If you're a poor woman, you'd better not live in Louisiana, because John LaBruzzo wants to make sure you never have children. The young lawmaker from Metairie seems to think that sterilizing poor women is a great way to control what he calls, "generational welfare."
Although he said the program would be voluntary, who is to say that at a later date it wouldn't become mandatory? So what if he wants to pay the women $1,000 to have their tubes tied? It is a slippery slope from voluntarily deciding to not have children and being forcibly sterilized by the state.
If you don't think that's bad enough, his ingenious plan includes giving more tax incentives to "college-educated, higher-income people to have more children." He has already earned the ire of advocacy groups who call his plan blatantly racist, sexist, and immoral. He has argued that more white people than black people are on welfare, so race is not an issue.
Clearly, there is an issue where LaBruzzo favors more wealthy people having more children and controlling the population of those who aren't. By what standards would this potential legislation define a poor woman? Would it be when she applies for welfare? What if her circumstances are temporary? Is there a time limit to how long she is on welfare before being given the "option" to have her tubes tied?
Regardless of whether his proposal is racist, there is no mistaking that it is sexist and immoral. Why not propose to pay poor men $1,000 to have vasectomies? Why target only the women?
John LaBruzzo, it appears you have not thought out this legislation too well.
Official photo: State Rep. John LaBruzzo
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 109 ( 3 removed by Reno Berkeley )
From YOUR source:
"Every federal family planning dollar saves an estimated $4 tax dollars on unintended pregnancy costs alone. Saving money by de-funding contraception is like "saving money" by not paying your rent. It's not savings if you end up staying in a hotel that costs even more."
Interesting how birth control makes sense when it's offer by leftists, but is demonized when offered by the right.
You're worried about mandatory sterilization? Perhaps you should be more worried about the left (John Holdren was appointed by Obama)
And, if you will read my piece again, I said it's only a matter of time before it becomes mandatory. It's like someone asking for a finger and taking the whole arm.
WebMD: Tubal ligation and tubal implants are considered to be permanent methods of birth control for women.
www.birth-control-comparison.info: Tubal ligations are 99.5% effective as birth control.
Mayo Clinic: A tubal ligation — also known as having your tubes tied or tubal sterilization — is a type of permanent birth control.
Nation Institutes of Health: Tubal ligation is considered a permanent form of birth control.
I think I'll take a their opinions of what constitutes birth control over yours.
From links above:
Mayo Clinic: A tubal ligation can be done at any time, including after childbirth or in combination with another abdominal surgical procedure.
www.birth-control-comparison.info: Tubal ligation is a relatively simple out-patient surgery done in a clinic, doctor's office, or hospital. It can be performed under local or general anesthesia.
Nation Institutes of Health: The procedure takes about 30 minutes.
It seems that you CAN.
And you know this how? Evidence?
Do you believe that a poor woman should be forced to accept the lack of a choice you would give her? Or do you think she should be able to make a decision for herself? Seriously?
Tubal Ligation is considered major surgery requiring the patient to undergo general anesthesia. After the anesthesia takes effect, a surgeon will make a small incision at each side of, but just below the navel in order to gain access to each of the 2 fallopian tubes. With traditional tubal ligation, the surgeon severs the tubes, and then ties (ligation) them off thereby preventing the travel of eggs to the uterus.
More
Minilaparotomy patients may suffer from such complications as infection, injury to the bladder or bleeding from a major blood vessel, and burning of the bowel or other structures. There also can be anesthesia complications.6
Laparoscopy has serious complications such as perforation of the bowel leading to massive infection of the abdominal cavity, complications from anesthesia, improper clearance of the windpipe during the operation, even pulmonary embolism.7 Dr. H.P. Dunn noted, "Every operation carries the risk of hemorrhage or infection... Some patients have died from cardiac failure during the inflation procedure. Others have suffered wounds of the bowel, bladder, and large blood vessels. Even intraperitoneal explosions have occurred."
