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 getting grandma who doesn't want you to starve and/or pay the cell phone bill to keep in touch and know they are alive.
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. Ant get on board with this.
I agree. I put it in another response that I don't agree with paying for someone to go on birth control, but instead wish IUDs and birth control were free to anyone who chose. There is a program where I used to live that gave IUDs and birth control options (and free condoms) to people who had substance abuse issues - it was connected with a needle exchange program also, and didn't come with any monetary compensation. I like that idea.
ETA: Wait I looked it up and the program was different than I remembered. I think it was if you had a misdemeanor or charge for drugs that you could get birth control free while/during your state-ordered substance abuse program. I don't think it covers or requires anyone to get that, it just offers it as part of the program if you choose.
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).
The difference is you have that choice, and we're able to make the choice without someone swinging the proverbial carrot in front of you.
What makes it akin to eugenics is what I described upthread. Being in a vulnerable state without other options and possibly not in the right mind to make such a life-altering, possibly permanent decision.
ETA: and of course the idea being that because someone uses drugs (which pretty much all of us do, don't forget that), they are somehow less than, and not worthy of procreating. The concept that they are genetically flawed, and how dare they pass that down to an innocent child/let's just try to prevent more people who use drugs from being born altogether.
Lots of people without a genetic link can become someone with a substance use disorder.
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.
This particular program covers an IUD or implant, which are reversible. Also, it's not at all clear to me that there's not full consent when the clients have to leave her van and go to a doctors office where they ask for and consent to treatment. $300 is a lot of money to someone who doesn't have much money, but it's not life changing money.
For those who are curious, she has stats on her website and reports 2170 tubals and 2542 IUDs. There are other options included as well, but still many more tubals than I would have expected. Also only 250 vasectomies, so primarily women (no surprise there).
For those who are curious, she has stats on her website and reports 2170 tubals and 2542 IUDs. There are other options included as well, but still many more tubals than I would have expected. Also only 250 vasectomies, so primarily women (no surprise there).
I'm not surprised at the numbers, many people who have substance abuse disorders, don't want more children. I've seen it many times at after delivery, when you ask about birth control, where they ask for longer term birth control options like implanon, IUDs or tubal ligation.
I mean, I guess you can call it a success according to her metrics, but that only focuses on one thing: no more children. My issue is how she goes about it. What about the person who has a substance abuse disorder.
For those who are curious, she has stats on her website and reports 2170 tubals and 2542 IUDs. There are other options included as well, but still many more tubals than I would have expected. Also only 250 vasectomies, so primarily women (no surprise there).
I'm not surprised at the numbers, many people who have substance abuse disorders, don't want more children. I've seen it many times at after delivery, when you ask about birth control, where they ask for longer term birth control options like implanon, IUDs or tubal ligation.
I mean, I guess you can call it a success according to her metrics, but that only focuses on one thing: no more children. My issue is how she goes about it. What about the person who has a substance abuse disorder.
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).
The difference is you have that choice, and we're able to make the choice without someone swinging the proverbial carrot in front of you.
What makes it akin to eugenics is what I described upthread. Being in a vulnerable state without other options and possibly not in the right mind to make such a life-altering, possibly permanent decision.
ETA: and of course the idea being that because someone uses drugs (which pretty much all of us do, don't forget that), they are somehow less than, and not worthy of procreating. The concept that they are genetically flawed, and how dare they pass that down to an innocent child/let's just try to prevent more people who use drugs from being born altogether.
Lots of people without a genetic link can become someone with a substance use disorder.
I think you missed my point. There's nothing permanent about an IUD -- there's nothing that says you can't procreate the next month if you wanted to (you just need to have it removed.)
This is like saying birth control pills or the monthly shot are akin to eugenics.
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.
$300 would pay for like two hours of treatment. Most people will need months or years.
The difference is you have that choice, and we're able to make the choice without someone swinging the proverbial carrot in front of you.
What makes it akin to eugenics is what I described upthread. Being in a vulnerable state without other options and possibly not in the right mind to make such a life-altering, possibly permanent decision.
ETA: and of course the idea being that because someone uses drugs (which pretty much all of us do, don't forget that), they are somehow less than, and not worthy of procreating. The concept that they are genetically flawed, and how dare they pass that down to an innocent child/let's just try to prevent more people who use drugs from being born altogether.
Lots of people without a genetic link can become someone with a substance use disorder.
I think you missed my point. There's nothing permanent about an IUD -- there's nothing that says you can't procreate the next month if you wanted to (you just need to have it removed.)
This is like saying birth control pills or the monthly shot are akin to eugenics.
bimbi284, can correct me if I'm making assumptions, but I think comparing it to eugenics comes from the fact that this woman is deeming this women unfit to procreate. Now whether you feel that's true or not, is a different story. This woman is starting the conversation, now no, she's not saying "do this, or else", as I said upthread, I don't feel confident that the people who accept, are always doing it at a sober time.
