Legislator proposes sterilization for poor women

My friend and I had this conversation a few weeks back as I live in Austin and there is a large hispanic community where he lives. (He's white, I'm mixed: black/korean.)

He tends to be vocal about his feelings when he goes to the local HEB (grocery store) and it's over-crowded with families and numerous children.

He agrees with what you say only he doesn't feel it should be voluntary.

I on the other hand feel that if a person wants to make the choice to voluntarily sterilize themselves (much like abortion is a choice) then that is their business.

I do not mind paying the government to help out those in need, because who knows, one day I may be a person in need of assistance from the governement.

Not necessarily in the sense of babies, but perhaps in another area. (I'm a lesbian, and DO NOT plan on having any kids for a very very long time.) I'm only 26.

Isn't the government supposed to be about helping those in need?

If one is not prepared to support their offspring they shouldn't procreate. This should be the rule for both genders.

The problem with this statement is the simple fact that life chances daily. You might be well off today and loose your job tomorrow, which might mean you will be unable to support your children.

If a woman wants to end her pregnancy via abortion, the government should finance the procedure with the caveat being the woman be sterilized until she is ready to accept the responsibilities of motherhood, financially and socially.

So you are suggesting a 16 year old, who got pregnant should only be allowed to get assistance for an abortion if she agrees to being sterilized? How will she be able to gauge if she can afford a child 10-15 years down the road?

I don't want to pay for raising anothers child when that occurrence is entirely preventable.

What a heartfelt, generous attitude. I hope you take the consequences and never live of somebody else's taxes either!

While were sterilizing people that can't afford to have children, maybe we should kill off those children that are left over because of accidents, divorces, parents serving in arm services, Better yet why don't we just do away with child birth completely. just sterilize and neuter everyone, in time there won't be any body to help any body SICK

While were sterilizing people that can't afford to have children

WTF is the matter with you people? The plan is to offer the opportunity to remain child free to poor women who afford it. Middle class and up women take it as a given that they can cease childbearing when they choose. This would merely allow poor women to do the same.

Damned elitists wanting to keep choice only for the rich. You make me sick.

LOL just kidding on that last one. .but that is how you all sound. Sheesh.

So lets say that there is this poor woman who has kids to feed. And she goes ahead and agrees because she loves her children (don't kid yourself, there are people THAT poor). Years later she has improved her life, not because of the $1000 or the fact that she did not have any more children. She just worked very hard and eventually made a good life for herself. Now in this hypothetical future she meet a man and they want to have a child. Don't you find it just a bit abusive that she had to sacrifice her future ability for kids just to feed and house her kids?

Sounds like permanent consequences for a temporary situation.

Better education, healthcare and rules for the receipt of welfare sounds like a better choice to me.

She and her new man have options then. She can opt to attempt a reversal of the procedure or adopt. Depending on new medical procedures, they might even be able to find a way to harvest some of her eggs and inseminate them. Her options certainly aren't limited that much.

Funding education and jobs in Louisiana would be to much like the right, When I lived there it was a tourist state, and they wanted nothing to do with factory, or jobs. If you didn't have a casino in mind they weren't spending a penny to build it. Instead of sterilization, maybe they should offer full scholarship. Or raising the minimum wage, what is it $6.00, and then the highest paid female gets .77 on the dollar. killing off all the men might help, but want prevent. Then someone said if you can't take care of a child don't breed, yet that is how America got its start. and the people they were breeding they weren't taking care of. Heck they even got in and started breeding their own and didn't take care of them. And now they want to say I'll you a $1000.00 to not have a child, one dollar averages out these days to about .45 which averages out to be less than $600. Are they Serious?

Mego-507171

Do you think we should sterilize people who are handicapped, mentally ill, diseased?

Absolutely off point. But, if they procreate without being able to support their offspring, yeah.

These are the horror stories of the U.S. eugenics studies of the early 20th century,

Hardly. Do you always let your emotions rule your ability to think logically?

Nazi Germany

Childish retort.

It is ok for the government (and subsequently you the taxpayer) to go around funding sterilization and abortion, in your opinion, but not welfare and education?

How foolish. I suppose you support the re-productive right of those incapable of responsible procreation. Welfare? If a person is down on their luck, I find welfare a great safety net. But it is not a permanent means of support. Education? Where did I say I didn't support education? Your statements are groundless. Try being rational.

Perhaps if the state of Louisiana encouraged comprehensive sex education in their schools they could curb the rate of pregnancy for people who were not ready to deal with the responsibility of children.

And if pigs could fly...

First of all I wasn't being emotional. I was being rational. As a matter of principal I think there are a lot of people who probably be better off not being parents, but generally speaking that is my opinion, unless the child is being abused or neglected I keep it to myself. Abuse and neglect aren't just issues of poverty, and not I don't think we should pay those people not to have kids. My point about people being handicapped etc. is not off point because often times federal funding has to support institutions where families dump these people when they can no longer care for them themselves.

I support a woman's right to choose, and I also support comprehensive sex education. Something that is NOT encouraged in the state of Louisiana (http://www.abstinencedu.com/). As far as the statement regarding education, I am sorry, there was a comment on the actual article where someone mentioned that and I mixed my opinions on the two in my comment.

Moreover if Louisiana actually had a minimum wage, or a "Living Wage" (rather then the default federal minimum wage) maybe fewer people would be eligible to receive welfare. I'm all for solving the problem, I am NOT for sweeping it under the rug so I don't have to look at it any more. Besides, I'd like to see statistics that state people enjoy the "luxury" of poverty.

I have to agree with Mego here.

The government is there to assist those who are unable to help themselves. With the mention of handicapped individuals, it is the same principal.

They are unable to provide for themselves, thus the government taxes us in order to be able to support those individuals.

Mego- I would vote for your post more than once if allowed. :-b

Otherwise, that $1000 would buy a nice tv.

Let's level the playing field a little bit by removing the welfare angle. Suppose the proposed voluntary sterilization incentive was made to all women, rich and poor. Hypothetically, at the state's expense any woman capable of conception is eligible.