Dr. Vicki Hufnagel, a surgeon who specializes in restoring women’s reproductive organs, has written "Many post-tubal patients who come to my office seeking relief complain bitterly if more severe cramps, heavier. longer periods, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, pain with intercourse, and pelvic pain or pressure."10
A study in Britain followed 374 post-tubal patients and found that 43% had subsequent gynecological treatment for such conditions as heavy menstrual bleeding, menstrual disturbances requiring hormonal treatments, cervical erosion, ovarian tumors, and recanalization of the fallopian tubes requiring a second operation.11
Another British study of tubal ligation found a 40% increase in menstrual blood loss; 26% of the group experienced increased menstrual pain. Women who had used the Pill before their tubal ligation reported more of these complains than other patients.12
A study by James G. Tappan found a 40.7% incidence of menorrhagia and suggested that cystic degeneration of the ovary may result from interruption of blood flow from the uterine artery.13 A longitudinal study of over 8,000 women five years after their tubal ligations found 49% of them suffered heavy periods and 35% reported an increase of severe menstrual cramping.14 The risk of cervical cancer among a study of 489 post-tubal women was 3.5 times the normal rate.15
As mentioned previously, many couples attempt to have sterilization reversed, though fewer than half of reversals are functionally successful.16 Women who do achieve pregnancy after the reversal of tubal ligation face anywhere from a 4% to 64% increased risk of tubal pregnancy, a life-threatening and psychologically wrenching experience. The rate of risk depended on the procedure used.
Furthermore, it is difficult to assess the health risks involved when women voluntarily forego the benefits of future pregnancies. Greater risks of ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer are associated with having few or no children
Four years later, third phase overian cancer that I suffered through for five years till a football size tumor led me to have a full hysteroctomy which caused me to go into menopause in my early thirties.
You, as a male, would never understand what this procedue is like and the complications that can result from it. Let me give you a vasectomy and tell me again that its "nothing"
Incorrect! You may receive general anesthesia. This will make you unconscious and unable to feel pain. Or, you may have local anesthesia (awake and unable to feel pain) or spinal anesthesia (awake but unable to feel pain).
[A]nd it is Not a simple procedure
According to who?
There are possible complications to consider with any surgery, but tubal sterilization (including tubal ligation) is considered a relatively safe and simple procedure. Not just based on my opinion (several links already provided).
I'm sorry if you are having regrets over your procedure, but I fail to see how that should deny others the ability to choose what they fell is right for themselves.
Do you have a degree in medicine? Are you licensed to practice medicine.
If the answer is no to either or both, I strongly urge you to not to offer
medical advice.
I would guess that the Mayo Clinic and National Institutes of Health employee licensed doctors. I would guess they have more expertise than you. Do you have anything of substance to offer? Do you have better sources to contradict the information I have presented? Probably not, considering you didn't add anything to the topic.
But on the other hand, I don't feel that government has any right to say who is allowed to reproduce and who isn't. I would never support mandatory sterilization. I feel that the right to reproduce is a basic human right.
If he is worried about the cost of welfare , then why, not just make a law that says, if you have more than say 2 kids , then welfare will be denied to you... That might work better...
Headline 1:
Republicans ask poor women to volunteer for sterilization.
Headline 2:
Republicans force children to starve while giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
I think option 2 would be a much harder sell.
Anyone can troll Web M.D. and spew meaningless words and facts that have no bearing on the true toll of this procedure.
You have presented NOTHING to contradict the information I provided. The information I presented is NOT meaningless and was to contradict the false statements by others, NOT to represent the "true toll" of the procedure.
You have not....and will not EVER know what it means to go through the sterilization process as a woman.
What bearing does that have on whether or not general anesthesia is required? What bearing does that have on the difficulty for the surgeon to perform the procedure? I guess anyone who has not been sterilized as a woman should be prevented from performing the surgery!?
Perhaps you haven't payed attention to what has been said.
I think your concerns are misplaced and closer to parinoia.
Just a Thought
And it's being cheered by Republican Senator Mike Lee from Utah, too.
Is it any wonder that this legislation is being proposed by a Southern, white, male?
Why would you want to take away their choice to a simple outpatient procedure that keeps them from an unwanted pregnancy? I am gussing that you are all in favor of a woman having the right to make a choice to kill an unborned baby. Wow.
uhhhhh, I rest my case!
You said, " There are over 11 billion of us on this planet overpopulation is the root problem to all global issues; no one denies this fact."
