Having Babies on the Taxpayer Dime: What, if anything, to do?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@curlcoat

Why do you think everyone has the right to at least one child no matter what?

Its just my opinion but I think procreation is a basic human right and once the poor child is born, I am willing to pay higher taxes to make sure it is fed, educated and healthy.

There is a long-acting implant, and it is an implant, not a shot. But then, I don’t expect you to know squat about birth control given your prior statements. Although upon review I see that it only lasts about 3 years, not 5, but the point still stands.

It looks like you might be talking about Norplant. Levonorgestrel-releasing implant - Wikipedia
It seems like these subdermal implants can be removed at any time and you can get pregnant again whent he hormones flush out of your system.

Do you have a link to this Depo Provera implant that shows that it cannot be safely removed before the end of the 3 year period?

I take it that you no longer think I am dumb and ignorant about welfare reform and its effect on children, right? AFAICT, the 5 year limit doesn’t start until you turn 18 in a lot of places.

The state’s ability to impose conditions is not unlimited.

Perhaps, but I think the state impose contraception requirements. One of the effects of welfare reform in 1996 is that welfare is no longer an entitlement.

I will also note that compulsory drug testing of ALL welfare recipients (not just those with a history of abuse) is also controversial even now.

But is it unconstitutional?

What do abortion restrictions have to do with imposing birth control on people?

I was responding to your comment about abortions (or forcing women to have children).

For my personal position? Not in the first trimester, no, I don’t there there should be any restrictions on abortions in the first third of pregnancy. I think in the last third it should only be for the life and health of the mother. For the middle – I am happy to leave that in the hands of hospital ethics committees.

I think we’re pretty much in the same place on this, I am willing to give the legislature a bit more leeway during the second trimester (when you seem to think it should be up to the doctors).

[Broomstick]

@Damuri_Ajashi

It looks like you might be talking about Norplant. Levonorgestrel-releasing implant - Wikipedia
It seems like these subdermal implants can be removed at any time and you can get pregnant again whent he hormones flush out of your system.

Do you have a link to this Depo Provera implant that shows that it cannot be safely removed before the end of the 3 year period?

Depends on how you define “safe”. Removal leaves a permanent scar. There can be complications like infection, difficulty in removal, allergic reactions… While none of those complications can be called common if you’re talking about forcing this on thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of individuals you’re going to have a definite pool of people having bad consequences. Will the state compensate them for pain, suffering, and possible permanent impairment. Will the state pay for removal once you leave government assistance or is that all on the affected person? And if the latter, how is that fair? You’ve forced them to be chemically sterilized while on aid, now you’re giving them the choice of remaining infertile or paying out of their own pocket for removal, and remember we’re talking about a category of people who simply won’t have much discretionary income and may not be able to afford safe removal in a proper facility with trained medical personnel.

I take it that you no longer think I am dumb and ignorant about welfare reform and its effect on children, right? AFAICT, the 5 year limit doesn’t start until you turn 18 in a lot of places.

Not in my state - you can five years per kid. That’s it. No extensions. Absolutely no TANF for anyone over 18.

I will also note that compulsory drug testing of ALL welfare recipients (not just those with a history of abuse) is also controversial even now.

But is it unconstitutional?

That’s one of the things being argued. Not yet determined decisively.

I think we’re pretty much in the same place on this, I am willing to give the legislature a bit more leeway during the second trimester (when you seem to think it should be up to the doctors).

No, I did NOT say “doctors”, I said “ethics committees”. Hospital ethics committees are not solely composed of doctors.

[Chen019]

@markdash

Is there anything to be done here, really? Or is this just a case of “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”?

Make contraception a condition of ongoing welfare entitlements. For example, you could provide a birth control shot for every three months of entitlements.

As economist Eric Crampton writes:

Receipt of various benefits already comes with a laundry list of conditions. If you’re getting the accommodation supplement, you have to report family income. That gives some people incentive either to hide that they’re living with their partner or, worse, to have one partner leave. Here’s one list of the requirements around disclosing to Work and Income whether you’re “in a relationship for income assistance purposes”. Is it coercive that, if you care about being truthful, you may be forced (in the (5) sense) to avoid entering into a relationship? Whatever the costs of coercion in those cases, they seem outweighed by the ability better to target benefits to those most in need.

