And do we REALLY think a crack addict is going to be responsible enough to take a birth control pill at the same time every day?

Sure, paying drug addicts to go on birth control sounds like a neat and clean idea. Yes, I’ll admit it may prevent SOME drug addicts and alcoholics from giving birth to drug-exposed or fetal alcohol babies. But overall, this idea just makes the non-profit types FEEL GOOD about saving hypothetical babies, while ignoring the very sick hypothetical parents. (Yes, drug addiction and alcholism are illnesses.) If you want to help drug addicted children, a good place to start would be getting the drug addicted adults clean.

NOT giving up on them.

joyy
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 08:15 am: [report]

I feel the need to reel back the tone from my last comment.  That doesn’t change the fact that the author clearly doesn’t know much or anything about addiction, recovery, or public health and neglected to even do basic research beyond skimming over the featured website (and yet she refers to Megan McCain as a talentless hack with nothing to say - ha!).

@cadyms - substance abuse and mental health often fall together, and often under ‘behavioral health’.  If you click through to the site and read the reasons why they don’t address the addiciton itself as a program goal, they talk about the BILLIONS of dollars already put towards that work, citing SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration).  I am not a psychiatrist or a therapist so I’m not sure if addiction is in the DSM, but the fields are kind of like cousins.

As for the comparison to eugenics - this is where public health comes in.  Forcing (which is not a part of this program, but I’ll bite) sterilization for certain ethnic groups has what purpose?  Wiping the ethnic group out, usually.  Controlling them, humiliating them, dehumanizing them.  There is no good, helpful aspect for the target audience or society at large.  It is hate policy, pure and simple.

The purpose of incentivizing long term and/or permanent birth control among addicts?  Pregnancy prevention.  Controlling the spread of disease.  Addicts having babies while addicted result in little to no neonatal care and often babies born addicted (or with whatever std mom might have) who end up in the system.  This is a terrible way to grow up, stacks the odds against the kid, and at the risk of sounding cold, is very costly to society in a variety of ways.  That’s just reality.

As for why such a little sum of money for compensation - prevention is very cost effective, and because of that it can be difficult to get a lot of money to do it.  I should know, I do behavioral health care administration work for the prevention providers my employer funds.  And prevention $$ is often the first to go on the chopping block.

@avalari - laws around tying your tubes vary by state.  In Louisiana, I was told that you can’t get it done if you’re under 30 and have at least 2 kids without a medical reason.  In this case, it’s possible that addiction would be a medical reason ... just putting that out there.  However, I completely agree with you, and I suggest you a) look at your state laws to determine if it’s out of the doctor’s hands, and then b) get a new doctor if it isn’t actually illegal.  When I got my IUD (which I highly recommed) a few months ago (I’m 23) I asked my nurse practitioner if it was true that you can’t get tubal ligation under the age of 30.  She told me no, but that a lot of doctors don’t like to do it.  She also told me that I had to be at least 21 to get the IUD.  In case I’m not making it clear - I think the laws limiting reproductive rights are #&@$% and I’m with you on that full force.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 08:28 am: [report]

@joyy “That doesn’t change the fact that the author clearly doesn’t know much or anything about addiction, recovery, or public health and neglected to even do basic research beyond skimming over the featured website”

That’s just untrue. I haven’t shared what I do know about addiction and recovery for the privacy of the people involved. But suffice it to say, several people very close to me have struggled with addiction problems for a long time. Just because I did not mention them on this blog does not mean they don’t exist.

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. But please don’t fall into the trap of speculating about my personal life, because you just did and you were wrong.

joyy
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 08:31 am: [report]

@JessicaW - It is better to know something about something through anecdotal experience than to know nothing at all, but anecdotal experience and actually doing research on something you’re writing about are completely different.

AnonyMISS
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 08:43 am: [report]

If they aren’t forcing anyone into it, it may *remind* you of past episodes of government-forced sterilization, it doesn’t look like that’s what it is.