If a one-time financial windfall of only $1K was offered to a rich woman I bet she'd dismiss undergoing sterilization because the payout was too low. What about $10K? Or let's really be daring... $100,000! Hey, free money just for cashing in on a reproduction bounty. The rich women, along with the poor, would likely be lining up in droves.

As far as the $1K bounty for poor women... It's sad to say, but actually living in one of the most economically depressed regions in America and seeing firsthand how bad some of these families struggle to meet basic needs, there are many for whom the notion of being able to afford a new or used television would be moot.

As much as I find a financial incentive for voluntary sterilization personally offensive, if there is to be such a proposal then raise the payout. A paltry $1K would barely help many struggling families who need one-time assistance the most.

I guess that is why I'm trying to find out whether the procedure would be paid for by the government as well. In that case, the doctor's bill is $2,000 with another $6,000 for the operating room fees. All that together is a decent amount of money.

$1k wouldn't even pay my rent for two months

$1k can pay 4 or more months' rent in south Louisiana, when the girls combine their efforts to survive.

I guess that is why I'm trying to find out whether the procedure would be paid for by the government as well. In that case, the doctor's bill is $2,000 with another $6,000 for the operating room fees. All that together is a decent amount of money.

But still cheaper than the govt supporting children for X amount of years. Technically a woman is supposed to try to get off welfare after her kids start school, but we get lots of folks into our office to rent where grandma keeps taking in the grands until she has five or six or more kids and is getting $2-3k a month in Section 8 to pay her housing, plus food stamps, full medical and other forms of aid. Of course, it's doubly annoying to me since many of these women provide crash space to the parents of the kids they are raising and many of the adult kids work, after a fashion, and give money to the mom under the table so she can get full benefits. And the kids are STILL neglected, cuz grandma didn't even learn in 60 years how to be a parent.

Bah, I was a part of the system. I've seen how it is abused.

Your right,

Another thing that factors into this and people in the south will appreciate this, is the hispanic community with its large numbers of people on welfare, yet they work make money here and then send it back to Mexico. You get government assistance here to support yourself, you work under the table and pay no taxes, then send the fruits of your labor home to families in your motherland, sorry I don't think that is fair to me and everyone else who has to give up taxes out of my pay and then pay uncle sam every April.

I have 2 grown sons, no assistance with them and my pay has been as low as $4.00 an hour back in the late 80's while in school. Working 2 jobs husband and I both to raise and support our children. Yes it was hard, but I kicked my but out of bed everyday to go and work rather than expect a handout.

Our economy is in a crisis and we are still allowing people to exist off of others. What happens when we (the working class) can't take care of ourselves because of the burden of keeping this country going.

I am not prejudice against any nationality, but if you come here, please be prepared to work, and hey pay your share in on taxes. Don't expect our schools to change and teach in your language so it doesn' t cause you the harrassment of learning our native language. I would like to see American citizens go to Mexico and demand of their government to provide the services we provide here. Sorry, no prejudice just common sense, be prepared to take care of your responsibilities no matter how numerous they are. If you loose a job and need TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE or get sick or hurt and need assistance, great tax dollars should be there, but if these folks were made to work, maybe all this time to have children one right afrter the other would be limited.

When I was there everything you bought was taxed, food,clothing, you name it there was a tax on it. America has had poor people every since I can remember, and I can't think of any place that don't have them. The bible say we will always have them. it also says that we are to help them. I get what you are saying about border crossing, But our country encourages this. Bush say himself that these people would do the jobs that blacks wouldn't do, I have yet to see them doing jobs that blacks or whites wouldn't do. And when we talk about poor people everyone assumes we are talking about black people. If you can remember when Bill Clinton decided to do away with welfare as it was known, we saw white people come out of the wood works to fight this decision. And personally I believe welfare to work was a good plan. But when there is no jobs it is hard to get one, and without money it is hard to be innovative. But as a country we must help each other, Me me me has brought us to this situation were in today, I was raise in Louisiana and though we were poor, on pay day I often saw my father by a extra bag of groceries for another family.

more like specifically targeted.

Maybe because it's assumed that 1) if you aren't on assistance, you have medical and 2) so what if it targets them?

Ladies, you REALLY need to go live in the projects for a while. You need to see 18 month olds climbing into dumpsters in search of food because their moms sold the food stamps to buy drugs and are too stoned off their asses to even keep the kid inside. You need to bang on a woman's door for 45 minutes because her 3 yo kid is bleeding from a head wound but she has her stereo on full blast while she entertains a man friend and can't hear your screams. You need to hear the pleading screams of children being beaten. You need to see the pre-teen girls home from school because mom has a job and her new boyfriend is raping them and then making them go outside so they won't bother him while he sleeps. Hungry, cold, alone . .unwanted . . even hated . . .mothers calling their sons "f**king ba***ds" and berating them for being no good losers just like their worthless father . .pimping their own daughters for cigarette money . . . popping out more babies to keep the food stamps and welfare checks coming in. . .

::sobs::

I'm usually the last to suggest stuff that infringes on the rights of adults doing what they want. But this is one instance where I have to scream WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Thank you, Gwenny. I'd scream with you, but my throat is already raw. I'll share my tissues with ya, though. Grab a couple of handfuls- the box is emptying quickly.

Ladies, you REALLY need to go live in the projects for a while.

I live in the most poverty-stricken neighborhood in Louisville. Anyone who has lived in Louisville can tell you about the local notoriety of the Portland neighborhood in the West End. I have seen the behaviors you describe, but I did not see them here. I saw them in West Chester, OH. Ask Scott Isaacs and he will confirm that West Chester is one of the wealthiest communities in Ohio. I saw some of these behaviors in Loveland, OH as well - another very well-off area, but not on the scale of West Chester.

The worst thing I have seen here in Portland is a group of teenage boys roaming the streets at all hours. They rarely have girls in the group. We intend to address that at our police auxiliary meeting this evening because we have reason to believe they've been behind some thefts in the area.

