Money for tubal ligations?

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:21:40 AM
Author: diamondfan
If they WANTED and sought it out, I might feel differently. I am 100% pro choice but would much prefer a child not be created in bad circumstances. Anytime money is utilized as bait, it is bad. Only poor people would be the victims here. Wealthy people would not need this type of incentive for the most part and would have a private doctor do such a procedure if they decided it was right for them. This takes advantage of people on so many levels, a master race sort of set up. (let''s stop the poor from having kids and encourage wealthy or educated people to have them, presuming wealthy or smart people are always better parents and poor people can''t be loving and wonderful parents).

I missed this last night, but you are spot on, dfan! Now come play in the Democrat thread where you belong!

 

[Lauren8211]

I almost vomited when I read this.

I'm sorry, but are you FREAKING kidding me?

What an insult! Basically, they're saying "Please stop breeding you poor worthless piece of crap, leave it to the rich"

Since when do you need money to bring a kid into this world? I know TONS of happy poor kids and unhappy rich kids. Money does not make you any more fit to be a parent.

We could go the reasonable route and try educating people with that money, instead of sterilizing them. How about family planning assistance and comprehensive sexual education? Reduced costs for contraceptives? Sterilizing the poor is NOT a social welfare program! Help them get out of their situation and give them the tools they need to plan a family appropriately.

UGH!

ETA: And furthermore, why is this a discussion of this OR abortion? It doesn't have to be that way. Abortion should always be legal, but it's uses limited as much as possible. No one WANTS women to have abortions. Why don't we help women plan? That way, abortion is a last resort. Secondly, it's not always the poor who are having abortions, so it's really not a give and take here. Abortions cost money, and quite a bit of it, so I don't know if those same people who are eligible for tubal ligation under this idea would even be the ones having abortions, since they probably don't have any type of insurance to help cover the abortion.

Bottom line... help women plan.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 9/25/2008 11:06:00 PM
Author:luckystar112

What do you all think of this?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5886592&page=1


''As Hurricane Gustav loomed off the coast of Louisiana, thousands of impoverished people flocked into shelters, where some of them seemed unprepared to take care of their young children''s basic needs, forgetting to bring along diapers or medicine.

That heartbreaking scenario inspired Louisiana Republican State Rep. John LaBruzzo to start thinking about ways to stem generational welfare, in which many welfare recipients have children who also end up dependent on government assistance, according to the representative.

His idea -- giving $1,000 to poor women to undergo reproductive sterilization by Fallopian tube ligation -- is stirring up controversy among some medical professionals, who say that the proposal is offensive and smacks of long-discredited eugenics programs.''

I know that I am going to get slammed for this, but I think that if people are on welfare now, they should not have more children if they are still on welfare. Once they can support their own families again, then fine, have as many kids as you want. I think that tubal ligation is extreme, since it''s permanent, but I have no problem with Norplant or IUDs being required for women who are currently receiving welfare, since both are reversible and highly effective. The option would be that if you choose to refuse the Norplant, and then have more children while already accepting welfare, your welfare checks stop - period, or, you will not receive the household increase per child.

I have a close friend that is one of 6 children, all born from different dads. As the oldest, she actually raised the two youngest (they are living with her now) while her mom lives in hotels with various boyfriends, and only works a few weeks out of the year. I don''t see why someone like that "mother," who had children and totally neglected them, and allowed them to be abused by various boyfriends, should have been allowed to have extra children after already proving herself unable to care for the ones she had.

My belief is that if you want help from the government to raise the children that you already have, the government should set some conditions, including that you can''t add more kids that you''re planning to neglect into the mix.

It''s really sad that my husband and I sit around crunching numbers to see if we can afford to have a second child, while other people just spit them out without any regard for how they plan to raise them.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:32:22 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/26/2008 12:29:36 AM
Author: thing2of2

The problem is the coercive nature of the program. I explained it in previous posts. And if people don''t mind paying for tubal ligations, why would they mind paying for birth control pills for these women?

My guess is that it''s easy to go off of or misuse birth control pills...and Planned Parenthood already offers them for next to nothing.

This is true - you wouldn''t believe how many college-educated friends of mine don''t know the right way to take birth-control pills. They are not reliable unless taken consistently and responsibly, so something like IUDs or NOrplant would be a better choice.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 9/26/2008 8:50:27 AM
Author: elledizzy5
I almost vomited when I read this.

