BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Women's Issues paying poor women to be sterilized?

Has anyone seen or heard about this?
ABC News Article

What do you think?

We actually just started reading about women's health, which includes reproductive rights, in my women's studies class so it was odd that I found this news article the same day I started that reading.

I found the comments to the article interesting. All the various points of view.

On the one hand it could potentially save tax payers from having to support even more kids through the welfare system, or help pay for abortions through their taxes(???) It's also voluntary, so people have the choice to do it or not to do it.

On the other hand, some comments were equating it to a form of eugenics.

I guess MY opinion is more in line with this comment I found.



(edited to make URL functional)

Grrl, you are opening up a hell storm posting that here!!! Love it!! Offer it (whether birth control or tubals) gratis and there is absolutely no problem with the idea at all. The eugenics argument is assanine and I would like specifically to know how many "unwanted" children those who make it have adopted, care for, foster, are Big Brother/Big Sister to, put through school, clothe, make sure Santa visits, feed and love. Then I might be interested in hearing what they have to say about eugenics. Give me a reasonable plan/course of action on how to deal properly with every single child born to the constantly pregnant woman and we can entertain it. Fact of the matter is, these children are usually born to women indifferent to their own bodies. It is not love that brings them into the world, it is ignorance, apathy and poverty - and they are the ones who suffer for it.

I believe that this is another aspect of pro-choice. There are probably many women who would choose sterilization if they could afford to have the procedure. Maybe this will give those women the option.

Bravo! Makes perfect sense msbaby. Good point!

Msbaby, that was one of the questions associated with the LaBruzzo suggestion (which won't ever go anywhere, so it's really all theoretical). Would the $1000 go to the woman as a cash payment or as a payment toward the cost because certainly poor women who don't have health insurance won't be able to pay for the procedure with only $1000. Heck, my deductible is more than that - not that I'd be eligible since I don't live in poverty.

What I love and said on my blog is that in the CNN interview with LaBruzzo, the interviewer (sorry, I can't recall her name right now) shows LaBruzzo that the idea is based on a flawed theory - that paying poor women to have tubal ligations done is going to stop poverty when in fact more adults in La who live in poverty DO NOT have children.

Where I also have a problem is incentivizing wealthy women to have children. He doesn't go into that much, but from what I read the suggestion was to offer financial incentives to couples above a certain income level to have children. That I find more egregious.

It is indeed egregious to incentivize anyone to have children for any reason than they are ready to be parents. It's also laughable to think that anyone would be so stupid as to allow a person with no real involvement to convince them that they should give birth when the thought otherwise had not crossed their mind!

Voluntary sterilization will not eliminate poverty, but it might make things easier for impoverished families by reducing the number of children to care for when they are hardly able to care for themselves.

I would never wish away a child, but is it so wrong to not want more born into a situation filled with nothing but misery and hunger? If there were a way to keep any woman who didn't want to be pregnant from doing so, the money spent on food stamps and government assistance might be allocated for education.

As for the money falling short of paying for the procedure for women; wouldn't it be good for government programs like Medicaid to cover tubals BEFORE paying for several pregnancies? Oh, and here's a novel idea; vasectomies. They are much less expensive than tubals! ;-)

msbaby: again, totally agree with you. This topic is also going on over in the Baptist forum, although it's a little heated over there. I come mostly from an academic perspective....given my education and my life experience.....and spend my day conducting massive amounts of research on a variety of topics. The countries that have implemented state funded programs with regards to birth control have seen vast improvement in the situation. It is basically giving a woman the means to handle her body the way she wants, she can then raise her daughters to handle their bodies they way they want and so on. Poverty should not prevent women from having access to bc. Everyone says "what about the man" well yea, they should be responsible, but often they're not....but it's the female that bears the brunt of unwanted pregnancy. So I'm sorry, it is a woman's issue. I am shocked at the reaction this issue is getting. (there is a group of young men opting for vasectiomies just to protect themselves from "sneaky" women) You guys have a great week!