In Ohio: a 7 year old boy locked out of his house in the snow because his mother was too loaded on prescription valium to hear him banging on the door. He had been sent to school in nothing more than a wind-breaker. I brought him in til she was done hibernating. A baby that appeared to be around 9 months old in a stroller being pushed by two well-bundled women in temperature hovering around 30. Baby's little toes were scarlet - I know this because she was in a diaper, shirt and waist jacket with her little bare legs in the wind. I called L.E. as soon as I got home. A 13 year old girl who was grabbed and fondled by her mother's drunk boyfriend. Not only did her mother berate her for "dressing like that" and blame her for the assault, mom later married the S.O.B. They live in a house that marketed in the neighborhood of $250,000. A 16 year old girl caught in Keehner Park at 12 am on a school night - when mom was called by P.D. to come and pick her up at the park, mom showed up with little brother in the car and was obviously 3 sheets to the wind on prescription pain pills and was promptly arrested. They let her mom call me to come to the park and pick the two kids up. They stayed with me til mom was released the next day. A mother who is an R.N. calling her son everything but a child of God and comparing him to his worthless father, just as you described.

These are my experiences and where those experiences occurred. Why don't you give us a little more detail about the circumstances surrounding your experiences.

From what I've seen, the abuses you have described are not the sole domain of the poor or of those not "fully educated." I've seen poor and minimally educated women give more love, supervision and maternal attention than some of their well-off, well-educated and totally self-absorbed counterparts. I've also seen the neglect, promiscuity, drug abuse and child abuse by parents living in some pretty high-dollar digs - but by golly, at least they did buy the kid a fancy car and kept them well stocked in designer clothing to wear to school. Cars and designer clothes are no substitute for parental attention, however.

These are my experiences and where those experiences occurred. Why don't you give us a little more detail about the circumstances surrounding your experiences.

I have repeated many times over the last 2 and half years I've been contributing on Newsvine. Does the location really matter?

From what I've seen, the abuses you have described are not the sole domain of the poor or of those not "fully educated."

I didn't say it was. We were specifically discussing the opportunity being offered to low income women to free themselves from the burden of unwanted pregnancy and giving them a reward for choosing it. If a woman of middle class and above want seek a permanent birth control solution, it is usually covered by their medical insurance. In my experience, a poor woman has to have had a few children before the option is offered to her. This would just allow women who don't want to be mothers the chance to make sure they don't conceive accidentally.

High school is education

So is elementary school, and middle school, but who's counting anyways?

I believe only fully educated people who have made a commitment to parenting should be allowed to breed

My grandmother had a 3rd grade education. My great grandmother could barely read read and write. They both parented circles around the vast majority of modern parents, "fully" educated or not. They did it with only food, shelter, clothing and love. They did not have luxury of electronic babysitters, expensive gifts, designer label clothing, stacks of "how-to" parenting advice books, or any of the other trappings that substitute for real "parenting" these days.

be allowed to breed

This is just so very wrong.

But, hey, while you're at it, do the rest of us a favor. Aside from being "fully educated," there should also be a requirement for good eyesight before breeding. We can't have these "fully educated" parents not noticing the GUNS on top of their kid's dresser in the bedroom, ala Eric Harris now can we...

Let me address you lack of understanding one topic at a time.

Rights: You are confusing the "ability to" with the "right to". You have the ABILITY to own all the automatic weapons you desire. You have the ability to take a dump on the sidewalk. Men have an ability to force sex on any woman they choose. Parents have the ability to starve their children and beat them and sell them for sex. But we, as a society, have decided to make laws that govern dangerous acts by individuals. We limit the right to bring harm. Breeding out of control harms society. Being unable to care for the children you spawn harms the children. Raising violent and dysfunctional individuals harms society.

You both use the word 'allow', as if the government has any authority or any right to tell people they can or can't have children. Do you want to live in China?

I believe that as part of its duty to protect us, there are people who can and should be constrained from breeding, just as some people are constrained from driving, owning firearms, etc. China, imho, does not carry it far enough. I believe we will ultimately have to find a way so that no one can breed accidentally. Because that is the problem, women too stupid to use birth control are popping out babies who will continue to cost society throughout their lives.

Education: No, I do not mean the sorry ass 12 years of babysitting that we call public education. I mean 4 years, minimum, of education directed toward preparing a person to raise child. I mean planning to make parenting a career, as you make computer science, medicine or teaching a career, and devoting your whole life to it. Children are not a hobby. Children are not toys to bring out and brag about at parties. Children are human beings who also have rights. Children are our future. We are allowing our future to be raised by ignorant, drug addicted git who can't even get a job sweeping floors. The girl who cuts your hair has more training than 90% of the parents in the US today.

And as far as 'fully educated' goes, neither of my parents went to college, does that mean I shouldn't exist?

We can't change the past. But your inability to properly thread a discussion does not bode well for you being competent in other areas of your life. And, no, my mother was not educated, either. For the record, when thinking back on the 18 years of hell that was my childhood, I have often wished I had never been born . . so taking that fallacious route in this argument is worthless.

But, hey, while you're at it, do the rest of us a favor. Aside from being "fully educated," there should also be a requirement for good eyesight before breeding. We can't have these "fully educated" parents not noticing the GUNS on top of their kid's dresser in the bedroom, ala Eric Harris now can we...

These were not good parents and you know it.

My grandmother had a 3rd grade education. My great grandmother could barely read read and write. They both parented circles around the vast majority of modern parents, "fully" educated or not.

I'm not disagreeing. It was a different world then, though. Although I seriously doubt they did that good a job, there were just fewer things they could do wrong and fewer ways for children to f**k up. Mostly kids grow up to be decent in spite of their parents. Additionally, most modern parents don't have the benefit of generations of experience to fall back on as our grand and great grand parents did . . . thanks to the dysfunctional nuclear family we are cut off from our roots . .from support . . .from the community that is necessary to turn out viable, truly healthy children.

This is just so very wrong.

And it's NOT wrong to fall with your legs spread several times a day and squirt out mentally deficient burdens on society? It's not wrong to abuse and neglect your children, turning out criminals and mentally ill adults who will continue to threaten the safety of the rest of us.