I have a hard time seeing how adding contraception as condition of receipt of benefit is different in kind from the other forms of coercion that already surround receipt of welfare payments. People still choose whether to accept the bundle of restrictions and payments. The exchange fails to be Euvoluntary as (5) is definitely violated. But (5) is pretty likely to be violated if any conditions are attached to welfare receipt.

[Guinastasia]

@Deeg

My sister and her husband are foster parents and there are times when I get very unhappy when I learn about another screw-up parent(s) and their kids who are going to be screwed up for life. I am all for forced sterilizations.

The same way we trust our government to lock people away in prison for the rest of their lives: we have a trial-by-jury and if the jury decides that the defendant is likely to have another child who will end up being taken away then they get the proverbial snip-snip.

Right now we allow local governments to take children away from their parents without any trial. I don’t see why mandatory sterilization after a trial is more icky than the state taking away children and putting them in foster care.

You know who else was for forced sterilization?

Seriously, do you even know about the history of this kind of thing? You’re honestly advocating forcing surgery on others? That’s fucking disgusting. It is “icky”. The “proverbial snip-snip” is permanent. We don’t do that kind of thing to people. That would be like forcing people to have abortions – they do that kind of thing in Communist China.

I’m all for advocating birth control. But not for forcing surgery on others. This kind of thing sickens me. Ugh!

[Chen019]

@Guinastasia

You know who else was for forced sterilization?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr? George Bernhard Shaw? Alexander Graham Bell? HG Wells? I give up

This is why you need to offer temporary contraceptive measures such as birth shots which last about 3 months as a condition of welfare.

[Broomstick]

Except, of course, as already mentioned, such shot can and do have side effects and a certain number of women should not receive such medications due to side effects that range all the way up to debilitating stroke or death.

OFFERING contraception to everyone should, IMO, be the norm for society. Regrettably, no only is effective contraception expensive enough to be beyond the means of the most needy, we also have elements in our society trying to actively deny access to contraception.

On the flip side, COERCING contraception is not cool.

[actualliberalnotoneofthose]

I know that my state is pretty aggressive about suggesting state funded sterilization if you give birth on Medicaid.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Broomstick

Depends on how you define “safe”. Removal leaves a permanent scar. There can be complications like infection, difficulty in removal, allergic reactions… While none of those complications can be called common if you’re talking about forcing this on thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of individuals you’re going to have a definite pool of people having bad consequences. Will the state compensate them for pain, suffering, and possible permanent impairment. Will the state pay for removal once you leave government assistance or is that all on the affected person? And if the latter, how is that fair? You’ve forced them to be chemically sterilized while on aid, now you’re giving them the choice of remaining infertile or paying out of their own pocket for removal, and remember we’re talking about a category of people who simply won’t have much discretionary income and may not be able to afford safe removal in a proper facility with trained medical personnel.

Actually I wasn’t thinking Norplant, you were. Depo Provera (which seems to have fewer side effects than Norplant) is a shot once every 3 months. Now in an ideal world we would just make birth control free to the poor but there are some idiots out there that will insist on having children they can’t afford anyways. And for them I would make birth control a condition of welfare after the first kid.

Not in my state - you can five years per kid. That’s it. No extensions. Absolutely no TANF for anyone over 18.

Once again, ,you’re the one that brought up TANF I would make the requirement for contraception apply to everything from HUD to food stamps.

That’s one of the things being argued. Not yet determined decisively.

Any indication at all that this would be unconstitutional?

No, I did NOT say “doctors”, I said “ethics committees”. Hospital ethics committees are not solely composed of doctors.