I would love to agree with this statement, but unfortunately there ARE people this stupid (and greedy) in this world that they would have children for the sole reason of getting money. They might convince themselves that it was the final decision maker - the thing that "tipped the scales", but it does come down to greed.

Back to the sterilization part: when I worked as a surgical tech (almost 12 years ago - wow!) we wound up having to do an emergency laparotomy on a 16 yr old girl due to an ectopic pregnancy that had ruptured. This is bad enough that she was only 16 - but she already had 3 children! According to her records, her first child was born when she was 13, that means she was pregnant when she was 12, and had pretty much gotten pregnant every year afterwards.

I don't know that paying for sterilization would have made a difference in this child's life. If her parent(s) were so lacking that they couldn't step in after the first pregnancy and go to a health clinic to find birth control, they might not have been educated enough to know about another option.

On the other hand, many people (although definitely not all) have more kids so they can get more money from the government without working. So if her family was this sort, then this incentive would have appealed to them.

Overall, I do not think there should ever be an incentive given for people to have children. There are too many little ones in this world already that are not wanted. A couple should make that decision on their own, having a child for love.

Incentives for NOT having children is actually a pretty good idea. If a person really wants a child, they are not going to be swayed by this bribe - and the child will definitely be wanted. On the other hand if a person takes the incentive, then they wanted the money more than a child- so it is better that a child not be in that home.

I hope that made sense.

It makes a world of sense to me! In fact, those of us who have faith have to realize that prevention will do a lot to make abortion a non-issue. It will be a better world when all babies are planned and born into a caring family.

[quote=]the female that bears the brunt of unwanted pregnancy[/quote]

I think I have posted before what I've been told by older women; Guys might have the fun and run but it sticks to girls.

I'm actually a proponent of universal healthcare, so I'd love to see a single payer system that covers all medical issues. I'd love to see Medicaid cover abortion. There are too many people who don't want those things, however, for me to think that it's going to happen without a huge fight.

As for paying for the tubals, I am opposed. Free healthcare? Sure. Offering what seems to be a large financial incentive for someone making minimum wage? No. The Manhattan Institute conducted a massive study in 2004 about the effects of welfare reform - essentially helping with work and educational attainment for families in poverty. They found significant decreases in poverty rates and in family size, suggesting that paying for sterilization is a permanent solution for what could be a temporary problem (poverty) given money used in other areas that would benefit entire families. See, even if you deny mom the extra $100 a month for an additional child, you still have mom and her current children who have to live. (Don't even get me started on dads.)

Further, the average family on welfare has 2.65 children, only slightly higher than for the general population. These discussions of "another mouth to feed" and "popping out babies" are standard conservative propaganda, but the numbers don't bear out the image. That's why LaBruzzo can't answer why he's looking at this option when 23% of families without children are in poverty while only 17% of families with children are in poverty. With the money to put this plan into place, the state of Louisiana could administrate a program that could benefit all families living in poverty by offering real, long-term assistance.

People not making a living wage is a more significant problem and leads to many working families still eligible for childcare subsidies. The average cost of full-time childcare for 2 children in the US is $15,600 per year.

In reality this type of plan doesn't take into account the realities of child poverty. It's using tired stereotypes to convince people to support it, regardless of what statistics actually show. Generational poverty as an argument has been debunked numerous times, but it keeps rearing its head. Are there individuals who live in generational poverty? Yes. Are they a large percentage of people on welfare? No.

Generational poverty...

that's what they are teaching as fact in pro-liberal classes. That's pretty much one of the MAIN issues/problems I have had forced down my throat in my class. That, and the false hope they are given that they actually have a chance of getting out of poverty and passing it down to their kids.

So what IS the truth?

I read half of the posts on this thread, will read the rest, but had to stop to add my two cents.

First it's disturbing that because of the culture we live in it's all about money, money, money, money, money! Paying women not to have children, paying women to have children. Just throw money at the problem instead of trying to educate people at an early age what it means to be a part of a marriage, a family, a community a society. What does it mean and require to take care of yourself and children. We are NOT educated on any of this stuff, not in school and not in the home. And I'm talking about people with money too.

