@ Woman On Mission to Get Drug Addicts on Birth Control

[orangeblossom]

I don't like this.

www.wbtv.com/story/35526947/nc-woman-on-mission-to-get-drug-addicts-on-birth-control


Barbara Harris is the founder of a non-profit organization called Project Prevention, based in Harrisburg. She travels around the country in her van, giving cash incentives to drug addicts who agree to get on permanent birth control.

Addicts do not receive birth control inside her RV. They must get their birth control from a health clinic, then send her the paperwork. After that, Harris sends them $300.

[wawa]

Wouldn't that 300 be better spent going toward housing or treatment or something?

[kirra]

Using cash as an incentive makes me cringe. It's providing incentive to take it for all the wrong reasons and it won't make a difference long term.

That being said, I've had some privileged friends who had trouble getting birth control. I would absolutely support any ethical method that made it easier for any woman to access bc- especially women who might want birth control if they thought it was an option but don't think it is. But I'm thinking along the lines of this is where you can get bc, we can help pay for it, and we can provide transportation.

[anlo]

This just seems so dismissive and dehumanizing to these people. Like, forget the fact that you have an addiction and are likely in need of any number of services that could help you long term. Can I interest you in a Mirena?

Don't get me wrong, of course no one wants to see babies born addicted to drugs. And certainly a pregnancy would likely be a hardship. But this sounds more like shaming to me than help.

[Vespasia]

I'm very, very pro-birth control and abortion but this is messed up. Sterilizing "undesirables" never ends well.

[gretchenindisguise]

I'd be fine with this if it wasn't permanent. Why does it have to be sterilization? Why not an IUD?

[cmeon]

Both IUDs and implants are options she offers for women, though she also offers the "reward" after tubal ligation and vasectomy for men. So, women do have non-permanent choices.

She's adopted 4 drug dependent infants. It's a lot harder to feel sympathy for drug addicted adults than the babies born to them, and I imagine that gets even harder for some when their adopted children have challenges related to their birth parents' chemical abuse.

So, not exactly purely noble, but, it sounds like she's comfortable with that.

[sonrisa]

I wish *everyone* could get these for free if they wanted them (IUD, implants, etc.) regardless of addiction history. That is what we need as country - easy access to longterm birth control for anyone who wants it.

She's a different matter.

[bimbi284]

Yeah this has been making the rounds in my network, and definitely not because we are in favor.

[goldengirlz]

Giving that much cash to an addict seems dangerous and exploitative.

I don't hate the concept in theory -- at least not the whole concept (I don't like pushing permanent options, for instance). Part of the reason I donate to Planned Parenthood is because they helped me when I couldn't afford birth control (pre-ACA) and I would totally support an initiative to fund IUDs and Implanon for low-income women who need a long-term BC option. Wouldn't that be a better use of this woman's funds?

[readyin07]

So...I am pretty sure I am not a fan.

But our neighbors fostered then adopted a child born to a drug addicted mom. She is a beautiful sweet 5 year old but she has had so freaking many problems due to this ranging from psychotic episodes to global learning and developmental delays. She is fortunate to have ended up with a family that would move heaven and earth to get her the help she needs but that is clearly not always the case and she will deal with the ramifications from the drug use the rest of her life. I understand the impetus behind what the woman is doing and protecting kids from a life like that...the method just seems exploitive to me.

[kershnic]

I can't decide if $300 is coercive to a poor person who is addicted to drugs or not. I'm not against incentives in general to push people from not getting long term birth control because of lack of funds or lack of motivation to go to a doctors appointment. I am absolutely against any efforts to stop people who have drug addictions from making a choice to reproduce.

I have worked in child welfare and mental health for a Medicaid population. So many people have babies not because they want them but because they just live their lives and a baby happens. And then everyone suffers. We need waaayy more funding and effort on treating addiction and helping people out of poverty, but this woman's $300/person will not solve their drug addiction or poverty.

[onomatopoeia]

Jun 1, 2017 20:51:07 GMT -5 anlo said:

This just seems so dismissive and dehumanizing to these people. Like, forget the fact that you have an addiction and are likely in need of any number of services that could help you long term. Can I interest you in a Mirena?

Don't get me wrong, of course no one wants to see babies born addicted to drugs. And certainly a pregnancy would likely be a hardship. But this sounds more like shaming to me than help.