And this is not about elitism. This is about ability and knowledge and desire. No person who desired a child and was willing to do the work to get licensed would be refused. Or do you also support the idea that anyone should be allowed to drive, shot a gun, etc? Do you seriously mean to tell me that the "rights" of some drug addict supersede the right of the child she would bring into the world because of a night of drunken debauchery? You are saying we can restrict a person from operating a car while impaired but you are fine with an impaired person raising another human being? Are you saying you don't WANT to give every child born the same chance at a good parent? You don't want a world where every child is wanted?

The 70s are over. It's time to grow up and realize that the "rights" of the individual do not always trump the rights of the society. And, just for the record, the disgust is mutual.

These were not good parents and you know it.

That is exactly my point. Neither affluence nor education ensures a good parent or a good childhood.

Although I seriously doubt they did that good a job

I find this remark shocking. You have never met them, their progeny nor do you know what contributions to society those progeny have made but you believe you have grounds to "seriously doubt" they did a good job of raising their children?

I mean 4 years, minimum, of education directed toward preparing a person to raise child. I mean planning to make parenting a career, as you make computer science, medicine or teaching a career, and devoting your whole life to it.

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by this. You think the only people who should be allowed to have children are those who take these classes and want to be stay-at-home parents? Who would be footing the bill for the living expenses of these stay-at-home population specialists?

You believe this minimum of 4 years of education in parenting should be requirement for competency to raise a child. How did you arrive at this 4 year minimum figure? You also state you believe, however, that...

Mostly kids grow up to be decent in spite of their parents

I find your application of the terms "spawn," "breed," "git," and "viable" to the process of having children to be coldly clinical and more than a little demeaning.

when thinking back on the 18 years of hell that was my childhood

Has it ever occurred to you that, given how traumatic your childhood was, your perceptions of parenting and parent/child relationships have been influenced in a grossly negative way?

sometimes life and common sense teaches us better than any book, Love and care of a child doesn't come because you are educated,or well too.

Gweeny & Kyanabelle,

WHEW!!! Both of you guys need to take a deep breath, I wouldn't want either of you to pass out from the obvious blood-rush you guys are going to get, :))

Gweeny, I don't agree that education or the lack thereof should be the determining factor in whether a person has a right to have children. First, I know a lot of people who graduated from high school with high school vocational training (such as auto mechanincs) that did not attend a university or even community college, they went right into a trade and are stable members of society. Some people here in Alabama they are not wealthy but they work and their families have been in the farming industry for years, doesn't take a college grad to do that but you better thank god we have farmers every time you sit down to a meal. Differences in social classes has always been, even in biblical days there have been different "social classes". Just because one has not had the resources available to them to insure a college degree doesn't necessarily mean they can't raise productive members of society. So to turn this to a social class issue is not only absurd it is dangerous, next will come cries of genecide or doing away with the lower class. Everyone can't be middle class or rich.

Your going to always need custodial employees and waitors/waitresses to take your order and bring your food. Doesn't take a college degree but people who work in these positions are an essential part of our society as it functions and as long as they are working to provide and raise their family no matter how minimal their wage, nor you, I or the government have the right to say they can't reproduce.

Kyanabelle, You have to admit that we have a social crisis in this country with children that are not being care for and left to uncertain demise by parents who draw welfare checks, get food stamps, get medical coverage, get their utilities paid, but yet the children are not cared for. This is not isolated to any one communitry (there is abuse throughout all races and social classes) however the main stream media usually only publishes the very raw statistics that tend to cast light on certain races.

One of the most profound cases I think to use for both of you to garner food for thought is Angela Gates. Remember the woman from Texas who had a history of mental disorders, diagnosed with "POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION" as a reason for killing, no let me rephrase that MURDERING all five of her children by drowning them, the oldest was 6 the younges 6 months. Although she was on no government assistance and considered middle class she should have never been left home schooling 3 children and constant care of the 2 younger babies. Her husband should have been indicted right along with her as he knew her mental issues but still allowed her independant access to kill those children. I remember him on tv crying and saying how "I just never thought she was capable of doing this"!HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......... she tried to take her own life numerous times. It is my moral opinion that the both of them should have been held accountable and should never be allowed to parent another child. BTW; he is remarried now.

Parents who have children (no matter social class) have a responsibility and as Gweeny commented a huge moral obligation to see that they provide physically, mentally, and monetarily for there children. We will always have cases of terrible parenting in any class and I do agree with Kyanabelle that some of the worst terror situations that have affected our public schools are kids who appear to be middle class or wealthy at best.

I think ones behavior with how seriously they take their job as a parent (and it is a job) and their willingness to provide is only part of the equation. However to allow a woman to be a breeding machine for children she can't keep up with or doesn't concern herself with their welfare should mean she is not suitable to be a parent and we as the tax payers shouldn't be dinged repeatedly for her lack of responsibility.

Actually, if you read the article, then you will understand that it is not forcing anyone to do anything. The idea was to offer the choice for women to get their tubes tied. No-one's taking away anyone's right to have children that I can see from the information provided in the article.

"offer the choice for women to get their tubes tied." -Patriciaad

"Would this 'choice' be offered to all women for free regardless of how low or high their incomes?

No. This is for only low-income women who would paid an incentive of $1,000 which to them may seem a large sum for never being able (again, perhaps) to bring forth a child.

Thanks Patriciaad, for taking the time to post your reply to my post. Although, it still sounds suspiciously like, "Yes, let's sterilize the poor!" to me.

No offense intended.

"Would this 'choice' be offered to all women for free regardless of how low or high their incomes?

Why would women with money and insurance WANT to take advantage of a program that will allow them to be worked on by the worst doctors on the planet? Just curious.

Why would women with money and insurance WANT to take advantage of a program that will allow them to be worked on by the worst doctors on the planet? Just curious.

The worst doctors are good enough for the poor though?

I agree, Xanth. That was a poor choice of words, Gwenny.

Either way, I would assume that any doctor that accepts medicaid would do the procedure. That would include good doctors.

The worst doctors are good enough for the poor though?

It's what they get. Because the good doctors won't take govt payments when they can be charging exorbitant amounts from people with over priced insurance. But why are you avoiding answering MY question? WHY would a woman with insurance and resources WANT to use government resources intended to help the poor? Why do YOU have against the poor getting the services they need. Why do YOU want to deny the poor reproductive choices.