Doctors, lawyers, whatever. I am saying that I would give more discretion to the legislature in the second trimester rather than the entity that is going to get paid for performing the procedure. I’m not saying that these people are mercenaries but what you are talking about seems like a conflict of interests.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Broomstick

Except, of course, as already mentioned, such shot can and do have side effects and a certain number of women should not receive such medications due to side effects that range all the way up to debilitating stroke or death.

OFFERING contraception to everyone should, IMO, be the norm for society. Regrettably, no only is effective contraception expensive enough to be beyond the means of the most needy, we also have elements in our society trying to actively deny access to contraception.

On the flip side, COERCING contraception is not cool.

In an ideal world just making contraception available would be enough. What rational person would want to have a second child when they cannot afford the first? But there are a lot of irrational people in this world and they are probably less qualified to have kids than most. And for them I am willing to force their hand and tell them they can’t have any more kids while they are on government assistance.

But don’t worry, there are too many religious folks in this country for this sort of rule to ever be adopted.

[bob_2]

@markdash

To clarify, I am absolutely against any action that’s coercive. What I do advocate is fully subsidized birth control, plus some other incentive.

I’m pretty sure I’m liberal enough to agree with fully subsidized birth control for anyone who wants it, but that’s not really the point of the debate.

In the UK, birth control is free. Schoolgirls can get it, even without parental consent. Yet we still have the same problem.

Some ‘experts’ say “Education.” Others suggest more drastic solutions. No one really has a solution apart from the women (and don’t forget the men) involved.

There is another ancillary question. What do you do when the woman is mentally incompetent - say Down’s Syndrome, she discovers the pleasure of sex but doesn’t have the capacity to recognise the consequences.

[Broomstick]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Once again, ,you’re the one that brought up TANF I would make the requirement for contraception apply to everything from HUD to food stamps.

If you make it a requirement of food stamps you’re talking about sterilizing 1/6 of the US population. Do you really think that’s appropriate?

And if we do make it that extensive - well, we should make it mandatory for everyone getting government assistance. So… also mandatory for mortgage tax deduction, agricultural subsidies, the board of directors and executives of companies receiving tax breaks for their businesses, Wall Street financial types receiving a government bailout for their own mistakes…

Any indication at all that this would be unconstitutional?

Violation of right to privacy, also, the courts have usually ruled forcing medical care on people against their will is not permitted unless those people are a direct danger to themselves and others.

Doctors, lawyers, whatever. I am saying that I would give more discretion to the legislature in the second trimester rather than the entity that is going to get paid for performing the procedure. I’m not saying that these people are mercenaries but what you are talking about seems like a conflict of interests.

Given what happened the LAST time legislatures in several countries were given control over other peoples’ fertility they are the very last people I’d hand the decision to. Contrary to rumor, doctors don’t really enjoy cutting people up for no good reason. Also, it’s not like the woman involved wouldn’t have a say, either.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Broomstick

If you make it a requirement of food stamps you’re talking about sterilizing 1/6 of the US population. Do you really think that’s appropriate?

I don’t think the word sterilize is appropriate because it connotes permanence. But to answer your question, only the ones capable of childbearing. I am going to guess that a lot of those people on food stamps are either children, the elderly or men.

About 14% of the US population (or about 45 million) are women of childbearing years (15-44). I don’t know if the ratios translate but if a sixth of them are on food stamps then we are talking about requiring contraceptives for ~2% of the population.

And if we do make it that extensive - well, we should make it mandatory for everyone getting government assistance. So… also mandatory for mortgage tax deduction, agricultural subsidies, the board of directors and executives of companies receiving tax breaks for their businesses, Wall Street financial types receiving a government bailout for their own mistakes…

The mortgage tax deduction is different than food stamps. Someone taking the mortgage tax deductions is probably not relying on welfare to support their children. Its pretty silly to equate welfare to tax expenditures.

I think the Wall Street types should go to jail and repay their ill gotten gains. If that leads to them being on public assistance then they should be subject to the same rules as anyone else.

Violation of right to privacy, also, the courts have usually ruled forcing medical care on people against their will is not permitted unless those people are a direct danger to themselves and others.

I’ll just repeat that I don’t think that making it a condition of receiving a benefit is not the same as forcing them to do anything against their will.