I disagree.  It's not an either-or situation...rehab or birth control.  She offers them referrals to rehab and partners with collateral agencies in her area to provide support.  If they can stay kid-free while getting clean (or stay kid-free while not getting clean) then I kind of see that as win-win for a lot of reasons.

It's a non-permanent, voluntary program for at-risk women and men.  I can understand the controversy, but ultimately I don't have a big problem with this.

[anlo]

Jun 2, 2017 9:20:07 GMT -5 onomatopoeia said:

Jun 1, 2017 20:51:07 GMT -5 anlo said:

This just seems so dismissive and dehumanizing to these people. Like, forget the fact that you have an addiction and are likely in need of any number of services that could help you long term. Can I interest you in a Mirena?

Don't get me wrong, of course no one wants to see babies born addicted to drugs. And certainly a pregnancy would likely be a hardship. But this sounds more like shaming to me than help.

I disagree.  It's not an either-or situation...rehab or birth control.  She offers them referrals to rehab and partners with collateral agencies in her area to provide support.  If they can stay kid-free while getting clean (or stay kid-free while not getting clean) then I kind of see that as win-win for a lot of reasons.

It's a non-permanent, voluntary program for at-risk women and men.  I can understand the controversy, but ultimately I don't have a big problem with this.

I understand your points and I'm glad she is working with others.

However, some of the bc methods are permanent - vasectomy and tubal ligation.

[onomatopoeia]

Jun 2, 2017 9:29:34 GMT -5 anlo said:

Jun 2, 2017 9:20:07 GMT -5 onomatopoeia said:

I disagree.  It's not an either-or situation...rehab or birth control.  She offers them referrals to rehab and partners with collateral agencies in her area to provide support.  If they can stay kid-free while getting clean (or stay kid-free while not getting clean) then I kind of see that as win-win for a lot of reasons.

It's a non-permanent, voluntary program for at-risk women and men.  I can understand the controversy, but ultimately I don't have a big problem with this.

I understand your points and I'm glad she is working with others.

However, some of the bc methods are permanent - vasectomy and tubal ligation.

True.  I would hope that people would pick the less permanent birth control if they weren't sure though. Just because they're addicts doesn't mean they can't think through their options.  She's not giving them more money (which I would have a problem with) to take the permanent one.

[wawa]

Jun 2, 2017 10:09:21 GMT -5 leviosa said:

drugs are the biggest reason for children being in foster care in our state. Spending nights with babies who are withdrawing from Heroin or Cocaine, I can see where she's coming from. It hurts to see these babies in so much pain from something they didn't get to choose.

I think that the focus should be more on rehab. My daughters bio mom will do anything for money for drugs. This idea seems like it could be feeding into the drug epidemic. Not helping it.

right, what this program feels like to me is this woman saying, "look, I give up on these people.  I don't think there's a chance of helping them with their addiction.  i don't think that's worth the trouble.  But I'm willing to pay to make sure that they don't bring more children into their mess." 

And wanting to prevent children being born as addicts is commendable, but this model seems to presume that the adult in question is not worth helping in their own right.  Or is at least only secondarily worth helping. 

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but...that's where it's squicking me out.

[orangeblossom]

Jun 2, 2017 10:50:52 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jun 2, 2017 10:09:21 GMT -5 leviosa said:

drugs are the biggest reason for children being in foster care in our state. Spending nights with babies who are withdrawing from Heroin or Cocaine, I can see where she's coming from. It hurts to see these babies in so much pain from something they didn't get to choose.

I think that the focus should be more on rehab. My daughters bio mom will do anything for money for drugs. This idea seems like it could be feeding into the drug epidemic. Not helping it.

right, what this program feels like to me is this woman saying, "look, I give up on these people.  I don't think there's a chance of helping them with their addiction.  i don't think that's worth the trouble.  But I'm willing to pay to make sure that they don't bring more children into their mess." 

And wanting to prevent children being born as addicts is commendable, but this model seems to presume that the adult in question is not worth helping in their own right.  Or is at least only secondarily worth helping. 

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but...that's where it's squicking me out.

I This. I just have little doubt that at this isn't being done without coercion, a condescending attitude and the full informed consent of the participant, regardless of how well-intentioned she thinks she may come across.