I agree, Xanth. That was a poor choice of words, Gwenny.

Either way, I would assume that any doctor that accepts medicaid would do the procedure. That would include good doctors.

Have you ever BEEN on welfare? Have you ever been a woman with children on welfare The choice of words is correct. I have not met a good doctor who took public assistance willingly and even good doctors do not give the same level of service to the poor. Mostly the poor get overbooked, understaffed clinics where they are herded like cattle through cookie cutter procedures.

And I ask again, why would a woman with the resources NEED/CHOOSE/WANT to use a government program? It's just the elitists trying to keep the poor from getting services by claiming it's "unfair" that it doesn't include the rich.

Think about what the law REALLY says and ask yourself why YOU are opposed to poor having REAL reproductive choices. How you would feel is some pretty late 20 something white woman was lamenting how she didn't want/shouldn't have children but her health care wouldn't cover the cost. Think about how incensed you would be if some white woman was being oppressed by the evil health care system what was insensitive to her needs. Every woman deserves the same rights as that woman.

WHY would a woman with insurance and resources WANT to use government resources intended to help the poor?

Perhaps to pay the deductibles? Maybe someone, who is considered middle class, would like the procedure done and can't afford it .... Endless reasons really.

Why do YOU have against the poor getting the services they need. Why do YOU want to deny the poor reproductive choices.

How am I denying anyone reproductive choices by saying either all should be awarded or none? Last time I checked there were many meaningful and mostly reliable ways of reproductive control. So a permanent fix should be the last choice. Offer free condoms, the pill, .... and give these women choices. That way they will have a choice to get another child should their life change, but that is exactly what proposals like these are denying a CHOICE.

It's what they get. Because the good doctors won't take govt payments when they can be charging exorbitant amounts from people with over priced insurance

The majority of doctors take both medicare and medicaid. While their office staff does know the pay source of every patient, the doctor usually has more important things on his mind. To say that a doctor treats his government assistance patients less thoroughly than his private insurance patients is, generally, wrong. Clinics that specialize in indigent care usually take the indigent who have not yet or will not qualify for medicaid or medicare.

Gwenny, public assistance has changed quite a bit since you were a kid. Most people who qualify for public assistance do have requirements that they must school, work or have a doctor's notice saying they can do neither. Baby making is not the source of income it was many years ago.

Gweeny

Have you ever BEEN on welfare? Have you ever been a woman with children on welfare The choice of words is correct. I have not met a good doctor who took public assistance willingly and even good doctors do not give the same level of service to the poor. Mostly the poor get overbooked, understaffed clinics where they are herded like cattle through cookie cutter procedures.

I must ask you to retract this statement above! I have been in the medical field for over 20 years. I have seen a number of docs (not the majority I'll give you that) over the past 20 years give excellent care to patients on medicaid that became assigned to them through the hospital the patient was admitted to.

The physician I currently work for: 65 years old, female, has seen in the past year numerous patients for free that lost their jobs due to company downsizing, forced early retirements, and one guy just moved to our area and was looking for work had no insurance. She not only treated them for free, but if they needed medications she gave them samples or if she couldn't give samples she gave them meds that they could get filled at walmart for $4 each script. Same medication just the generic form to get them through until they got on their feet. One OB patient just recently needed a device to keep her heart from going into arrhythmias that could kill her, she had medicaid and no money, my doc was going to pay for a vest she could wear to shock her heart back into rhythm should she need it, this lady is 25 years old with a 6 week old baby and we are hoping we can reverse her myopathy that could possibly kill her at a young age. The vest is $700.00 per month. My doc managed to work out a deal with the company that makes the vest to do this as a charity case because she has no other way to get this type device. Even though she has an EF of 20% (means her heart is barely functioning) medicaid would not pay for it. Had the company not done this, my physician was prepared to cover the cost of the vest for 3 months.

Lastly, we have an organization in this country called "DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS" these are very competent physicians who sign up and do time in the most poverish places around the world. My doc is a member of that organization, they did wonders trying to see about the folks after Katrina but were hampered somewhat by the governments red tape.

There are some good docs out there who do still see the need to take care of people regardless of their circumstances. If you would like to ever meet any of these docs for yourself you can always take a trip to the south, I got several that I work with daily that I will be glad to introduce you to.

So,- it is ok to be pro life for people with money, etc. but it is pro- sterilization for the poor. This is no surprise. So now it will be ok to help the old folks kick off early in order to save the country money. What next?

I don't see how pro-life and pro-sterilization can't be in the same thought process. You aren't aborting the life, but rather preventing it from being started in the first place. Condoms do something similar.

Todd, that's true but you can't be pro-sterilisation and pro-family.

Sure you can. I have a friend that had 2 children, then had a vasectomy to prevent himself from having more. He is very pro-family, and in my opinion, very responsible. He makes sure that his family is cared for.

Pro-family, in the religious sense, usually relates to the family as defined by god, which means no contraception, family planning etc. If he meant it in some other way then I am wrong.

Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood.

What I want to know is if Cotton Eyed Joe and Thibodeaux both have the same deplorable lifestyle, going from bar to bar and knocking up the only wage earner in their respective households, will Thibodeaux one day be offered two c-notes, a dozen Vicodin and a ride back to the bar for getting snipped, or just Cotton Eyed Joe. An apparent disparity might be considered ethnic husbandry.

Henry. I agree. But let's sterilize him first. But no drugs. Let this @!$%# kicker feel the pain.

Henry. I agree. So let's sterilize him first. He's obviously a nut case. And no drugs. Let him feel the pain.

Dirty old John LaBruzzo, can't perform sexually, no wonder he is talking of sterilization, he should just go and die. Such an animal has no place in human society, a lunatic, with alunatic behaviour.

You are Christian, aren't you?

This post should be reported to the people who operate this website. This character is advocating genocides for homosexuals on another vine. Here he advocates the same Eugenics that justified Nazi genocides.

This scopata character is too whacked out and hateful to be allowed to piss his hate-filled acid into civil conversation.

He mentioned men as well. Read the article.

