# Mandatory birth control for welfare? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2008, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832 "2008-02-01T06:24:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/221 "2015-03-26T15:16:24Z")
> [@MissTake](#): > > RSDI/SSDI: Retirement/Survivor/Dependant Insurance or Supplemental/Survivor/Disability Insurance: This is what you _currently_ receive, **curlcoat**. It is based on what you paid into the system. It can also be granted to children/spouses of recipients. IT IS FINITE. When you were working, every year you received a letter from the SSA outlining benefits available to you based on what you paid in. At some point you hopefully will outlive the benefits. If you do, you will receive: > SSI: Supplemental Security Insurance: This IS federal welfare. Period. It’s for people who have exhausted RSDI/SSDI or who do not have enough work credits to pay a sustainable living solely from RSDI/SSDI. It is a FLAT amount that is adjusted for living every January. In my neck of the woods, SSI is $733/mo for a single person, $1100/mo for a married person _maximum_. I do not think this is correct. Where are you getting this “finiteness” of SSA benefits? ---
**Author:** ![MissTake](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misstake/32/3189_2.png) [@MissTake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MissTake)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/222 "2015-03-26T15:49:13Z")
There is a finiteness of RSDI/SSDI benefits. They can be exhausted and often are supplemented with SSI benefits. In the case of retirement benefits, the letter you receive yearly outlines what your benefits are if you work until a certain age OR if you become disabled now. Those numbers are different - obviously if you become disabled NOW versus retiring at age 70, there will be less money to stretch your presumed lifespan. When a person receives RSDI/SSDI based on disability, it’s meant for a short term - to keep you going until you can work again. SSI benefits are different. As I said above, SSI is pure Federal welfare. It is not based on previous work quarters, it’s based on a persons long term inability to work and LACK of work quarters. I have many clients that receive RSDI/SSDI based on previous work quarters - they were injured / unable to work / older. I have clients who have never worked and will never have the ability to work - they receive SSI. I have clients who receive a combo of both RSDI/SSDI and SSI - they have insufficient work quarters to allow a livable income from RSDI/SSDI alone, so the Feds supplement it with SSI. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/223 "2015-03-26T15:55:28Z")
> [@MissTake](#): > > There is a finiteness of RSDI/SSDI benefits. They can be exhausted and often are supplemented with SSI benefits. I don’t think you have this right. Yes, they can be supplemented with SSI benefits, but that is when the person did not earn enough during their working life to make their SSA benefits above the SSI supplement level. The different levels of payment are based on actuarial tables. Yes, if you start collecting earlier, the payments are lower, and if you start collecting later, the payments are higher. This is a calculation based on your expected lifespan, but it does not impact how long the benefit will last once you start receiving it. If you start receiving Social Security retirement payments at age 62 and then live to be 122, you will receive the payments for 60 years. Now, it is true that the money you pay in is finite, and it’s true that some people take out way more than they pay in, while others pay in way more than they take out. But the retirement benefits do not stop once you hit a certain amount of payout. They are simply calculated based on the pay-in. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/224 "2015-03-26T17:14:47Z")
> [@MissTake](#): > > It appears the concept of Social Security needs to be explained to someone yet again - I’ve done it before and it hasn’t sunk in. > There are TWO forms of Social Security: > RSDI/SSDI: Retirement/Survivor/Dependant Insurance or Supplemental/Survivor/Disability Insurance: This is what you _currently_ receive, **curlcoat**. It is based on what you paid into the system. It can also be granted to children/spouses of recipients. IT IS FINITE. When you were working, every year you received a letter from the SSA outlining benefits available to you based on what you paid in. At some point you hopefully will outlive the benefits. If you do, you will receive: > SSI: Supplemental Security Insurance: This IS federal welfare. If so, then I won’t get SSI, if for no other reason than I doubt I’ll qualify for it. I have two pensions coming after I’m 65, and my husband has two and working on a third. Should my SSDI run out, I won’t even apply for SSI. > [@](#): > > Example: You receive RSDI/SSDI because you paid in for many years. Your BENEFIT (as the SSA even calls it - NOT an entitlement, a benefit) can be up to a few thousand per month. Don’t really care what the SSA calls it, it is still something I am entitled to because I paid into it for almost 40 years. Wow, a few thousand a month? I’m not getting anywhere near that. > [@](#): > > The benefits are intertwined. There aren’t two separate pots of money - one for only the “good” people who have worked their fingers to nubbins are are taking back their money only. It’s one pot divvied up depending on your situation. I know that. My point is that I am not taking welfare because I am one of those who worked to pay in. > [@](#): > > The money you paid in is LONG gone, issued to someone years ago as RSDI/SSDI or SSI. The money you are received is paid for by us who are currently paying into the system. I know that too - when I was paying in, I was paying for people getting paid at that time. However, those who are paying in now will receive their payments when they qualify for them > [@](#): > > As far as welfare goes - as has been pointed out - it, too, is finite. FIVE YEARS in a lifetime. Unless a new baby is born. > [@](#): > > Yes, workers DO verify if a recipient is working / going to school. Yes, there is fraud. Yes, some people are caught, some people do not. We have a pretty strong fraud team where I work, who