Given what happened the LAST time legislatures in several countries were given control over other peoples’ fertility they are the very last people I’d hand the decision to.

You mean China? I suppose their “one child” policy has created some demographic issues for them but its not like this policy made them round up the Jews and put them in concentration camps or anything. :rolleyes:

Contrary to rumor, doctors don’t really enjoy cutting people up for no good reason. Also, it’s not like the woman involved wouldn’t have a say, either.

Didn’t you just chastise me for thinking its just doctors on these ethics boards?

Its not for no good reason, its for money and the women wouldn’t be there in the first place if they didn’t want to shell out said money for the procedure. Like I said, I’m not saying that hostpitals are mercenaries but there is a conflict of interest there. Close calls might tend to be called in favor of increasing their paychecks. Why do you have a problem leaving it to the legislatures as long as we have free and unemcumbered abortions in the first trimester.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Any indication at all that this would be unconstitutional?

yes

[Deeg]

@Guinastasia

You know who else was for forced sterilization?

Seriously, do you even know about the history of this kind of thing? You’re honestly advocating forcing surgery on others? That’s fucking disgusting. It is “icky”. The “proverbial snip-snip” is permanent. We don’t do that kind of thing to people. That would be like forcing people to have abortions – they do that kind of thing in Communist China.

We throw people in prison for life. We sometimes kill them. We rip children away from their parents on allegations of abuse. All of those are more intrusive IMO than forced sterilization. Your need to invoke Hitler carries no weight with me.

I’m willing to compromise on a less permanent solution if a reasonable one can be found. Another possibility is this: if one’s child is born with an addiction to some drug then they are potentially guilty of criminal neglect; if found guilty by a trial then they face five years in prison.

[Broomstick]

@Damuri_Ajashi

About 14% of the US population (or about 45 million) are women of childbearing years (15-44). I don’t know if the ratios translate but if a sixth of them are on food stamps then we are talking about requiring contraceptives for ~2% of the population.

As children and single women are disproportionately poor in the US it would be more than 2%.

The mortgage tax deduction is different than food stamps.

No, it’s not. It’s financial assistance that comes from the government. If people want a mortgage they can either damn well pay for it entirely on their own or, if they can’t, be subject to the exact same requirement we impose for food stamps, TANF, and Medicaid.

I’ll just repeat that I don’t think that making it a condition of receiving a benefit is not the same as forcing them to do anything against their will.

If someone puts a gun to your head and says “either give me your wallet or I put a bullet in your brain” that’s not being forced to do anything against your will because, after all, he’s giving you a choice, right? And if you want over your wallet, well, you chose to do that, right?

You mean China? I suppose their “one child” policy has created some demographic issues for them but its not like this policy made them round up the Jews and put them in concentration camps or anything. :rolleyes:

Ah, you are ignorant.

No, I wasn’t talking about China. I was talking about the US, and yes, Germany in the first half of the 20th Century. More specifically, the eugenics movement, which originated in the US, forcibly sterilized thousands of people, sometimes without even the knowledge, much less the consent, of either the people sterilized or their families.

And yes, it really did start a ball rolling that wound up with not just the Jews but about 12 million people being killed under the Nazis.

Seriously, look up the history of the eugenics movement. 64,000 sterilized in the US alone. The Nazis looked at the California program and though it was such a good idea they decided to implement their own program. The Rockefeller Foundation not only helped developed Nazi programs, it helped fund them, too, including Dr. Josef Mengele prior to his move to Auschwitz. Then the freakin’ Nazis - inspired by American programs - thought the whole “limit the inferior” crap was so wonderful they starting killing off the mentally disabled, the insane, then the crippled, then moved on to entire ethnic groups.

So roll your eyes all you want - eugenics, which is what you’re talking about, did in fact lead to the Nazi death camps.

Why do you have a problem leaving it to the legislatures as long as we have free and unemcumbered abortions in the first trimester.