^^perhaps you should take your own advice and do your research before you criticize someone else.  she never mentioned these programs being reminiscent of “government-forced sterilization.”  her examples of Native Americans and Puerto Ricans indicate she was referring to government- coerced sterilization programs.  big difference.  quote from one of the articles she linked to which you seemed to have overlooked:

“More significantly, as in the past, societal prejudices and a class-based racist ideology determine the selection process, although on the surface women voluntarily consent to the procedure. (27) Sterilization might not be the choice of many women if they were better informed and able to receive higher quality medical care.”

joyy
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 08:43 am: [report]

Actually I didn’t speculate on your personal life, I speculated on your professional life.  And I was right.  If you don’t know about something, look it up - especially if it’s something that you’re emotional about.

joyy
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 08:45 am: [report]

@anonymiss - the lines of general comment back to the comments and the author blur, very true.  Not every piece of the comment was directly to the author.

AnonyMISS
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 08:49 am: [report]

@ joyy

sorry.  actually i’m mistaken.  she does refer to the government forcing sterilization of Puerto Rican and Native American women.  but the links she provide discuss the coercion of sterilization.  now everything is blurred lol.

joyy
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 08:53 am: [report]

@anonymiss - either way, there’s so much going on in the comments that I figured you were right and I had it confused haha.

StephanieSays
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 09:58 am: [report]

As a supporter of women’s reproductive rights who works with kids in the foster care system, this issue gives me a lot of headaches. It breaks my heart to meet amazing, sweet, funny kids who suffer their whole lives from developmental, emotional and physical disabilities because they were drug exposed in the uterus.

That said, giving women money to be sterilized is pretty offensive. As much as I can get frustrated with the parents, they do love their children too even if they can’t take care of them. I think rather than target drug addicted women, the answer is more along the lines of making birth control more available to everyone. I want to be able to go to a drug store and find it next to the Tylenol. We also need more support and resources for these parents as well as the kids and they shouldn’t be spending their lives in the system, which is often what happens.

retro chic
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 10:03 am: [report]

Hope I’m not overlapping here, as I type with hellacious cramps and, frankly, I’d pay *them* $300 for a hysterectomy. But I digress. I took a tour of their site and phone numbers. A few minutes, but worth it:
1. Their Web site ProjectPrevention.org—is very closed, except for providing contact info. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit org, ie, it cannot publicly espouse political or religious affiliations, or their nonprofit status will get yanked and its gov’t grants will cease.

2. Their NC office number (704) 454-9922—found buried in the Contact Us link, is for *proponents of their cause.* I called, no real person—the tone on the outbound msg quite revealing about its mission—bribes for sterilization and long-term BC for *those* addicts causing so many problems. You can’t leave a msg, but refers you to…

3. Their (888) 30-CRACK number is for *the addicts* and is prominently displayed on the home-/only page of the site in a warm-and-fuzzy way, not buried. I called, their outbound msg (again, no real person BUT does allow you to leave a msg and call back number, you know to get your $300, or to rec’v lit help their cause) and describes the terms of the program, which are, get this:
  a) They no longer support/administer DepoPrevera injections. Only sterilization, Implanin [sic?], and IUDs, AND patients are paid only in installments over the course of a year $75/100/125 after administration, 6 mo. check up, and 1 year check up, respectively, to make sure there’s been no cheating. Now, if I were an addict would I remember to keep my semi-annual appts to collect my money? I need a PDA as it is, and me w/o any pesky addictions. Again, I digress.
 
My point? I walked you very patient few thru this, as I did, because a lot is communicated in a Web site and a one-way phone call. Read the language and cues. It is how these “orgs” hide, filter and protect themselves and their nonprofit status.

There is no question in my mind this is one of those conservative Wolves in Sheeps Clothing orgs that have a very specific agenda—to rid the country of the procreating scourge that all us taxpayers bear the brunt of, AND rec’v large gov’t grants while getting their Conservative message out. They don’t give a rolling NuvaRing about the people who need real help that addresses their multiple, long-term needs (they don’t even refer them to alt/supplemental care).