Plus, the whole notion of giving an addict $300. Too bad, so sad you might overdose with the drug money I gave you.

There's no perfect solution, but this ain't it.

[downtoearth]

Jun 2, 2017 10:34:48 GMT -5 @mx said:

Why isn't she paying for their rehab programs instead. I have so many family members who would like to be in treatment but they are uninsured or minimally covered and they can't afford it. That would be a hell of a lot more effective for their families both present and future than coercing them into family planning decisions.

I don't think $300 would do anything for a rehab program, and it's not going to work if they aren't ready and willing. I would love for rehab to be free to all drug/alcohol addicts who wanted to go into it. It's not that they couldn't use the $300 after getting an IUD to start something if she also provides information/guidance.  I'm not sure I agree with all of this, especially since men only have the vasectomy option, but I also think it's one option and one that one local group has tried also (less the $300, but free birth control (temporary) and condoms for drug addicts - no questions asked).

[downtoearth]

Jun 2, 2017 10:50:52 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jun 2, 2017 10:09:21 GMT -5 leviosa said:

drugs are the biggest reason for children being in foster care in our state. Spending nights with babies who are withdrawing from Heroin or Cocaine, I can see where she's coming from. It hurts to see these babies in so much pain from something they didn't get to choose.

I think that the focus should be more on rehab. My daughters bio mom will do anything for money for drugs. This idea seems like it could be feeding into the drug epidemic. Not helping it.

right, what this program feels like to me is this woman saying, "look, I give up on these people.  I don't think there's a chance of helping them with their addiction.  i don't think that's worth the trouble.  But I'm willing to pay to make sure that they don't bring more children into their mess." 

And wanting to prevent children being born as addicts is commendable, but this model seems to presume that the adult in question is not worth helping in their own right.  Or is at least only secondarily worth helping. 

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but...that's where it's squicking me out.

I don't think it's this way, but I also don't know that woman and am bringing in my own baggage.  After knowing and living with drug addicts through my life, I know that you don't "give up" on them, but love them despite it and just realize that YOU can't change them or their problem.  It's only up to them.  You can make their lives easier or harder, but you can't make them want to change.  I see this as someone who is around addicts and doesn't have no hope, but realizes that adult addicts are complicated.

[downtoearth]

Jun 2, 2017 10:59:34 GMT -5 orangeblossom said:

Jun 2, 2017 10:50:52 GMT -5 wawa said:

right, what this program feels like to me is this woman saying, "look, I give up on these people.  I don't think there's a chance of helping them with their addiction.  i don't think that's worth the trouble.  But I'm willing to pay to make sure that they don't bring more children into their mess." 

And wanting to prevent children being born as addicts is commendable, but this model seems to presume that the adult in question is not worth helping in their own right.  Or is at least only secondarily worth helping. 

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but...that's where it's squicking me out.

I This. I just have little doubt that at this isn't being done without coercion, a condescending attitude and the full informed consent of the participant, regardless of how well-intentioned she thinks she may come across.

Plus, the whole notion of giving an addict $300. Too bad, so sad you might overdose with the drug money I gave you.

There's no perfect solution, but this ain't it.

This is so hard.  What if she is the reason that someone had that final hit or dose?  I think that would not be okay with me.  But I also know that sometimes a the money from Grandma's $20 birthday card could also be the final straw - but it's just different if it was given out of love vs. for getting birth control.

[wawa]

Jun 2, 2017 11:14:57 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Jun 2, 2017 10:50:52 GMT -5 wawa said:

right, what this program feels like to me is this woman saying, "look, I give up on these people.  I don't think there's a chance of helping them with their addiction.  i don't think that's worth the trouble.  But I'm willing to pay to make sure that they don't bring more children into their mess." 

And wanting to prevent children being born as addicts is commendable, but this model seems to presume that the adult in question is not worth helping in their own right.  Or is at least only secondarily worth helping. 

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but...that's where it's squicking me out.

I don't think it's this way, but I also don't know that woman and am bringing in my own baggage.  After knowing and living with drug addicts through my life, I know that you don't "give up" on them, but love them despite it and just realize that YOU can't change them or their problem.  It's only up to them.  You can make their lives easier or harder, but you can't make them want to change.  I see this as someone who is around addicts and doesn't have no hope, but realizes that adult addicts are complicated.