I used to think money was the cure all. That people with money were happier than the rest of us. Then I started reading a lot of self-help and the case studies weren't of poor people, but usually the middle class, upper middle class and the wealthy who can afford therapy. People who are suffering because while they had lots of stuff they didn't get what they really needed as they grew up because their parents did not know--aside from providing material things--how to raise children. It takes a village and villages in this country are few and far between.

BTW, I have to add there, that I am legacy of the welfare women with tons of children that we are talking about. My grandmother had 13 and was on welfare. However, none of my grandmother's children had even close to that number. Not because someone paid them not to but because they SAW first hand the difficulties and made other choices.

But again, it's not only about the numbers, the money, the amount of children, it's the fact that many of us, poor, middle class and wealthy, have NO idea how to raise a kid and unfortunately there is no village to teach us.

That's why it's best to approach it as a "one woman, one womb" public policy measure. Generational poverty is two successive generations or more at or below poverty level. (a child grows up in poverty to raise children in poverty) period. Situational poverty is something totally different. We've all seen the young mother in the convenience store with four or five kids, no man, no support in sight. She's unemployed, she has no hope. She takes comfort where she can get it and usually gets pregnant in the process. Or she trades sex for drugs. I know several women in the system came across who got pregnant more than once trading sex for drugs. If they want BC, let's give it to them, and try to save the children they already have. You can teach her, train her, save her subsequent to eliminating her one major worry which is getting pregnant. Leah, I totally agree with you and I am certain it was your grandmother's philosophy on child rearing that you have shared here! I've read your posts. You have struck me as a woman from a line of strong women. My grandfather's daddy died when he was a baby, leaving my great-grandmother with four boys under the age of five to feed and raise alone. All of my people prior to my father were farmers! She was not above chopping cotton, plowing fields, slaughtering hogs or anything else she had to do to feed those kids. And, she had family support. That's an example of situational poverty. But so many families are not like that anymore. As an aside, over ten girls in my daughter's tenth grade class last year got pregnant and the girls she talked to were happy to have "someone to love." And other girls in the class brought them baby gifts. And one of the mothers threw a shower and invited classmates!!!! LaBruzzo appeared to focus on the young mother with many children - I know from personal experience as well as from years of professional experience that that is generational poverty being perpetuated. It is what it is. He may very well be a whack job. Don't know. But his idea does deserve consideration! (and education to go with it btw. don't just pass out pills and tubals..... without offering GED classes, pell grants, job training, clothing banks, church homes, church sponsors even....) Restorative justice programs are working within penal systems across the country.....that idea could cross over easily on this issue in some form or fashion. Everyone have a great Friday tomorrow!!! Finally!!

Poor women may jump at the chance to receive payment for sterilization, but what if they change their minds? Poor people don't always stay poor forever, and the reversal operation is not always successful.
There is also the assumption that poor people make poor parents, and that is not the case. I am sure there are other ways to combat the problem, rather than enticing women into having their tubes tied when they may regret it later.

True, men could always get snipped!

You know, I read about something similar to this. There is a woman who administers temporary birth control, such as depo shots, to women who are drug abusers. They receive a nominal sum, and the bonus is that they won't have drug addicted babies to burden the tax payers, or babies growing up with a mom who's an addict. A lot of people claimed the practice was racist (apparently, most of her clientele were AA), but I fail to see the downside. It keeps kids from harm's way, and slows down the overloading of our planet.

"These discussions of "another mouth to feed" and "popping out babies" are standard conservative propaganda, but the numbers don't bear out the image."

Hmmn that surprises me. I don�t have a lot of experience in this regard, as I have always lived in very rural areas, in towns where you need to make a certain income to even survive, and that income level is too high to qualify for government assistance, so I haven�t known a lot of people who take welfare, but a few homes in my current neighborhood are always rented out to people on Section8. I assume the appeal of renting to people who get gov�t assistance is that a portion of your rent payments are guaranteed. Again I don�t know that for sure, it�s just an assumption on my part.