I''m sorry, but are you FREAKING kidding me?

What an insult! Basically, they''re saying ''Please stop breeding you poor worthless piece of crap, leave it to the rich''

Since when do you need money to bring a kid into this world? I know TONS of happy poor kids and unhappy rich kids. Money does not make you any more fit to be a parent.

We could go the reasonable route and try educating people with that money, instead of sterilizing them. How about family planning assistance and comprehensive sexual education? Reduced costs for contraceptives? Sterilizing the poor is NOT a social welfare program! Help them get out of their situation and give them the tools they need to plan a family appropriately.

UGH!

ETA: And furthermore, why is this a discussion of this OR abortion? It doesn''t have to be that way. Abortion should always be legal, but it''s uses limited as much as possible. No one WANTS women to have abortions. Why don''t we help women plan? That way, abortion is a last resort. Secondly, it''s not always the poor who are having abortions, so it''s really not a give and take here. Abortions cost money, and quite a bit of it, so I don''t know if those same people who are eligible for tubal ligation under this idea would even be the ones having abortions, since they probably don''t have any type of insurance to help cover the abortion.

Bottom line... help women plan.

Two responses - I have no problem with poor people having kids, but I do have a problem with poor people having kids then sticking their hands out for welfare and food stamps that my family pays for. If you want to have unlimited kids, fine, but then YOU figure out a way to feed them without it coming out of my wallet.

I also agree that this is one of the primary reasons that abortion should be legal - I have a lot more respect for a woman who becomes pregnant & decides to have an abortion because she cannot financially or emotionally take care of a child at her age, economic situation, whatever, than a woman who just has babies at random, doesn''t take care of them, and in many instances, ends up abusing and neglecting them.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 9/26/2008 11:09:00 AM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 9/25/2008 11:06:00 PM
Author:luckystar112


What do you all think of this?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5886592&page=1


''As Hurricane Gustav loomed off the coast of Louisiana, thousands of impoverished people flocked into shelters, where some of them seemed unprepared to take care of their young children''s basic needs, forgetting to bring along diapers or medicine.

That heartbreaking scenario inspired Louisiana Republican State Rep. John LaBruzzo to start thinking about ways to stem generational welfare, in which many welfare recipients have children who also end up dependent on government assistance, according to the representative.


His idea -- giving $1,000 to poor women to undergo reproductive sterilization by Fallopian tube ligation -- is stirring up controversy among some medical professionals, who say that the proposal is offensive and smacks of long-discredited eugenics programs.''

I know that I am going to get slammed for this, but I think that if people are on welfare now, they should not have more children if they are still on welfare. Once they can support their own families again, then fine, have as many kids as you want. I think that tubal ligation is extreme, since it''s permanent, but I have no problem with Norplant or IUDs being required for women who are currently receiving welfare, since both are reversible and highly effective. The option would be that if you choose to refuse the Norplant, and then have more children while already accepting welfare, your welfare checks stop - period, or, you will not receive the household increase per child.

I have a close friend that is one of 6 children, all born from different dads. As the oldest, she actually raised the two youngest (they are living with her now) while her mom lives in hotels with various boyfriends, and only works a few weeks out of the year. I don''t see why someone like that ''mother,'' who had children and totally neglected them, and allowed them to be abused by various boyfriends, should have been allowed to have extra children after already proving herself unable to care for the ones she had.

My belief is that if you want help from the government to raise the children that you already have, the government should set some conditions, including that you can''t add more kids that you''re planning to neglect into the mix.

It''s really sad that my husband and I sit around crunching numbers to see if we can afford to have a second child, while other people just spit them out without any regard for how they plan to raise them.

I see your point, Vespergirl, and I won''t slam you, but I disagree with parts of what you''ve said. I don''t think you can force anyone to use a contraceptive. That is just wrong in my point of view. That is government intervening in private life way too much at that point. We have a right to privacy, and that needs to be respected.

Also, I see what you''re saying about stopping welfare or not increasing it once you''ve had another child, if you get pregnant while on welfare, but who suffers at that point? Only the child. The one who had no choice in being brought into the world. So I think we''d end up "punishing" the wrong people -- innocent children.

