Project Prevention works to prevent the tragedy of babies being born to drug-addicted mothers by offering a cash incentive for clients to utilize long-term or permanent birth control.
Today's Philadelphia Inquirer ran this following story on Project Prevention. Here is an excerpt:
Group pays drug addicts to obtain birth control
The effort, which has been controversial in other cities, is being promoted in Phila.
By Angela Couloumbis
Inquirer Staff Writer
Ernestine Pitts is 40, addicted to crack, and has just had her 17th child in 24 years. She's been in and out of rehab, eaten out of garbage cans when she was strung out, and when she wasn't high straddled the line between the right and wrong paths.
Yesterday, standing in front of her rowhouse near 23d and Berks Streets, she was handed a business card she said could change her future.
The card was from a North Carolina nonprofit group called Project Prevention. It listed a toll-free number to get long-term birth control, such as a hormone injection or an intrauterine device (IUD), or surgical sterilization - along with $200.
"I'll consider it," Pitts said as several of her children played barefoot on the sidewalk yesterday afternoon. "It's hard raising kids. And when you're on crack... I struggle with it. I struggle hard."
Project Prevention's method of offering cash incentives to drug- and alcohol-addicted mothers who agree to long-term or permanent birth control has sparked controversy in most every other city the group has visited in the seven years it has been in existence.
Its method has been called radical and inhumane and has pitted it against groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP. Critics have said that the money - which comes from donations - would be better spent on treating drug addiction. "One has to look at how coercive the program is and whether these women understand what their rights are and what their options are," said Larry Frankel, legislative director of the Pennsylvania ACLU. But the group\'s founder, Barbara Harris, who is in Philadelphia through today to spread word of its services, believes hers is the only method that works in cracking down on the number of drug- and alcohol-addicted babies born every year. Many of those children, she said yesterday, have severe emotional and medical problems. They can end up in foster care, become homeless, be infected with HIV, or become trapped into living with a drug-addicted parent. "I call that legal child abuse," said Harris, 53, who has raised six children of her own, has adopted four siblings from a crack-addicted mother in Los Angeles, and has three foster children. "Drug addicts are very irresponsible," she added. "They\'re not thinking about the fact that they may get pregnant. They\'re thinking about how they are going to feed their addiction... . Money motivates. Money gets their attention." Since its launch in the late 1990s, Project Prevention has paid 1,594 clients to participate in the program, the group says. Women who want to participate call a toll-free number, leave their telephone or mailing address, and are mailed forms that they must fill out and take to a doctor or clinic. The forms must be mailed back, along with proof of a drug or alcohol problem. Once Project Prevention has verified that a woman has received a type of long-term birth control, she is mailed a check for $200. The group has visited about 30 cities and is in Philadelphia for the first time since its launch. Its method has been called radical and inhumane and has pitted it against groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP. Critics have said that the money - which comes from donations - would be better spent on treating drug addiction.
Honestly, I know very little about this program, but I find it quite disturbing. Perhaps because it smacks of that "incentive" sort of approach to dealing with social problems. Rather than comprehensively address social problems like Crack addiction, unintended pregnancies, and access to affordable birth control and health care, we are paying Crack addicts to sterilize themselves.
Perhaps some of you out there can further enligthen me on this program, but I am not certain how this program treats women with dignity and humanity? And, its likely, if it hasn't already, to further encourage women of color to perceive birth control and legal abortions as cultural genocide, since I imagine they disproportionately target women of color.
UPDATE: I read this old Salon article on the founder, Barbara Harris. It gives her background and explains her "tough love" philosophy.
Here is a snippet
Conservative radio host and Denver Post columnist Ken Hamblin was equally impassioned. "[Harris'] words of wisdom and tough love seem to be lost on the bleeding heart feminist liberals," he wrote in December. "I say 200 bucks is a minuscule sum to spend if it will prevent a junkie from contributing another baby to the junk heap of urban poverty and human misery."
Lovely! Go Pro-Life!