The right to procreate is going to be conditions on financial factors? Did I die and get reincarnated in Nazi Germany or Maoist China. Maybe rather than turning our nation into a totalitarian state, we should strive for economic justice.

scopata messico is NOT being sarcastic. Look at his other recent posts. The person is full of hate.

The right to procreate is going to be conditions on financial factors?

Did you bother to read the article? NO, the right NOT to procreate is going to be extended to the poor, instead of how it is now when that right is only given to people who can afford health insurance.

Gwenny;

It is one thing when everybody is offered a thousand bucks to have their tubes tied. It is another when only poor people are offered that. What if the thousand bucks isn't enough? Should the government set up some kind of ongoing auction to see what the market is for getting the poor to tie their tubes.

I'd have no problem with this availing this birth control method to the poor without cost and even educating them on the availability of it, but creating a market to encourage poor people not to procreate is just a little too much like economic eugenics to me.

What you have is a government policy that classifies people based on economic condition and then financially encourages the economically disadvantaged to reproduce.

Regulate the government support system, if need be, to discourage growth of the dole, but for God's sake don't get into paying classes of Americans not to reproduce.

Why not the ill, the fat, the dumb, the members of the Republican Party. Is receipt of government benefits such a justifying equity to support such a classification of free citizens.

It is just too totalitarian for me.

"Why not the ill, the fat, the dumb, the members of the Republican Party."

Why not just shorten it to say: "The members of the Democratic and Republican Parties."

I would guess that women were targetted first since they are actually the carrier of the child and most likely the person that files for government assistance when the child is born.

That could be true, but if you want to actually solve the problem with enforced sterilisation, go for the men. It just makes sense.

What do you mean by enforced? The proposition he mentioned was voluntary.

Sorry, yes it is essentially voluntary. "Enforced" is too strong a word. But this smacks of trying to out-breed the poor - what wealthy person would do this for $1000? I find it wrong in the same way that I find selling organs wrong - the poor endanger their health for a few bucks, to keep the wealthy happy.

Why not go the vasectomy route first?

That has proven to be ineffective in places where it was tried, like India. One man can impregnate many woman. Plus, this is more about giving women choices. They aren't trying to force anyone to do anything. They are offering women who would not otherwise have the resources an opportunity to make the choice not to get accidentally pregnant. I would think that people who support women's rights would jumping up and down with joy that the financial barrier to a woman choosing to be child free is being removed.

I just don't understand people.

Gwenny,

The point is a tubal ligation is generally permanent. A surgery to ATTEMPT to reverse the process is incredibly difficult and expensive. Why not just offer free birth control, condoms, and IUDs? None of those have the lasting effect of a tubal ligation, and an IUD can last for several years. Why? Because this has nothing to do with helping out the economically disadvantaged.

As for your comment on Hispanics. WOW. First of all let me point out that everyone who speaks Spanish isn't from Mexico, nor are they necessarily undocumented (nor does it mean they are on welfare). Perhaps you should read the book Strangers Among Us: Latino Lives in a Changing America by Roberto Suro. It is a few years old, but still a good book.

Because this has nothing to do with helping out the economically disadvantaged.

Correct, and the article makes this clear. This has to do with helping the economically advantaged to pay less tax.

The point is a tubal ligation is generally permanent. A surgery to ATTEMPT to reverse the process is incredibly difficult and expensive. Why not just offer free birth control, condoms, and IUDs? None of those have the lasting effect of a tubal ligation, and an IUD can last for several years. Why? Because this has nothing to do with helping out the economically disadvantaged.

That is already being done. Many women can't use various hormonal birth controls or are in places where they can't reliably get or just can't make themselves take it regularly. Condoms depends on getting the man to cooperate. I have four children. My husband REFUSED to use a condom and I can't use the Pill. IUDs run their own risks.

What is comes down to is that someone wants to level the playing field so that poor women can choose not to deal with the risk of pregnancy that will force on them into poverty for years. Instead of allowing them to be free of the risk of pregnancy and 20 years of child rearing when they could be trying to make something better of themselves, you want to reserve that right for people with money. You are deliberately trying to keep poor women down. Can't have those poor women competing with you for jobs and men now, can we?

As for your comment on Hispanics. WOW. First of all let me point out that everyone who speaks Spanish isn't from Mexico, nor are they necessarily undocumented (nor does it mean they are on welfare). Perhaps you should read the book Strangers Among Us: Latino Lives in a Changing America by Roberto Suro. It is a few years old, but still a good book.

WTF are you talking about, woman? I did not mention Hispanics. In fact, you are the only one to mention Hispanics. I'm pro-immigration.

Gwemmy, Sorry about the Hispanics thing, that was directed at a comment Southern Belle made to a previous comment of yours. I apologize, that is the second time I've done that.

As for the rest of your comment:

My husband REFUSED to use a condom

That is a personal problem an a personal experience. That's also an issue of respect. There are other issues that arise without the use of a condom. If on isn't having monogamous sex then they should be using a condom. STDs are not just an issue a poverty. But it takes one being educated on sex to know the risks involved in having unprotected sex.

What is comes down to is that someone wants to level the playing field so that poor women can choose not to deal with the risk of pregnancy that will force on them into poverty for years.

You should watch the video clip that nearing posted, and read more about this LaBruzzo character. From the information I've gathered, I hesitate to think that his is his intention. First of all, I am not against providing free or discounted health care to people who cannot afford private insurance. If a tubal ligation was part of such a system, so be it. Why pay them extra? If they really wanted a tubal ligation and could get it for free or at a price to suit their income, would they really need a $1,000 to go through with it? No. It is a bribe.

You are deliberately trying to keep poor women down. Can't have those poor women competing with you for jobs and men now, can we?

I am going to assume that is just knee jerk response to my accidental comment about Hispanics. Once again, I apologize it was directed at Southern Belle, her comment was immediately following yours and sometimes when you are trying to scroll up and down it is easy to get things confused.

As a direct response to what you said, you don't know me, you don't know where I come from, and you certainly don't know the life I live, or the poverty I see on a daily basis. But unlike you I don't go flinging around intimate details of my private life to somehow give credit to my argument.