What it comes down to is there is no easy answer. We have to educate, educate, educate, and provide safe, inexpensive ways for people to avoid pregnancy. Of course, there will always be people who just don''t want to help themselves, and they will be a drain on society, but I can''t support forcing them to have and IUD or a tubal ligation, either.

I just can''t stomach the thought of the government pushing women to have a tubal ligation, or use a contraceptive. We have to provide them with information and resources so they want to do it themselves.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 9/26/2008 11:18:23 AM
Author: vespergirl

Two responses - I have no problem with poor people having kids, but I do have a problem with poor people having kids then sticking their hands out for welfare and food stamps that my family pays for. If you want to have unlimited kids, fine, but then YOU figure out a way to feed them without it coming out of my wallet.

I also agree that this is one of the primary reasons that abortion should be legal - I have a lot more respect for a woman who becomes pregnant & decides to have an abortion because she cannot financially or emotionally take care of a child at her age, economic situation, whatever, than a woman who just has babies at random, doesn''t take care of them, and in many instances, ends up abusing and neglecting them.

I agree, it is awful, but I just have a bad feeling that if we don''t help, the children suffer.

 

[MoonWater]

this thread gives me the heebee geebees....ick!

and I went to Planned Parenthood for a while and they NEVER pushed anything on me. I loved them actually and when I got really good insurance I wanted to stay to help support them since they take so many women that can''t afford to pay. Unfortunately, they didn''t take my insurance!! Crazy. Now I have to make donations.

As far as this article, I find it funny in light of these groups that think the world, and more specifically in one article, the US, is not populating enough. But in the one article by a guy, I got the impression that there were certain groups of people he didn''t think were breeding enough. It brought that whole "master race" thing to my mind as well. Freaking creepy!!! Also, I felt a tinge of sexism while reading it because who the heck did he expect to carry and give birth to all of these children? And then of course, who was going to take care of them? I really felt like the only way we''d get the population he wanted, women needed to go back to being barefoot and preggers. Maybe I should dig it up and post it to see what you guys make of it.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 9/26/2008 11:21:20 AM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 9/26/2008 11:18:23 AM
Author: vespergirl

Two responses - I have no problem with poor people having kids, but I do have a problem with poor people having kids then sticking their hands out for welfare and food stamps that my family pays for. If you want to have unlimited kids, fine, but then YOU figure out a way to feed them without it coming out of my wallet.

I also agree that this is one of the primary reasons that abortion should be legal - I have a lot more respect for a woman who becomes pregnant & decides to have an abortion because she cannot financially or emotionally take care of a child at her age, economic situation, whatever, than a woman who just has babies at random, doesn''t take care of them, and in many instances, ends up abusing and neglecting them.

I agree, it is awful, but I just have a bad feeling that if we don''t help, the children suffer.

Elledizzy, I totally agree with the point on not making kids suffer - as a mother, I cry when my son gets his immunization shots, because I can''t stand to see him in pain. I think there are a lot of "parents" who don''t see things this way, though, because they are intentionally abusing and neglecting their children. For the children who are already here, I would just have the state take them away and put them in orphanages if the parents don''t live up to their part of the welfare "deal." Hopefully, the fear of having their children taken away would be enough motivation to do SOMETHING to earn money to take care of their kids.

But overall, I totally agree with you that sex education & access to free birth control & abortions are much better solutions than trying to take care of poor children that are already here.

I guess that overall I have a big problem with the fact that a lot of poor people don''t seem to be trying to get out of their situations. My family was dirt poor (immigrants) until the last generation, but they never took government money, and there was always food on the table and a roof over our heads - they would do anything to provide for the family. These days, everybody slams Mexicans who come here, because they are viewed as being a drain on the system. However, I can''t tell you how many times I''ve had recent Mexican, South American, African & West Indian immigrants knock on my door to see if I need help with odd jobs, landscaping, housecleaning, a nanny, whatever. These are people with no money, but I have total respect that they are trying to earn their way out of poverty, and take care of their families.

