Drug addicts paid for Sterilization

[Pittsey]

Drug Addicts Being Paid to Sterilize Themselves

We live in a world where drug addicts are being paid to prevent themselves from reproducing. The going rate for long-term contraception or sterilization: $300.Based in North Carolina, Project Prevention is a non-profit organization with the singular goal of putting an end to substance-exposed births. In doing so, the group says the tax burden of this social problem will be alleviated, social workers will have a lot less to do and drug addicted “clients” will be protected from the emotional burden of having children taken away from them. (They actually don’t mention the fact that infants with prenatal exposure to drugs may suffer from neurobehavioral symptoms such as withdrawal and irritability, as well as low-birth weight, increased risk for SIDS, and fetal alcohol syndrome).Funded through private donations, Project Prevention reports that as of last month, 3,359 addicts were paid to not have children. Addicts were paid in all 50 states. Of those who participated in the Project Prevention program: 1,059 chos Depo-Provera, 1,251 tubal ligation, 858 IUD, 106 Implanon, 38 Norplant and 47 had vasectomies.To receive money from Project Prevention, people must procure evidence that they have been arrested on narcotic offences, or provide a doctor's letter confirming they use drugs. Documented proof that the medical procedure has actually taken place is also required. Critics of the program argue that paying addicts who may very well have impaired judgment to sterilize themselves is wrong. Additionally, some suggest that sterilization would be eliminating any hope for a family in the future – arguably one of the most powerful incentive for addicts to get clean.

They have now moved to London to try the same approach? Do you agree with it? As much as I would like not to, I agree with it. I have seen too many fuck ups.

 

[Elmira]

There are too many junkies out there who will abuse this policy for their own benefit: namely, show the evidence, take the 'bribe,' and use the money to fund their already deadly addiction.

 

[keco52]

After reading the statistics I don't see how anyone could be agsinst it

The following are the statistics as of April 26th, 2010:
The following numbers were obtained through our Client Survey Form which all participants fill out. These numbers are prior to obtaining long-term birth control through our program:

3,432 - Total number of paid clients.
15,025 - Total number of pregnancies. (Not including miscarriages)
10,486 - Total number of births (some resulted in multiple births).
4,495 - Total number of abortions
702 - Stillborn births. Also, another 396 had very brief lives, dying soon after birth from complications.
5,939- Total number of these children remaining in foster care to date.
1,059 have chosen Depo-Provera, 1,272 Tubal Ligation, 892 IUD, 121 Implanon, 38 Norplant, and 51 Vasectomies.
1,714 clients have been Caucasian, 913 African-American, 441 Hispanic, and 364 of other ethnic backgrounds.
We've paid addicts in ALL States!
Average pregnancies per addict

If one divides the number of living children by the number of women paid it appears that the average number of children born to addicts paid is three, but that is a misleading calculation. Here are the true numbers given to us by the women themselves. (*number of pregnancies include 4,428 pregnancies that were aborted)

1 was pregnant 21 times
16 were pregnant 16 times
12 were pregnant 15 times
19 were pregnant 14 times
19 were pregnant 13 times
31 were pregnant 12 times
33 were pregnant 11 times
98 were pregnant 10 times
149 were pregnant 9 times
166 were pregnant 8 times
220 were pregnant 7 times
313 were pregnant 6 times
401 were pregnant 5 times
all others were pregnant 0 to 4 times

Many seem concerned about the sterilization offer as a choice of birth control. It is important for you to know that NO ONE has been sterilized who hasn't already had children.

Here are the stats for the last 20 women/addicts we paid prior to their decision to get a tubal ligation.

121 pregnancies between them
24 abortions between them
6 of their children either stillborn or died after birth from complications That is an average of 6 pregnancies prior to being sterilized
Average of 4 living children each.
78 of their children remain in foster care (they can reclaim them if they get clean)

http://www.projectprevention.org/statistics/

 

[Pittsey]

^^

Just from the fact it's very much the opposite of the freedoms we have fought for over the centuries.

There are too many junkies out there who will abuse this policy for their own benefit: namely, show the evidence, take the 'bribe,' and use the money to fund their already deadly addiction.

They will definitely use the money for drugs. But once sterilised it means that there will be less children born dependent on narcotics. In the UK 2 from every 5 kids in care comes from a drug dependent mother. When you are "fucked up" you are less likely to consider contraception.

It's a win win situation. The charity is protecting the kids (well sort of). And the parents are getting £200 or $300 to feed their addiction.

I do worry about the mental damage this sterilisation will do to the woman if she manages to get clean and turn her life around though. Although as those who know addicts will see, most are stuck with their addictions.

 

[keco52]

^That's why I bolded the statement that said all of the addicts already had children. I know a lot of addicts. They have plenty of kids that they already don't take care of. If they do decide to get clean and straighten their life up they can attempt to get back the 4-6 kids they have in foster care. That should be their first priority.

In most cases the methods they're using are reversible anyway. If they were forced to do it I wouldn't agree...but they're being paid and it's their choice.

 

[ARon]

How does this help the women? It's like, well you won't be having any more abortions so go have a nice day and throw your life away we're done with you now. What they're doing is real bold and fulfilling:notrust:

 

[S O F I]

This has serious implications for race relations. While the total number of Caucasians sterilized is higher, percentage wise, Blacks and Hispanics are being sterilized at a higher rate. Add to that the fact that drug use, at the level depicted in this program, is much more prevalent in low-income communities that house minorities. At what point does one stop and say "They're making sure Blacks and Hispanics don't reproduce". I can just imagine Republican politicians getting boners from these programs because non-profits are doing the work for them.

 

[masta247]

Yes, everyone loves to give away their money. Let's give even more money to the bums. Viva socialism.

The reason behind it is good though. But means are wrong. In reality it's paying them for being drug addicts.

 

[keco52]

Guess no one clicked the link. They offer them referrals to rehab. Also meth users are predominantly white and its the worst most addictive drug in my opinion.

 

[S O F I]

and crack users are predominantly Black.

 

[Pittsey]

@Keco

I read it. And did read the bolded part. But the info I have about the UK programme, didn't offer that information. I agree with it, like you do. But don't want to.


I guess in the Uk our drug users are more multi-racial. And Meth isn't common here. Heroin is more prevalent.

 

[Elmira]

The problem with most social reform in this country is that they always go for the easier solution. I know it's nearly impossible to be rid of urban poverty and the drug war that's escalating, but you'd think there could be a more radical, innovative approach to this. Instead the outcome is always two steps forward, five steps back.


And how is social workers having less to do a benefit from this? Doesn't that just put more people out of a job?

 

[S O F I]

^You want a more radical solution than sterilizing drug addicts? haha, maybe we have different understandings of what radical is. This seems pretty radical. I agree with the overall point.

And, when it comes to gov't workers, yes, we want more gov't workers out of a job to decrease gov't spending. But no, obviously, their efforts would be redirected to other means.

 

[Synful*Luv]

I don't know how I feel about this.

There are pros and cons. I've read through it and can't come up with an answer. I'm confused.

 

[masta247]

^You want a more radical solution than sterilizing drug addicts?

Yes, they should be gang raped by raging homos and left naked to fight a war in Afghanistan. Everyone happy, lots of money saved, world problems solved.

My plan is actually great.