Hmmm...by similar reasoning, can we starting offering financial incentives to Catholics to start using birth control? In an age of overpopulation, Catholics are producing large families, contributing less in taxes by getting tax breaks for their dependants, disproportionately utilizing the health care system (paying the same amount of premiums as a family with one or two children), and generally creating more people than the planet will eventually be able to sustain.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't have the same ring to it, does it? I'm all for providing low-income women--drug-addicted or otherwise--with affordable birth control if they desire it, but the rationale behind this program--particularly with the option of "permanant" birth-control (sterilization)--seems ill-motivated.
Another issue is the extremes being used to present this idea - a woman who has given birth 17 times in 24 years must be at the farthest end of the spectrum. If we think about it in more middle-of-the-road terms, what's being cracked down on (no pun intended) is the number of children being born to low income families. There's little probability that a woman who can afford birth control options or treatment would ever opt into this type of program. On the face, who wouldn't want to help a woman with a drug issue prevent pregnancy? But paying her rather than fixing the problem is like putting a bandaid on a compound fracture.
ReplyDeleteYou're all focusing on the impact this program has on the woman. But if a woman who is addicted to crack has a baby, it's the baby who pays the consequences. I have no problem with paying a $200 bribe to spare some poor child a life of misery. That's not to say we as a society shouldn't also work to alleviate the social conditions that contribute to addiction or have programs that will help the woman conquer her addiction and recover her dignity; but why can't we do all these things at once?
ReplyDeleteaspazia,
ReplyDeletethis new format is not as 'cool' as the previous format. why did you change it? this cool cat needs the old format.
catzona
Maynard--
ReplyDeleteIts just the thought process of you damn economists that freaks me out. Pay-crack-mom-to-get-"spayed"=effective social policy.
Sorry, its my damn humanist training.
Catzona-
Deal with it!
Hey now, we damn economists are not all heartless...
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not entirely convinced this idea is all bad...I'm still up in the air, but maynard's point doesn't seem far off-base. The babies are truly the victims here...the mothers chosing to undergo these procedures for 200 bucks are making a decision. My hope would be that they would be informed and 'counseled' before making the choice, though. I'm not saying ignore the problem of addiction, this is clearly a band-aid fix, but sometimes you need a band-aid to slow the bleeding til we can find a way to work on the bigger issues.
What if these women were given a real choice? We can give you this $200 and permanent birth control, OR, we can give you entrance into a treatment program, with temporary birth control until program is successfully completed.
ReplyDeleteIt's a better choice than permanent birth control or none, crack, and a bunch of kids.
However, the sad fact is that most crack addicted mothers are going to take the $200 and pretty much spay themselves--if it's indeed a choice they're making. With either option, it's a choice they're making--it's just a little easier to think about if there's a hypothetical "good" option they could make.
So...the basic problem with this is that these women aren't exactly in the best position to make proper decisions for themselves or their children, and the actions of these people who are making this offer is pretty much taking advantage of that fact.
So there you go; two questions: How much advantage is too much to take? And how much responsibility for their own lives do we put on these women?
Can we agrue that women have the right to make some decisions for themselves in some cases (having an abortion), but not in others ($200 and a spaying)?
Okay, that's more than two questions...
Let me suggest a possible response to kriscinda's last question: "can we argue that women have the right to make decisions for themselves in some cases but not others?" by saying that the issue is not whether these drug-addicted women have the right to accept the $200 but whether what is being offered to them is the wisest possible program. The complaint is that it trades on the vulnerability of women who see themselves as having limited options and who are prioritizing, because of their addiction, something they might not prioritize in better times. So, I'd say the woman, addicted as she is, has the right to take the money offered her, but shame on the schmucks that are taking advantage of her situation to come up with a quick-fix (literally) that does little or nothing to help the suffering (i.e., addicted) woman.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that in some cases women don't have the right to do whatever they want (if dear Aspazia, in a fit of anger at the latest ad hominem nonsense posted by "anonymous," came and asked me to return the gun she loaned me, I might have the right to deny her this property, at least temporarily. If I go raving mad, kill some people, and insist that I can assist in my own defense because I am channelling superior legal minds from another planet, I would hope that someone would deny me the right to do so. So, I guess the question is, is drug addiction such a case that we deny the person the right to make decisions for themselves? I'm inclined to say no, for a whole host of reasons, but I'll just put it out there for now.