Program pays addicts to use birth control (Libs whine racism)

Kansas City Star ^ | July 19, 2006 | John Schultz

[JamesP81]

Until they they come to the taxpayers for hand-outs, or get convicted of crimes that make them obviously unfit parents

This works just fine until the libs get into office and get to redefine the term 'unfit parents'.

[GovernmentShrinker]

If drug addicts could be cure of their addictions for $300 a pop, there wouldn't be any left, and we wouldn't be faced with the problem of how to deal with the thousands of damaged/neglected/abused infants they churn out every year. Money poured down the drain is not well-spent.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Also, find me an article in the Constitution anywhere that empowers Congress to expend federal funds on birth control pills for drug addicts.

Same one that empowers Congress to expend federal funds (in other words, citizens' funds) for the housing, feeding, schooling, "social services", drug rehab, prisons, etc. for all the unwanted babies churned out by drug addicts. I'd a lot rather Congress hit me up for the pills or tube-tyings, since that's a teensy fraction of the cost they hit me up for when women don't get those things.

[Neidermeyer]

I'm all for this program ..

1.) It's totaly private ... no gov't involvement
2.) It's fully voluntary
3.) It uses methods of birth control that are truly contraceptive and not "post conception" like IUD's

Sure you're using money as an incentive ,, money is a GREAT incentive ... I've seen too many crack babies (and the brain damaged criminals they grow up into) not to be all for this.. What this woman is doing is something we all can rejoice in ,, with the exception of the local abortion mills that lose out on business.

[TKDietz]

I'm all for this. There are a lot of people out there who absolutely should not have children. Forced sterilization wouldn't be right, but giving people money to get on long term birth control or get sterilized sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Do those of you who object to this have any idea just how much money we spend taking care of all these kids? We spend an absolute fortune, especially on children of addicted mothers. Often these children are born weeks or months early, and in most cases the tax payers foot the bill which can easily go into the tens of thousands of dollars and I've seen several cases where the bill has been in the hundreds of thousands. After that there is of course all the welfare, social security, Medicaid, and so on that so often gets paid out. These kids often have health problems and often turn out as screwed up or even more screwed up than their parents. It's just an ugly cycle that perpetuates itself. A lot of people out there would just like to abort all these babies. I say prevent conception in the first place and then there will be far less abortions and far less expense for taxpayers.

[JamesP81]

Same one that empowers Congress to expend federal funds (in other words, citizens' funds) for the housing, feeding, schooling, "social services", drug rehab, prisons, etc. for all the unwanted babies churned out by drug addicts.

There is no such article. Such expenditures are completely unconstitutional. But then again, that never stopped them.

[TKDietz]

"What we're doing in this country is selective breeding for the unfit."

Scary but true. So many people in my area at least are on SSI. I'm talking entire families. Coincidentally, every single member of the family is disabled and drawing a check. They'll have more babies to draw more checks and they know exactly which doctors to go to and exactly what to say for the right diagnoses that will insure that they'll be able to get on the dole. The government pays their medical bills, gives them housing and utility bill assistance, food stamps, and of course those monthly checks that come on the third of every month. Then they work for cash for a little extra beer and drug money. These people tend to be crappy parents and raise their children in squalor. They tend to have a lot of problems with the law and in many cases a great deal of court involvement with their children. We spend a ton of money on them, and there are generation after generation of people living this way. The generations go pretty quickly too because teen pregnancy is rampant among this ilk. Grandparents in their thirties and great grandparents in their fifties are not uncommon among these types of people. They'll often have far more children than average to keep the checks rolling in, and then their children get knocked up as teens and do the same thing. As Nazi-ish as this may sound, these cretins are screwing up the gene pool because decent hard working people don't tend to breed like bunny rabbits or have several generations of the same lineage born within a few decades.

I see these types all the time as a public defender. I was just talking to one yesterday trying to get out of community service because he finally started getting his check to go along with the checks everyone else in his family are getting and he just wanted to pay his fines off and be done with it. Another was in court yesterday telling the judge he couldn't pay his fines because he's trying to get on SSI and was told that if he works it will mess that up, but he was fine with being on community service for forty-three days to pay his fines if the judge would please allow it. On community service he'll spend most of his time mowing grass and doing other manual labor. If he can do that, he can by God get a job. But why do that if you can get money for nothing?

[GOPJ]

Telling people who can and can't have children is a dark road that we don't want to see the end of.

No one is "telling" them anything. If these women don't want the inconvenience of having a child while living a street life, this group will help them... Maybe the group could also pay to have a few eggs frozen for these women - so if they get their lives turned around, they can have children.

Like you, I have a hard time with permanent solutions for temporary problems... For some of these women, drug addiction is temporary.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Ummm, yes I KNOW there's no such article. But it's pretty ridiculous when people howl about the government funding contraceptives while it is still funding the cradle-to-grave support of millions of people should have been contracepted but weren't. Get rid of the welfare state first, THEN we can talk about getting government out of everything it shouldn't be in.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Sterilization is no longer a "permanent solution" in the sense that it once was. Anyone can still reproduce via IVF after any normal sterilization procedure. The percentage of these drug-addicted women who will ever be in a position to support a child is so microscopic that it would be a lot cheaper to sterilize all of the them, and then pay for IVF for the handful who finish a GED and some vocational training, get a job, support themselves and stay off drugs for a couple of years, don't get convicted of anything for a couple of years, and show they have enough money or willing relatives to ensure that the child is cared for while mom is at work. Even though this minimal level of competence would provide only the most marginal level of subsistence for a child, I doubt more than 1-2% of drug-addicted, non-working women will ever reach it.

[mockingbyrd]

"Margaret Sanger was aligned with groups who DID want to cut off the bloodline of people who's FAMILIES had a history of mental illness, birth defects, and criminal arrests. THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE."

Don't forget blacks, Margaret really hated them too and wanted them out of the gene pool permantly. Guess Faye Waddelton never read up much on her group's founder.

[Smogger]

Well I am sure if you include overhead, administrative costs, and the pricey birth control they are administering the cost is considerably more than $300.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Maybe in some cases, but certainly not in the ballpark of the cost to taxpayers of even a single baby born to one of these women.