If her action was neutral in impact to the adult addict person in question I'd probably be on board.  But I know handing $300 to the one of my family members who has (had?  has?) the most troubling addiction issue at the height (bottom?) of his addiction would have likely resulted in a binge and potentially an OD.   So, yeah, also bringing baggage on board here in forming my opinion.

I would be curious to hear more of the professional evaluation of this - bimbi284 ?  could you elaborate what people in your network are saying?

[anyastroud]

.

[bimbi284]

Jun 2, 2017 11:21:44 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jun 2, 2017 11:14:57 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I don't think it's this way, but I also don't know that woman and am bringing in my own baggage.  After knowing and living with drug addicts through my life, I know that you don't "give up" on them, but love them despite it and just realize that YOU can't change them or their problem.  It's only up to them.  You can make their lives easier or harder, but you can't make them want to change.  I see this as someone who is around addicts and doesn't have no hope, but realizes that adult addicts are complicated.

If her action was neutral in impact to the adult addict in question I'd probably be on board.  But I know handing $300 to the one of my family members who has (had?  has?) the most troubling addiction issue at the height (bottom?) of his addiction would have likely resulted in a binge and potentially an OD.   So, yeah, also bringing baggage on board here in forming my opinion.

I would be curious to hear more of the professional evaluation of this - bimbi284 ?  could you elaborate what people in your network are saying?

Thanks for the tag. 

A lot of what folks are saying in here, really. 

She was a subject in one of the sections of this Radiolab episode, so you can hear more about it: www.radiolab.org/story/251876-inheritance/

It is essentially eugenics, buuuut maybe more passive, and veiled under "good intentions." The long-term requirement is part of what crosses the line here for me.

One thought I read from a colleague: "Eugenics is about coercion or force. Reproductive rights is about choice. Coercion and force are not choice. This is coercion."

Its definitely getting someone while they are down and vulnerable, and roping them into something they may not choose to do on their own if they had the proper support and had their needs met. 

And as for the concerns of giving people with a substance use disorder money (that they'll only use it to buy drugs), there are some studies that seem to go against that theory. If people are supported, not stigmatized, and have their needs met, they are more likely to make better choices about where that money goes (things like rent, food, bills), but if they are treated like they have no autonomy and can't possibly make good choices, that only serves to perpetuate the cycle of stigma, guilt, and shame, and then yeah, they may make the choice to buy some drugs because they just want to have a moment where they don't feel like shit.

And also I really hate terms like "addict." Lets try to use person-first language please. Its people who use drugs or people with a substance use disorder. 

[wawa]

Jun 2, 2017 12:45:06 GMT -5 bimbi284 said:

Jun 2, 2017 11:21:44 GMT -5 wawa said:

If her action was neutral in impact to the adult addict in question I'd probably be on board.  But I know handing $300 to the one of my family members who has (had?  has?) the most troubling addiction issue at the height (bottom?) of his addiction would have likely resulted in a binge and potentially an OD.   So, yeah, also bringing baggage on board here in forming my opinion.

I would be curious to hear more of the professional evaluation of this - bimbi284 ?  could you elaborate what people in your network are saying?

Thanks for the tag. 

A lot of what folks are saying in here, really. 

She was a subject in one of the sections of this Radiolab episode, so you can hear more about it: www.radiolab.org/story/251876-inheritance/

It is essentially eugenics, buuuut maybe more passive, and veiled under "good intentions." The long-term requirement is part of what crosses the line here for me.

One thought I read from a colleague: "Eugenics is about coercion or force. Reproductive rights is about choice. Coercion and force are not choice. This is coercion."

Its definitely getting someone while they are down and vulnerable, and roping them into something they may not choose to do on their own if they had the proper support and had their needs met. 

And as for the concerns of giving people with a substance use disorder money (that they'll only use it to buy drugs), there are some studies that seem to go against that theory. If people are supported, not stigmatized, and have their needs met, they are more likely to make better choices about where that money goes (things like rent, food, bills), but if they are treated like they have no autonomy and can't possibly make good choices, that only serves to perpetuate the cycle of stigma, guilt, and shame, and then yeah, they may make the choice to buy some drugs because they just want to have a moment where they don't feel like shit.