Every single one of the families in these particular houses ( I have personally known three of them) has had VERY large quantities of children and were on assistance for all of them, right from the start. One family has six children crammed into a tiny little 3 bedroom home, one had 8 children in a raised ranch and the family that lives beside me now has 9 children and is still going strong. They aren�t all living in one house as the husband�s prior family of 6 children live elsewhere with their mother and he has started over with a young woman who has just given birth to her third child with him and has a lot of childbearing years left in her.

I used to have a live and let live attitude about these things but it�s changing now that I see how it all works. The folks who had 8 in the raised ranch were very nice people and we were so friendly in fact, that she donated her hand-me-down cloths to me. They were beautiful clothes that I, as a hard working blue collar stiff could never afford. She also drove a nice sports car that I could never afford. Live and let live I say, they were nice people, working the system for sure, but good neighbors nonetheless.

The folks living next door to me now are not such good neighbors. He comes over to my house looking for work now and then all the while ranting about how he can�t possibly be expected to live on $900 per month. He�s on disability for a bad back. He doesn�t actually have a bad back but hey, at least he can supplement that disability paycheck by doing manual labor that you and I could never have a strong enough back to do. Then he goes on and on, with real anger in his voice, about how the man is keeping him down, after all, who could be expected to live on that little? He had me for a little while there. Then he told me about the 6 other kids he left behind who are all on the gov�t dime as well. In no way does he hold himself responsible for any of it, nor does he see that constantly having more kids is why he can�t afford to live. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe having so many kids is his career path. It certainly appears that way.

I�m scratching my head now and wondering what I am doing wrong.

Anyway, back to the original topic. I am not so live and let live as I used to be. I am totally against paying people not to have children, directly anyway. What I would support is letting every one have that first mistake. It happens for so many reasons, however, there should not be a 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc�
I would like to see that first welfare check or other assistance be handed over on the condition that a birth control education class be taken,free of charge of course. It should also be made clear to the recipient of that check that this is their one mistake and they will never get a higher �paycheck� for having more. Then I would like to see the gov�t pay for their birth control, whatever it may be, including temporary and reversible sterilization. They would have the right to refuse this free medical care (I don�t believe in forcing people to do anything like this) but they will do so with the full knowledge that their assistance will not be raised on the basis of having more children.

A solution would have to be devised for people who have not been on assistance previously who find themselves needing help because of divorce, medical issues, unemployment, or whatever the cause of their sudden financial problems are. These people may have several children already. I don�t feel that these people should be penalized simply because others might abuse the system. Maybe a pool of money that is finite that can be drawn on for hard times. Or maybe have a system like unemployment where you can collect for a certain length of time as long as it doesn�t exceed the amount of time that you were off of assistance. This at least would keep people from turning assistance into a career path.

I feel kind of mean saying "these people". I don�t intend to sound that way, I just don�t know how to word it any better than this. Apologies if it comes across as judgmental, again that is not my intent. I totally understand hard times and have no problem with our whole society contributing through tax dollars to help those who find themselves in hard times, or even those folks who were born into the world, for whatever reason, just not well equipped to achieve financial success. I just don�t think that it�s our God given right to have numerous children that we cannot, and never could have, afforded to support. Not in this age of very good, and very effective birth control choices.

Gosh, I talk too much This is like a wall of text!

Every woman needs to have the number of children she can afford without being on welfare. Sterilization is expensive, I had it done when my now 23 year old (only child) was 1 year old. I had her at age 29, and gave myself a year to think about having a second child. But it seems that alot of welfare systems REWARD women for having "too many" children. This needs to stop as it is tying up funds that the "seniors" need for stuff like heat and air conditioning. So many of them are dying due to not being able to pay for their utilities.

This is definitely a very challenging topic that has many different angles to it.

I do think as a base line that it would be a good thing if our medical system allowed every woman equal, free access to birth control and to sterilization if they want it. I think if we allowed women complete control over their fertility - along with education in school so they could make the best choice for them at their stage in life - that we would have a much better society overall. Every child born should be an actively wanted child.