Never has their been an American person who has come to my door, looking to take an odd job, clean my house, or do anything else to earn a living. Since I don''t see an effort made by those in generational poverty to get themselves out of the situation, it really burns me that they take no responsibility for their situation, and expect the taxpayers to pay for another generation that will probably be the same drain on society that they are.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 9/26/2008 11:32:51 AM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 9/26/2008 11:21:20 AM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 9/26/2008 11:18:23 AM
Author: vespergirl

Two responses - I have no problem with poor people having kids, but I do have a problem with poor people having kids then sticking their hands out for welfare and food stamps that my family pays for. If you want to have unlimited kids, fine, but then YOU figure out a way to feed them without it coming out of my wallet.

I also agree that this is one of the primary reasons that abortion should be legal - I have a lot more respect for a woman who becomes pregnant & decides to have an abortion because she cannot financially or emotionally take care of a child at her age, economic situation, whatever, than a woman who just has babies at random, doesn''t take care of them, and in many instances, ends up abusing and neglecting them.

I agree, it is awful, but I just have a bad feeling that if we don''t help, the children suffer.

Elledizzy, I totally agree with the point on not making kids suffer - as a mother, I cry when my son gets his immunization shots, because I can''t stand to see him in pain. I think there are a lot of ''parents'' who don''t see things this way, though, because they are intentionally abusing and neglecting their children. For the children who are already here, I would just have the state take them away and put them in orphanages if the parents don''t live up to their part of the welfare ''deal.'' Hopefully, the fear of having their children taken away would be enough motivation to do SOMETHING to earn money to take care of their kids.

But overall, I totally agree with you that sex education & access to free birth control & abortions are much better solutions than trying to take care of poor children that are already here.

I guess that overall I have a big problem with the fact that a lot of poor people don''t seem to be trying to get out of their situations. My family was dirt poor (immigrants) until the last generation, but they never took government money, and there was always food on the table and a roof over our heads - they would do anything to provide for the family. These days, everybody slams Mexicans who come here, because they are viewed as being a drain on the system. However, I can''t tell you how many times I''ve had recent Mexican, South American, African & West Indian immigrants knock on my door to see if I need help with odd jobs, landscaping, housecleaning, a nanny, whatever. These are people with no money, but I have total respect that they are trying to earn their way out of poverty, and take care of their families.

Never has their been an American person who has come to my door, looking to take an odd job, clean my house, or do anything else to earn a living. Since I don''t see an effort made by those in generational poverty to get themselves out of the situation, it really burns me that they take no responsibility for their situation, and expect the taxpayers to pay for another generation that will probably be the same drain on society that they are.

Sad as it may be, I don''t know that it would motivate some people, and then we just throw another kid into the system who gets tossed around from home to home, some of which are abusive.

Some Americans really do think they''re too good to go get a more physically demanding job, even though they''re content receiving welfare, which baffles me. Have some pride! Work for your money!

What it comes down to is that the factors that contribute to people being poor, uneducated, on welfare, and popping out babies is hard to determine. There is no right answer, and children will always suffer at the hand of irresponsible parents. Some people just refuse to help themselves.

I still can''t support forced or pressured contraception/tubal ligation, though.

 

[Ninama]

Without getting into the primary issue in this thread, I would investigate that stat about the number welfare recipients in Louisiana "plunging" from well over a quarter million to fewer that the population of a small town. In a sate beset by natural disaster and poverty, it sounds off.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:03:11 PM
Author: Ninama

Without getting into the primary issue in this thread, I would investigate that stat about the number welfare recipients in Louisiana ''plunging'' from well over a quarter million to fewer that the population of a small town. In a sate beset by natural disaster and poverty, it sounds off.

That''s the stat given in the article. I assumed it was because of all the welfare reform that has gone on. But let me know if you find other numbers elsewhere.

 

[Ninama]

I understand that it was from the article and that it probably reflected some reform. It still sounded really low, though - and probably not reflective of reproductive rates.



http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec-economy-welfare-caseloads-total-recipients


Economy Statistics > Welfare Caseloads > Total recipients (most recent) by state...