And also I really hate terms like "addict." Lets try to use person-first language please. Its people who use drugs or people with a substance use disorder. 

Crap.  Thanks for the reminder on the bolded.  Sorry.

Thanks for providing your perspective.  what I said about my family member is based on what HE has said about himself - there was a point where I told him I was sorry that I hadn't been able to give him more when he was strapped and he told me he'd probably have killed himself with it anyway, so not to feel bad.  Of course - who knows what would have actually happened.  and he wasn't in the best headspace ever when he told me that anyway.  Not sure he would say the same thing today.  It makes sense that somebody who feels like they can't do anything right anyway ending up with a  "why should I try/fuck it i'm using" kind of reaction vs. having the desire/will to do the "right" thing in part being based on being treated like a person.

[downtoearth]

bimbi284, thanks for the reminder on making it about people and not the issue.

Substance abuse is such a tough situation for each person and I'm always amazed at how the common thread of substance abuse disorders also has such a wide variety of outcomes and issues based on the individuals. Thanks for reminding us to keep judgement at a minimum.

[sakoro]

Jun 2, 2017 8:51:26 GMT -5 kershnic said:

I can't decide if $300 is coercive to a poor person who is addicted to drugs or not. I'm not against incentives in general to push people from not getting long term birth control because of lack of funds or lack of motivation to go to a doctors appointment. I am absolutely against any efforts to stop people who have drug addictions from making a choice to reproduce.

It is coercive. I could see offering reversible birth control (like an IUD you can get removed) in conjunction with treatment. But sterilization alone ?!? It assumes that there is no hope of anyone ever recovering from the addiction and hoping that they die off so the problem goes away.

The ability to choose to have children is part of human dignity/ human rights and shouldn't be taken away without full consent.

[wawa]

Jun 2, 2017 13:58:40 GMT -5 sakoro said:

Jun 2, 2017 8:51:26 GMT -5 kershnic said:

I can't decide if $300 is coercive to a poor person who is addicted to drugs or not. I'm not against incentives in general to push people from not getting long term birth control because of lack of funds or lack of motivation to go to a doctors appointment. I am absolutely against any efforts to stop people who have drug addictions from making a choice to reproduce.

It is coercive. I could see offering reversible birth control (like an IUD you can get removed) in conjunction with treatment. But sterilization alone ?!? It assumes that there is no hope of anyone ever recovering from the addiction and hoping that they die off so the problem goes away.

The ability to choose to have children is part of human dignity/ human rights and shouldn't be taken away without full consent.

sterilization is the only option for men.  IUD is an option for women.  Also something like whatever the current version of norplant is apparently acceptable.

[Gwen]

This isn't new. I remember hearing about this $300 incentive and lady 20 years ago.

Of course it reeks of manipulation and exploitation to capitalize on an addict's desperation for cash to bait them into sterilizing themselves for $300.

It's such a cheap, petty, mean way to solve a deeply upsetting problem. Of course we should do better than sterilization for woman suffering addiction.

[orangeblossom]

Jun 2, 2017 11:19:36 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Jun 2, 2017 10:59:34 GMT -5 orangeblossom said:

I This. I just have little doubt that at this isn't being done without coercion, a condescending attitude and the full informed consent of the participant, regardless of how well-intentioned she thinks she may come across.

Plus, the whole notion of giving an addict $300. Too bad, so sad you might overdose with the drug money I gave you.

There's no perfect solution, but this ain't it.

This is so hard.  What if she is the reason that someone had that final hit or dose?  I think that would not be okay with me.  But I also know that sometimes a the money from Grandma's $20 birthday card could also be the final straw - but it's just different if it was given out of love vs. for getting birth control.

Getting money from grandma who doesn't want you to starve and/or pay the cell phone bill to keep in touch and know they are alive is different. 

This woman thinks she's helping one problem, while completely ignoring the other, the person who has a substance abuse problem. You can't fix one and not the other.

As someone said upthread, this is akin to eugenics, so no, I can't get on board with this.

[goldengirlz]

I agree with the general sentiment of this thread. But a couple of people have used the word eugenics. I have an IUD and it's hardly that dramatic. It's safe, effective and completely reversible. It's not like this woman is offering more money for a tubal ligation. For women who prefer that option, it's on the table. Otherwise, I assume most women who take her up on this would choose the least invasive option (the IUD).