do go out and check claims of fraud. People are charged with crimes. Where are you? > [@](#): > > When you’re rollin’ in the majestic amount of $437/mo, how would you live? If you share a house, the roommate’s income is counted towards your income and that $437 shrinks, as does food stamps. So you do hair for cash. You scrap aluminum. And you live poor, usually in a crime ridden area of the city - because that’s all you can afford. And you hope you and your child don’t give up and enter a life of crime, since that’s all you see around you and - hell - they ARE rolling in cash! > It takes a STRONG person to break the cycle of welfare. Yes it does, and most of the folks are not that strong, particularly when they can just give up and have someone else pay for their food and board. It would have been very easy for me to do that, and sure I thought about it at times, but instead I just worked two or three jobs, and didn’t have anything I couldn’t afford to pay for. > [@](#): > > Somewhere I have a link to a federal study about welfare/child support and who receives it - I will have to find it. Would be interesting - I hope you find it! ---
**Author:** ![MissTake](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misstake/32/3189_2.png) [@MissTake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MissTake)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/225 "2015-03-26T17:16:46Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I don’t think you have this right. > > Yes, they can be supplemented with SSI benefits, but that is when the person did not earn enough during their working life to make their SSA benefits above the SSI supplement level. > > The different levels of payment are based on actuarial tables. Yes, if you start collecting earlier, the payments are lower, and if you start collecting later, the payments are higher. This is a calculation based on your expected lifespan, but it does not impact how long the benefit will last once you start receiving it. If you start receiving Social Security retirement payments at age 62 and then live to be 122, you will receive the payments for 60 years. > > Now, it is true that the money you pay in is finite, and it’s true that some people take out way more than they pay in, while others pay in way more than they take out. But the retirement benefits do not stop once you hit a certain amount of payout. They are simply calculated based on the pay-in. You are correct - I explained myself poorly. ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/226 "2015-03-26T17:43:44Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I know that. My point is that I am not taking welfare because I am one of those who worked to pay in. I’ve been working since I was 16, as has my husband. If tomorrow we both lost our jobs and we were unable to find immediate work and had to go on TANF and SNAP to take care of our daughter would we not be on welfare because we both worked and paid taxes for 16 years? ---
**Author:** ![MissTake](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misstake/32/3189_2.png) [@MissTake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MissTake)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/227 "2015-03-26T17:51:28Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Unless a new baby is born. Incorrect - it’s a five year in a life time limit. There ARE exceptions, but it is a difficult process, including health evaluations/job skills assessment. Again, I am speaking for where I am. > [@](#): > > Where are you? The Twin Cities. My clientele primarily reside in the poorest communities of Minneapolis and surrounding areas. [quote] > [@](#): > > Would be interesting - I hope you find it! [Report: Characteristics of a Typical Family Served by the Child Support Program](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/iv_d_characteristics_2010_census_results.pdf). It’s relevant to this discussion, IMO, because a person receiving cash benefits (TANF/child care subsidies in Minnesota) are required to have an open child support case. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/228 "2015-03-27T16:40:54Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Medical privacy laws existed before HIPAA. Try again. That was my question. Which medical privacy laws applied to the cases you were discussing? **tomndebb** suggested HIPAA, but I guess that wasn’t it, given the time frame. So which medical privacy laws applied to the situation? > [@](#): > > And given your past behavior you’d either ask for another cite or poo-poo any **story** that couldn’t be independently confirmed so what’s the point? Yes, in Great Debates and General Questions, cites are often requested and provided. IMO, it’s poor form to enter a debate stating definitively this is how XYZ works, I know, because I was involved, but I can’t tell you more, because PRIVACY. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/229 "2015-03-27T17:08:01Z")
> [@pbbth](#): > > I’ve been working since I was 16, as has my husband. If tomorrow we both lost our jobs and we were unable to find immediate work and had to go on TANF and SNAP to take care of our daughter would we not be on welfare because we both worked and paid taxes for 16 years? I don’t believe that whatever taxes are used to pay welfare are in a separate fund for the day you would need them. You would have to go on welfare if you all didn’t find immediate work? > [@MissTake](#): > > Incorrect - it’s a five year in a life time limit. There ARE exceptions, but it is a difficult process, including health evaluations/job skills assessment. Again, I am speaking for where I am. Then it must be highly different here, because the only limit on children is when they age out. It seems that you telling me that I’m wrong was a bit premature. > [@](#): > > [Report: Characteristics of a Typical Family Served by the Child Support Program](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/iv_d_characteristics_2010_census_results.pdf). It’s relevant to this discussion, IMO, because a person receiving cash benefits (TANF/child care subsidies in Minnesota) are required to have an open child support case. I will have to come back to this later as I don’t have time to focus on it now. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/230 "2015-03-27T17:39:48Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > … Medical privacy laws forbid me from revealing any details so no one bother to yell “cite!”, I can’t legally give you one. … You can give us any details you want except those which might identify the individuals involved. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/231 "2015-03-27T17:47:31Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > IMO, it’s poor form to enter a debate stating definitively this is how XYZ works, I know, because I was involved, but I can’t tell you more, because PRIVACY. I have direct personal experience in the area which I can not speak about in detail because of the law. _As I already stated_, the courts were involved. _Not only_ medical privacy laws. When the judge signed the gag order forbidding anyone involved from discussing the case with anyone not required to work on the situation _there was no expiration date_. Do you not understand that? The judge did not write “you are not to speak of this until D’Anconia asks you about this.” Why? Because in order to get your reproductive rights restricted you have have to do some really, really bad stuff. There was extensive reporting on the rather horrific things these women did to their murdered children, reported on by all the local newspapers and some national ones as well. The cases were and still are notorious. Which, more than the details, is the point here - you have to be a REALLY terrible, horrible person to get your reproductive rights restricted in the US. Way beyond the typical child abuser, way beyond the typical lethal child abuser. If it is THAT important to you pick a notorious child-death-by-abuse case in Chicago from the early 1990’s where the woman was in drug treatment at the time and ask a judge to issue official documents enabling me to speak about the matter, there’s a decent chance you’ll hit one of those cases I worked on… but I have a hunch you’ll need a better reason that “we were discussing this on an anonymous message board and I asked for this other poster to give me a cite”. I’ve seen these discussions before, where people like **curlcoat** claim that reproductive rights can’t be infringed. They can, but you don’t hear about them _because the law doesn’t allow it._ Not just medical privacy laws but also judges tend to put gag orders on the cases as well. It makes it nearly impossible to provide a cite in a discussion like this, or even find an example on an internet search. The records are not publicly available. Now, you can doubt I ever worked at a clinic, much less had even tangential involvement (mostly, I typed up letters for the other staff) but check into this yourself and you’ll find what I said is true - it’s almost impossible to find information on a woman’s having her reproductive rights restricted, and there’s a LOT of stuff sealed/gagged in any sort of child abuse death meaning that finding information on either side of the question is nearly impossible. Most of it will be in the form I just gave you - “I worked on such a case but I can’t discuss it”. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/232 "2015-03-27T18:05:32Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > You can give us any details you want except those which might identify the individuals involved. That’s the problem - these cases were and still are notorious. They were reported on _extensively_ not just locally but nationally (maybe even internationally but my access to foreign news was sharply limited back then). There are almost no details I can give that would not be identifying to the case. Here’s what I can tell you from probably the most well known one: 1. The woman was poor, single mother who lived in Chicago. 2. She had a history of both psychiatric and drug problems (what’s known as “dual diagnosis”) 3. Some (more than one, less than 5) previous children had died under somewhat suspicious circumstances. 4. There were signs of both abuse and neglect on all the children involved. 5. The last murder (it was deliberate, with intent to cause death) involved considerable outright torture by more than one method before the child was finally killed. 6. She lost all custody of her surviving children. 7. She lost all future custody of any future children - which were sort of unlikely, given that so far as I know she has never been outside an institution since. That also pretty much matches all the _other_ such cases I have knowledge about (a total of 3). One woman was not incarcerated/institutionalized but had a standing order that any child she gave birth to was to be taken from her at birth, without even giving her a chance to see or hold the baby. If you think that was an odd rule think about what might lead a judge to impose that rule and you’ll probably be close to the truth of the matter. Yes, that meant if she ever had another baby she would give birth in shackles/restraints. Keep in mind - in ALL of these cases _more than one_ child had died before the woman’s reproductive rights were restricted. They weren’t doing this because they were poor - they were poor because they were mentally ill and strung out on drugs which makes it pretty impossible to hold down any sort of work whatsoever. They weren’t nice people and they sure weren’t normal in any sense of the word. Well, physically normal. That’s how screwed up you have to be to have your right to reproduce restricted in this country. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? For purposes of this thread it doesn’t really matter. We don’t normally restrict fertility in this country. That means poor folks are going to have kids, too. At which point society has some interest in making sure the kids get at least the minimum they need to grow up to be healthy adults with some chance at being self-supporting citizens themselves. ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/233 "2015-03-27T18:06:41Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I don’t believe that whatever taxes are used to pay welfare are in a separate fund for the day you would need them. > > You would have to go on welfare if you all didn’t find immediate work? No, we have about 6 months worth of living expenses saved up and family that would pitch in for things if necessary. I was just wondering how exactly you are figuring that you getting benefits is cool because you paid taxes but someone else getting benefits after paying taxes isn’t kosher. After all, if I never file for SSDI all that money doesn’t get put in an envelope and given back to me, it goes into the overall fund, so to say that it is “my” money and that I paid in and “earned” my benefit would be incorrect. The taxes are paid and the funds set aside to help those who need it, not to act as a savings account for each individual person, no matter what math they decide to use when choosing how much benefit you recieve. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/234 "2015-03-27T18:10:42Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > You can give us any details you want except those which might identify the individuals involved. It doesnt really matter for this debate. Courts can order just about anything they want, especially in lieu of a extended prison sentence. Here’s a recent article: > **[Mentally Ill Woman Fights Court-Ordered Abortion and Sterilization](https://www.ncregister.com/news/mentally-ill-woman-fights-court-ordered-abortion-and-sterilization)** > > Court intervenes in a Catholic mother's treatment, but 'Mary Moe' gets reprieve from appeals court. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/02/09/judge-orders-woman-to-undergo-sterilizatio-2103800324/](http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/02/09/judge-orders-woman-to-undergo-sterilizatio-2103800324/) \*A Georgia judge ordered a mother of seven who pleaded guilty to killing her 5-week-old daughter to have a medical procedure to prevent her from having more children. Carisa Ashe (search) was charged with murder and faced life in prison if convicted. After two days of trial, Ashe, 34, admitted to voluntary manslaughter. As a condition of her sentence, she has 90 days to get a tubal ligation (search) or prosecutors can reinstate the murder charge, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes said in an order issued Tuesday.\* \*\*So it can happen. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/235 "2015-03-27T18:23:42Z")
Regarding the Georgia case, I have to wonder if that was later challenged. Also, if there was a lot more going on behind the scenes we can’t know. Judges can order a lot of things but that doesn’t always mean they’ll stick for the long term. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/236 "2015-03-27T18:50:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It doesnt really matter for this debate. Courts can order just about anything they want, especially in lieu of a extended prison sentence. > > Here’s a recent article: > [http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/mentally-ill-woman-fights-court-ordered-abortion-and-sterilization](http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/mentally-ill-woman-fights-court-ordered-abortion-and-sterilization) > [http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/02/09/judge-orders-woman-to-undergo-sterilizatio-2103800324/](http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/02/09/judge-orders-woman-to-undergo-sterilizatio-2103800324/) > \*A Georgia judge ordered a mother of seven who pleaded guilty to killing her 5-week-old daughter to have a medical procedure to prevent her from having more children. > > Carisa Ashe (search) was charged with murder and faced life in prison if convicted. After two days of trial, Ashe, 34, admitted to voluntary manslaughter. > > As a condition of her sentence, she has 90 days to get a tubal ligation (search) or prosecutors can reinstate the murder charge, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes said in an order issued Tuesday.\* > > \*\*So it can happen. \*\* I have no idea how your reply addresses my post, which was in answer to Broomstick’s claim that she couldn’t share any details of these cases. However, Broomstick, if these cases are so notorious, you could simply provide us links to published articles about them. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/237 "2015-03-27T18:54:20Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I have no idea how your reply addresses my post, which was in answer to Broomstick’s claim that she couldn’t share any details of these cases. > > However, Broomstick, if these cases are so notorious, you could simply provide us links to published articles about them. Well, no she cant as then that would disclose that she worked on them, etc. Are you needing this info to continue the debate? Clearly not as my cites provided it. or are you just giving Broomstick a hard time and bringing in a personal problem into a debate? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/238 "2015-03-27T18:58:27Z")
Again, I have no idea at all how your previous post had any relevance to what I said to Broomstick. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/239 "2015-03-27T19:08:03Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Again, I have no idea at all how your previous post had any relevance to what I said to Broomstick. What does her sharing the info have anything to do with this thread? It’s a hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/240 "2015-03-27T19:31:30Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > However, Broomstick, if these cases are so notorious, you could simply provide us links to published articles about them. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, no she cant as then that would disclose that she worked on them, etc. ^ This. Even if YOU, **Boyo Jim** , linked to one of the cases I worked on I would not be legally allowed to acknowledge I worked on it. I can state such things occur but someone else has to find the case independently. Thanks, DrDeth, for providing your cite. Given that yours occurred in Georgia while I was in Illinois it’s pretty clear that was not one I was involved in. I don’t know why it’s such a difficult concept for people to grasp that I am legally restricted in what I can and can’t say about these cases. Tell me, do YOU want people in your doctor’s office blabbing your personal details on line? If no, then why do you expect me to do that to someone else? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832.md?page=13)