Does BC help? Sure? Sterilization? Maybe. But I strongly object to misrepresentation and taking advantage of people who cannot take care of themselves and ultimately lose their rights, procreative or otherwise—bottom line. I’m still waiting for my call back.
Sorry for the long one.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 10:18 am: [report]

@retro chic You are AMAZING. Incredible. Wonderful. Thank you for doing that.

retro chic
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 10:23 am: [report]

^ Typo, last ¶, //Sure.// Period, literally. More pain meds now.

mlyway
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 10:31 am: [report]

I grew up in a fairly rich town, but there are certainly people that are well-off, including myself. Yet, there are teenagers from my high school who became addicted to drugs, despite living a rather privileged life. And obviously, this isn’t new. I had two close friends who had addictions in high school. One went down an even worse path and I have never heard from him again. And another completely made it out, after some struggles with relapsing. But my point is, that people from all walks of life are in desperate need of help too, and long-term birth control should be available to them too. Because I feel that this program targets low-income people and specific areas of the country.

mlyway
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 10:33 am: [report]

*I meant are not well off

retro chic
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 10:33 am: [report]

Jessica, No prob, I’m glad you brought this to our attention (I’m a little slow here), and I’m as mad as you and the others. Is this anti-Conservative week on the Frisky? Delicious on these days preceding the 4th. I shall have an extra margarita at tomorrow’s BBQ and look fondly at my kabob skewers when I think of them. cheers

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 11:48 am: [report]

Nah, it’s never “anti-conservative week.” Just anti-bad ideas.

retro chic
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 01:07 pm: [report]

Roger that. Well done. Tho, the distinction is lost on me.

soytrucknutz
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 07:16 am: [report]

This sounds like pissing in the wind. You can’t get that many people to sign up for it to really seriously affect the birth rate, so why do it? I would also think it’s kind of self-selecting - women who agree to the pay to not have babies probably didn’t really want babies anyway.

seraphmaiden
wrote on July 8 2009 @ 08:49 pm: [report]

Dude~  Has anyone seen a 25 weeker delivered because smoking crack caused a placental abruption? 

Or a kid that was shaken so badly that neurologists insisted that he couldn’t be having seizures because he didn’t have enough viable brain tissue? 

Seriously. 

It’s not a pretty option to bribe someone into birth control and tubal ligation is awfully permanent, but…
it sounds a hell of a lot better to me than some of the #&@$% that could come out of these ladies popping kids out like a candy out of a pez dispenser.

mlyway
wrote on July 8 2009 @ 08:57 pm: [report]

@Seraphmaiden: I agree, although I do think that IUDs and Depo-Provera shots are better than permanent solutions.

Although tubal ligations are reversible with a moderately high success rate.

And addicts need to pay a price for their actions (not being able to have kids, and maybe permanently if they do not use IUDs correctly) but they should also receive help in return for their compliance.

aquamarine
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 01:23 pm: [report]

I totally agree with mlyway, minus maybe the tubal ligation reversal—they can be reversed, but at great expense (that a recovering drug addict could ill afford), and not with as high a success rate than vasectomy.

IUDs can be great for low-maintenance birth control, as long as the user isn’t putting herself at risk for STDs, as mlyway   references.  Shots and contraceptive implants are probably the best bet for this program.

For a long-term male drug user who has already impregnated multiple women, I fail to see the problem in providing the option for, and incentivizing, a vasectomy.  Sperm could be stored in a bank as a backup.  I find it VERY hard to believe drug-addicted men would take contraceptive action without incentive, and even with $300, the results are bleak.

psychodarwinist
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 03:40 pm: [report]

This link
http://ia311013.us.archive.org/0/items/ifyt090819/ifyt090819.mp3
is an interview with Barbara Harris, founder of Project Prevention on “issues for your tissues” an Austin, Texas based radio program. She addresses many of the concerns listed here including that there is something like eugenics going on (fyi, she’s married to a black man and has adopted and fostered multiple black children from the same crack-addicted mother). I’m not sure why people keep bringing up sterilization when there are 2 other options available to women addicted to drugs. The follow up visits also are probably the only access to medical care these women get.

Jessica W.: You said:
“I don’t think some people are better than others and some people are worthy of parenthood, while others aren’t”

So, Jessica, you think it’s ok for everyone to be a parent? Personally, I think this project should be expanded. People who cannot afford to feed their children, people who abuse their children and people who are late on child support for multiple children should all be given incentives (not “forced” mind you) to be on long-term birth control. And for all of you who think that everyone has a “right” to have children, go and foster some children because it is your support of policies that do not help people get on long-term birth control that is flooding the foster care system.