#22 Louisiana: 56,157 (#1 is California: 1,085,627)

Louisiana also ranks #2 in percent below poverty level at 19.4% and #3 in children below poverty level at 30%

 

[diamondfan]

Date: 9/26/2008 8:32:57 AM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/26/2008 12:21:40 AM

Author: diamondfan

If they WANTED and sought it out, I might feel differently. I am 100% pro choice but would much prefer a child not be created in bad circumstances. Anytime money is utilized as bait, it is bad. Only poor people would be the victims here. Wealthy people would not need this type of incentive for the most part and would have a private doctor do such a procedure if they decided it was right for them. This takes advantage of people on so many levels, a master race sort of set up. (let''s stop the poor from having kids and encourage wealthy or educated people to have them, presuming wealthy or smart people are always better parents and poor people can''t be loving and wonderful parents).

I missed this last night, but you are spot on, dfan! Now come play in the Democrat thread where you belong!

Thing, that is my Democrat coming out!!!! look, just because something is a stereotype does not make it always wrong, certainly if one is choosing, it is nicer to have the means to take of your child easily, but I know lots of rich parents with crappy kids because they thought money equaled love and that they kids were all right because of the material stuff they had. I know kids from lower SES''s who always felt loved, supported, nurtured, maybe not given lots of material goods, but they had what they needed to grow up happy and confident and capable. A new XBOX or guidance? A new I Phone or nurure? Not a tough choice. And of course not all wealthy parents neglect their kids emotional health or are undemonstrative and cold. I just think the attitude of the proposal is tantamount to turning wealthy educated people into baby machines.

 

[Anna0499]

Has no one found out if this is $1000 to PAY FOR a tubal or a $1000 PAYOUT for getting a tubal? I think it''s much more permissible if it''s payment for the procedure for women who want to get one but can''t afford one. I obviously don''t agree with encouraging other people to have children, though.

 

[musey]

Date: 9/27/2008 7:43:01 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Has no one found out if this is $1000 to PAY FOR a tubal or a $1000 PAYOUT for getting a tubal? I think it''s much more permissible if it''s payment for the procedure for women who want to get one but can''t afford one.

This is my issue, as well. I interpreted it as "If you want the procedure, we''ll help you get it." And I don''t see how that is an issue. If they do not want (more) children, and the government wants to help them (as poverty and overpopulation are both large issues), then I really don''t see why that''s a problem. The potential impact on taxpayers is another issue.

However, I do think it would be better if it were a direct billing situation, and not limited to women... i.e. qualifying persons can receive vasectomies or tubal ligations, and the government will receive and pay the hospital bill. Rather than "Here''s a check for $1000, go get your tubes tied."


As to why they''d offer it to women and not men... in that demographic, who more often incurs the cost and responsibility of said children--women or men? So, who stands to benefit more from sterilization, women or men?

 

[iheartscience]

It''s described as a financial incentive so I''m pretty sure if you get your tubes tied you get $1000. And he said he''s now changed his position and suggests financial incentives for temporary forms of birth control. So yeah, I''m pretty sure it''s giving women $1000 in addition to paying for the tubal ligation.

 

[iheartscience]

Also, I''m sure $1000 is nowhere near enough money to pay for a tubal ligation, so it doesn''t really make sense that the $1000 is for the actual surgery for a poor woman.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/27/2008 10:04:27 PM
Author: musey

This is my issue, as well. I interpreted it as 'If you want the procedure, we'll help you get it.' And I don't see how that is an issue. If they do not want (more) children, and the government wants to help them (as poverty and overpopulation are both large issues), then I really don't see why that's a problem. The potential impact on taxpayers is another issue.

However, I do think it would be better if it were a direct billing situation, and not limited to women... i.e. qualifying persons can receive vasectomies or tubal ligations, and the government will receive and pay the hospital bill. Rather than 'Here's a check for $1000, go get your tubes tied.'


As to why they'd offer it to women and not men... in that demographic, who more often incurs the cost and responsibility of said children--women or men? So, who stands to benefit more from sterilization, women or men?

Right, I think setting restrictions and parameters on it that targets poor and/or minorities and/or those on welfare is the sketchy part. I mean, I don't know if I would support it in either scenario, but the government already subsidizes other birth control methods and one where the government is paying for the procedure is definitely less offensive IMHO.

ETA: Thanks for the info thing2of2, I didn't think $1000 was enough for the procedure; $1000 doesn't get very much medical care nowadays. I was thinking more along the lines of government subsidization rather than full coverage like in the case of BCPs and PP. I would like to think that most women even considering the procedure are doing so to be more responsible and wouldn't take the decision so lightly, but people do suprise me everyday!