See, I couldn't even spell your name right.

Mego, I see you directed a comment to Gweeny meant for me apparently. Thanks for recommending that book, yes I've read it and my comment didn't say that 'Every spanish speaking individual is from mexico, nor did I say they are all on welfare or undocumented".
I said MANY do come here and take advantage of our FREE SERVICES.

Now ya know your elders probably told you that you can't learn everything from a book. So I ask you too maybe get you a PT job in walmart and watch how many hispanics come through your little check out line with 2 and 3 buggies of food filled to the top and pay for every bit of it with food stamps. Watch how many come in with WIC vouchers and go right over to the customer service lane or the money center and send anywhere from $300.00-$1000.00 back to their relatives at home. That my friend is money that they worked for under the table mostly and instead of making their own way (which most of us would not be opposed too) they are receiveing free services from the tax payers.

Just thought I would inlighten you to an education you won't get from a book!

Southern Bell,

So what do you ask them to provide legal documentation along with their WIC card? How do you know they are illegal? Did you ask them? Did you do a survey backed by a non-partisan organization? No. You just saw them, heard them speaking Spanish and thought "they must be illegal". I suggest you read this.

You inferred that Hispanic= Mexican by saying that Americans wouldn't be offered the same services if they went to Mexico. Have you ever tried to immigrate anywhere either legally or illegally?

Perhaps you shouldn't blame the individuals who seek crappy jobs under the table, but rather the companies that employ them. If your kids were starving, and had no chances of upward mobility wouldn't you also seek a better life for them?

How about rather than me taking a PT job at Wal-Mart you hop on the next flight to Mexico for a little bit of enlightenment to an education you won't get in a book or in a Wal-Mart check outline. Perhaps rather than dividing people into "us" and "they" you should question what motivates an individual's or a group of individuals' actions.

I have been to mexico, numerous times. I once again didn't say the WERE ALL ILLEGALS OR MEXICANS!!!

If they have a wic card they certainly have to be documented in order to get social services. That still doesn't negate the fact that this is something that happens all the time with those sending money back to their families in order to support them.

Now if your needing a point to argue there are many others here that you feel free to argue with, I am speaking of what I know from experiences I've had and things I've actually seen with my own eyes, sorry don't need you to confirm that this happens for me to know it does.

You have an awesome day!

if they have a wic card they certainly have to be documented in order to get social services.

..earlier...

Another thing that factors into this and people in the south will appreciate this, is the hispanic community with its large numbers of people on welfare, yet they work make money here and then send it back to Mexico. You get government assistance here to support yourself, you work under the table and pay no taxes, then send the fruits of your labor home to families in your motherland, sorry I don't think that is fair to me and everyone else who has to give up taxes out of my pay and then pay uncle sam every April.

Why would you work under the table if you were documented and thus eligible for better employment and a job with benefits? If this were some grand scheme to cheat the system of tons of money, don't you think white people would be doing it too? Your argument was weak, and quite frankly racist. Perhaps they work part time and yet still qualify for food stamps and WIC. Who are you to say what they do with the money they earn? I think sending a $1,000 to your family abroad is a far cry from buying cocaine, soliciting prostitutes, indulging in ones gambling habit (you know the things that people with disposable income can do), not to mention the laundry list of human rights violations the average Country or Multi-National Corporation is responsible for.

Besides, I've gone way off topic. What did your initial comment about Latinos have anything to do with bribing poor women to be sterilized? Don't worry, I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

Reformed Liberal

> contraception

>> abortion

>>> assisted suicide

>>>> sterilization

>>>>> euthenasia

>>>>>> dead society

Cull the herd!!

The next thing is, who decides?

Who decides what health care is available, and to whom?
Now there is a volatile issue.

And here is one for you: I hear a lot about women's "reproductive freedom". What do you think, should it be freedom to limit reproduction, or freedom to not limit reproduction, or both?

Just a thought.

Currently I believe they have both. However, some people abuse that right. Once they're "freedom to produce" impinges on my right to happiness (for instance, moneys are given to her to support her choice, rather than to the school system to teach my child) then it is stepping a little over the line.

Thus, we have the main issue of a "free" society: who determines what happens when our "freedoms" overlap?

And who decides who gets to have freedoms, liberty, or life, for that matter?

I think the option should be available before a woman has had her first child. Some women prefer to be child free. I respect that choice.

Yes Gwenny good point !

WIG???

Not sure how you spell it, the thing where you get milk etc for coupons if you have infants. Is it WIC?

Yes, WIC is correct.

Sorry never applied to it, but while living on Ft. Meade plenty of my neighbors got it.

The lower ranking military did qualify for WIG as little as 7 years ago

Really now!?! I truly did not know that.

So we can say what's good for the Government is good for Mega Corp. - Push the ethical responsibility to provide a living wage off on local tax payers.

By the reasoning some here apply the military would be darn well allowed to die in some godforsaken dessert, but be barred from procreating ...

NO ONE IS BEING BARRED FROM ANYTHING. What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Low income women are being offered what middle class women have been able to have for decades: a permanent birth control option.

What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Low income women are being offered what middle class women have been able to have for decades: a permanent birth control option.

My reading comprehension is fine, thank you very much! What this is striving to do is eradicate the poor, who draw assistance from the government in order to save taxpayers money.

The military on several levels draws funds from the taxpayers money. Firstly their pay comes directly out of taxes paid, secondly they in some states don't have to pay state taxes and lastly while being in war zones they don't pay taxes at all, yet they qualify for government assistance programs.

Furthermore, as a military wife you will hardly have the option to score a job with decent income. You will also most likely hardly ever be promoted, because you live in one place for an average of three years, keeping you eligible for welfare programs as long as your spouse is a lower enlisted soldier.

Now this guy is proposing to entice poor women to get sterilized. He does not offer this option to people who don't receive assistance or live above the poverty line, which clearly indicates that this is NOT intended as a favor to women, but as a favor to tax payers.

And if you read the replies to this article many here were asking for mandatory sterilization for women on welfare, and thus in reply to those posts I am asking, if that should hold true for the military as well.

So once again, where did I not comprehend what was written?