12 million dead in Europe by 1945
64,000 sterilized against their will, and a significant number without their knowledge in the US.
62,000 sterilized in Sweden - yes, Sweden, considerably smaller than the US, sterilized nearly as many individuals, and was second only to Nazi Germany in Europe.
Tens of thousands sterilized in Canada, disproportionately Native/First Nations and new immigrants.
100,000 Australian children removed from their parents for no damn good reason
A government campaign in Brazil to consciously reduce the numbers of full-blood Afro-Brazilians in favor of lighter skin color.
The genocide against the Herero people in African carried out by German colonial officials in an effort to eliminate a “race” they viewed as “inferior” (one of those officials was named Goring, by the way - his son wound up in charge of the Third Reich’s aviation)
In Europe Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland also had compulsory sterilization programs in the name of eugenics although I don’t have numbers for those nations.

So, you want to control peoples’ reproductive habits? Fine. But consider the company you keep when you do so. Learn some actual history. Legislatures do a shit job when given that power.

[Broomstick]

@Deeg

I’m willing to compromise on a less permanent solution if a reasonable one can be found. Another possibility is this: if one’s child is born with an addiction to some drug then they are potentially guilty of criminal neglect; if found guilty by a trial then they face five years in prison.

Is that going to apply to white, middle and upper class women abusing barbituates and alcohol just as much as to poor, colored women or will the usual historical exemptions apply?

When the wives, sisters, and daughters of billionaires start serving real jail time for sucking down drugs, booze, and cigarettes while pregnant maybe I can get behind that.

[AdmiralQ]

I would require that anyone receiving food stamps, rent assistance and similar programs be provided free birth control - not forced sterilization - provided that if they get pregnant while on government assistance, they lose eligibility for all government programs for life. A “one strike, you’re out” policy, if you will.

No where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to pop out kids - it is little to ask that someone receiving welfare - by definition someone not able to afford kids - not burden society with caring for their unneeded children.

[AdmiralQ]

@Broomstick

Is that going to apply to white, middle and upper class women abusing barbituates and alcohol just as much as to poor, colored women or will the usual historical exemptions apply?

When the wives, sisters, and daughters of billionaires start serving real jail time for sucking down drugs, booze, and cigarettes while pregnant maybe I can get behind that.

I would love to see anyone - rich or poor - that gives birth to a drug-addicted baby spend some serious time in prison. I wouldn’t extend it to alcohol or cigarettes though - those are still legal products. I would limit it to illegal drugs, with the exception of marijuana in states that have legalized its use.

[Broomstick]

@AdmiralQ

I would require that anyone receiving food stamps, rent assistance and similar programs be provided free birth control - not forced sterilization - provided that if they get pregnant while on government assistance, they lose eligibility for all government programs for life. A “one strike, you’re out” policy, if you will.

So… just sucks to be them if they use the birth control faithfully and they’re just one of the unlucky ones where it doesn’t work, or they get pregnant via rape, or whatever, right?

How about penalizing the men who are fathering these babies, or aren’t they responsible, too? How about if a man sires a baby with a woman on welfare HE loses all access to welfare, too?

@AdmiralQ

I would love to see anyone - rich or poor - that gives birth to a drug-addicted baby spend some serious time in prison. I wouldn’t extend it to alcohol or cigarettes though - those are still legal products. I would limit it to illegal drugs, with the exception of marijuana in states that have legalized its use.

No way - alcohol is FAR more damaging to infants than, say, heroin in, far more likely to result in life long disability. No, no pass for legal crap you still shouldn’t be taking while pregnant if you’re going to impose penalties like that. No pass on cigarettes, either. No pass on marijuana whether legal or not. No pass on prescription drugs with bad effects for baby.

Either we punish women for putting infants at risk or we don’t. None of this picking and choosing.

[Icarus]

You guys are looking at this all backward.

From an evolutionary standpoint the drug addicted fertile gal is successfully adapted to her environment, and is passing on her genes by producing offspring. The offspring might inherit this adaptability, and it may become a trait that is selected for in future generations. We, as a species, should do what it takes to continue this!

How about that?