She is seeking these women out, and that, I don't like that. Perhaps, I'm overly sensitive to this, because there are still people seeking reparations for being forcefully sterilized, many under false pretenses, because they were deemed unfit to either have children and/or more children. In some cases, simply because they were a young teenage mother.
I think you missed my point. There's nothing permanent about an IUD -- there's nothing that says you can't procreate the next month if you wanted to (you just need to have it removed.)
This is like saying birth control pills or the monthly shot are akin to eugenics.
bimbi284, can correct me if I'm making assumptions, but I think comparing it to eugenics comes from the fact that this woman is deeming this women unfit to procreate. Now whether you feel that's true or not, is a different story. This woman is starting the conversation, now no, she's not saying "do this, or else", as I said upthread, I don't feel confident that the people who accept, are always doing it at a sober time.
She is seeking these women out, and that, I don't like that. Perhaps, I'm overly sensitive to this, because there are still people seeking reparations for being forcefully sterilized, many under false pretenses, because they were deemed unfit to either have children and/or more children. In some cases, simply because they were a young teenage mother.
I guess I see it differently (and maybe that's my privilege showing.)
Thanks to the GOP, our healthcare system is hanging on by a thread: this lady, in the van, is the safety net. Daily birth control, when you don't have health insurance, is expensive. It's also really hard for someone with an addiction (hell, for any of us!) to remember to take a pill everyday even if she has every intention of not wanting to get pregnant.
IUDs are wonderful inventions. I don't like the way they're being lumped in with sterilizations. They're not even remotely the same. Not even a little bit.
I agree that I don't like how this van lady is going about this initiative with the cash incentives as opposed to just offering to pay for the birth control. But I simply do not have a problem with long-acting birth control as a concept. This could be life-altering for someone on the streets who can't take a daily pill and WANTS to delay child-bearing. Delay being the operative word. This RESTORES CHOICE to these women by allowing them to time their pregnancies when they're ready.
ETA: I do hear what you're saying about how this feels like judging these women about whether they're fit to procreate. And there's a long, shameful history of sterilizing women (especially low-income and WOC) that I shouldn't gloss over. So I acknowledge where you're coming from and why it feels icky.
She is seeking these women out, and that, I don't like that.
This is part of my issue with it too. It feels like she's tracking people down to shame them and coerce them into making decisions about their health care.
If she was running a clinic where women could willingly come to her and get free IUDs or tubals I would feel completely different.
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).
We are discussing addicts. How much faith do you have that this heifer is thoughtfully and carefully navigating consent and options with those she believes should avail themselves of her offer?
Post by imobviouslystaying on Jun 2, 2017 20:46:44 GMT -5
If bitch gave a shit, she'd partner with a rehab center and work on a program that would finance temporary birth control initially and then could offer a more permanent solution if wanted once patients had been in the program long enough to make a clear, informed decision about their reproductive future.
Instead, I feel like what she really wants to say is that addicts are a lost damned cause and need to get sterilized. But she knows that's gross so she'll allow iuds. But her overall goal is sterilization.
I refuse to say permanent birth control in this context. It's clear she favors sterilization.
For those who are curious, she has stats on her website and reports 2170 tubals and 2542 IUDs. There are other options included as well, but still many more tubals than I would have expected. Also only 250 vasectomies, so primarily women (no surprise there).
I'm not surprised at the numbers, many people who have substance abuse disorders, don't want more children. I've seen it many times at after delivery, when you ask about birth control, where they ask for longer term birth control options like implanon, IUDs or tubal ligation.
I mean, I guess you can call it a success according to her metrics, but that only focuses on one thing: no more children. My issue is how she goes about it. What about the person who has a substance abuse disorder.
I need someone to follow up and find out if these women are satisfied with their tubals.
Post by spunbutterfly on Jun 2, 2017 21:08:30 GMT -5
It's a tangent from the post, but I thought I'd mention, when I was pregnant with my second child, I decided there was no way I could have another child again with severe hyperemesis and asked for a consult with an OBGYN (I delivered with midwives at a birthing center with obgyns) for a tubal ligation if and only if I ended up in a c-section. One of the most surprising things I learned was that, as someone with private insurance, I could decide up until the moment they cut whether I wanted a tubal done or not. Anyone without private insurance would have to decide and sign a consent form something like 30 days in advance and when I let the doctor know of my surprise, she said the rule (law?) was due to the abuse of labor and delivery doctors in the past, who would perform a tubal ligation while a, generally, lower income or non-white woman was having a C-section, without permission and never tell them.
ETA: For the same reasons the six week appointment includes the "are you abused" questionnaire in private, a husband's "permission" or discussion with a spouse or partner was not required.
spunbutterfly Yes that was a major issue in the 60s/70s () PBS did a show on it called No Mas Babes focusing on the treatment of young Latina women who had this down without consent and sometimes without any knowledge of it being done.