"What this is striving to do is eradicate the poor, who draw assistance from the government in order to save taxpayers money."

Shouldn't we always be striving to eradicate the poor and the starving? Would you rather ensure that there is always a poor people to be more wealthy than? It seems a little hypocritical to me that people (not necessarily Xanth) diatribe against the government for not assisting the lower class, then denigrate them for trying to eliminate them through incentives.

Shouldn't we always be striving to eradicate the poor and the starving? Would you rather ensure that there is always a poor people to be more wealthy than? It seems a little hypocritical to me that people (not necessarily Xanth) diatribe against the government for not assisting the lower class, then denigrate them for trying to eliminate them through incentives.

The thing that bothers me is that this is exclusively offered to the poor, this is what makes it wrong in my opinion. Have a program like that for everyone and it is a lot less controversial.

And whilst we should strive to eradicate the poor and the starving it doesn't justify all means!

But this is eliminating the people, not the poverty. There is a fundemental difference.

I have to agree dungbeetlemania. This simply is no solution.

Welfare and food stamps are only offered to the poor. Are you against these? What about medical aid to the poor? There are numerous laws and benefits that apply to a particular class (whether rich or poor).

Would you be offended if they offered free tubals and 1k money only to those people that earned a minimum of 200k a year?

@dungbeatle - Perhaps that is where the difference in our perception lies. Does it at that point become a right to life issue? I don't want to start a choice vs. life debate here, but you seem to be pushing the idea that the government wants to march people in for this procedure under force. I think of it again as a choice that women will be free to make.

Poverty stricken people are less likely to rise through the financial ceilings set before them if they have children. I think we can all agree that children are expensive. Therefore methods to encourage (not force) people to stop reproducing seem to be viable.

Welfare and food stamps are only offered to the poor. Are you against these? What about medical aid to the poor? There are numerous laws and benefits that apply to a particular class (whether rich or poor).

To be honest the American welfare system simply sucks. There is no encouragement to better yourself. There is a dire lack of options if you messed up in high school and don't have the finances to go to college. The medical aid the poor receives, is much less valuable then what other developed countries have in place. You virtually have to be ready to for the ER to get treated when prophylaxis would save a load of money.

As far as food stamps goes, this is about the only thing I prefer to other systems. It is much more difficult to turn those into cash for alcohol or drugs.

So in essence, my pet peeve is education. Instead of taking the "easy" way out and offer an amount of cash these women most likely never will see again, enable them to become responsible citizens.

Would you be offended if they offered free tubals and 1k money only to those people that earned a minimum of 200k a year?

I would be offended if this particular thing would be offered to any targeted group. Either say you will offer it to all or to none. What is the next step to this? Offer free liquor so they can drink themselves to death?

The medical aid the poor receives, is much less valuable then what other developed countries have in place.

Try being the parent of a special needs child for whom comprehensive medical care is necessary. Sufficient insurance coverage for testing, therapies, treatments, etc., is barely affordable even under the best of plans- that is when the insurance industry will cover these children at all. Hello, Medicaid.

No TANF, no AFDC, no USDA foodstamps. Just Medicaid. Simply having no viable alternative for affordable, medically necessary coverage for a child - special needs or not - is enough to get/keep some families on the all-inclusive welfare roster even if Medicaid is the only assistance needed. Also, let's not forget that having medical insurance for all minor children is the law. It's a bloody scam, I swear!

Well, you are barking up at the wrong tree, I know how essential medical insurance is. If it was my way, everybody should be able to get medical.

And while Americans tend to state how great their health care is, the sad fact is that it is only available to the few.

Well, you are barking up at the wrong tree, I know how essential medical insurance is.

No assumptions were made to the contrary. It was a general statement directed at no specific individual. My point was to emphasize and actually lend support to your statement. At the same time another aspect of government assistance, often taken for granted, gains greater attention. So many families are under/un-insured, for whatever reasons, that Medicaid ends up taking the blow when other methods fail.

It's not you, me, or anyone posting on this seed who's to blame. The whole insurance industry needs a drastic overhaul, as does government assistance.

Now at one time some of the docs along with the medical society tried to get it passed through the state legislature that would limit how many children a woman can have while on the tax payers dime, the original recommendation was that they could only have 3 that medicaid would pay for and then if other pregnancies were to follow that individual would have to cover that cost themselves.

I think this is a good idea!

ABSOLUTELY REDICULOUS!!!! I don't care what color you are, if the government is paying for you to have your family, house them, feed them, and keep medical coverage on them and yourself, then as a tax payer I have every right to tell you how many I'm willing to pay for you to have, it is our tax dollars supporting those who feel they can bring children into this world but not work to provide for them.

I completely agree with you! If my salary is to support them,then I should have a say as in how many I will support. I live in the projects, I have had to use the welfare system during times when I was unemployed,etc. however I know many people that are content in never looking for employment and staying on government benefits. It is like the system rewards them, the more children you have the more benefits you receive. I can barely afford to feed and house myself and my own children so I certainly do not want Jane Neighbor to keep multipling at my expense.

however I know many people that are content in never looking for employment and staying on government benefits. It is like the system rewards them, the more children you have the more benefits you receive.

Excellent point! These are the people who need a little nudge to get moving in the right direction. There are some people on welfare (men & women) who are capable of working - but many of them will flat-out tell you that they don't want to.

"..the original recommendation was that they could only have 3 that medicaid would pay for and then if other pregnancies were to follow that individual would have to cover that cost themselves.
"

I actually had a similar idea, though I limited it to two, which would allow a family to in essence keep the world population from going down.

There are also many women who are on the welfare system not working, not trying to work, and allowing a man to live with them and benefit from their handouts.

21 years old, 6 children, no education, no skills! How will she ever support them or the other children she may want to have? She won't, you and I and every tax payer out there will.

and allowing a man to live with them and benefit from their handouts.

Yes.

A co-worker from long ago confessed to me that this is why he and his "girlfriend" hadn't gotten married. He lived there, benefited from the welfare and then lied about it to keep the checks coming. And...then he spoke of famous label handbags that his daughters and girlfriend wanted - which cost $200 and up.