Did you know that babies are created by men? If you volunteered to have a vasectomy you would be doing your part to slow down the population rate.
I'm so sorry you hate me and to think it's all because I don't think women should be bribed to have their tubes tied just for the pleasure of you men. I think you men should volunteer to be snipped or keep your pants zipped up. You men are creating the overpopulation, not us women.
It does take "two to tango". If the dude can't keep his anatomy in his pants, he should be held just as culpable as the women whose tubes the
Republicretins want to tie off. I am the father of two wonderful children born in wedlock. I am also pro-life. Sorry to tell you conservatives,but the Dark Ages ended a millenium ago, please stop trying to drag us back into them!
Did he say he wanted to pay them to do this? If so, that's very dangerous because a person could make a decision like that in desperation and regret it later.
FREE birth control should be offered to MEN AND WOMEN who have made the decision to WAIT to have children until they are (financially, emotionally, etc) ready.
HELP should be offered to ANY mother or father who needs to help their baby, regardless of if they are rich or poor.
No one should be BRIBED to make a decision they will later regret and be unable to reverse:
Whether that decision is to have a baby (to gain welfare money or tax breaks or child support) or to make themselves unable to do so (to gain a quick thousand bucks when they can't afford food).
Also, there is no reason that this should go only for the women. That's discrimination., blaming only the women for pregnancies. Pure misogyny. If it goes through it must be extended to the men.
It was offered to the men, too, but the author couldn't be bothered to put that on here.
The easiest, safest, fairest way to fix this is to have a level of citizenship just above criminal ... no offense meant there, but that society makes a contract with people who stay out of trouble in terms of crime and bringing into the world childreen they cannot take care of that we will reward them with a basic level of life if they stay out of trouble.
This would also bring in the men too so it is less sexist.
Enjoli Holt May 11, 2011, 11:02am EDT
she said EX HUSBAND meaning she did the right thing, got married and thought she had a good man... please, like he is the first man who ever pretended to be someone or something he isnt to get in someones pants and then bailed on resposibility??
Bruce, you don't think the STUPID women don't sleep with STUPID men?
Why do you slap all the responsibility on women?
Anything to promote your way of thinking, huh?
To suggest that offering a voluntary service is one small step away from making it mandatory is ludicrous and paranoid. It is not unlike the fringe of the right-wing thinking that Obama is wanting to kill off old people with his health bill.
As for the women vs. men stuff on here... not all men want to control all women or vice versa.
What is wrong with people?
Program Will Pay Teens Not to Become Pregnant Again
A group of high school girls in San Mateo County will be entering a program soon in which they will be paid $10 a week not to become pregnant--again.
As a one-year trial program sponsored by the Planned Parenthood organization, only teenagers who have become pregnant before will be invited to participate.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-24/news/mn-119_1_san-mateo-county
Do you see this as something completely different or as similar?
you said : "until you can get pregnant, go through the pregnancy, labor and delivery and then raise the child with ZERO help, STFU because you know nothing. Be gone."
thats just it... these inner city girls can NOT raise these kids with ZERO help and their parents cant help either ( i grew up in the projects) are getting pregnant young, some having 4 or 5 children before age 25. They are forever victims of system and society at that point...with no education how will they ever support even 1 kid on minimum wage or even better for that matter? This gives them a chance at a future.... a shot for the children that they already have to get the resources they need instead of having to share time, scarce resources with multiple siblings...
I had several neighbors with multiple kids that would send them over to my house to ask for slices of bologna, juice, milk, bread, DAILY...and keep having kids...enough is enough.
I have given MULTIPLE sources showing general anesthesia is NOT required. I have NOT said they are easily reversible. How does getting pregnant somehow override medical expertise in determining the difficulty involved in surgery? Try using some logic!
Until you show some reliable sources stating local and regional anesthesia may not be used and that the procedure is a complicated one perhaps you should STFU.
I don't need to. I am an RN, and I have never seen the procedure done wo general anesthesia. I myself had it done with general anesthesia and was not given a choice.
Be gone and grow up. You don't know what you are talking about and best leave the conversation to those who do.
FIRST: MEDICAID already PAYS for vasectomies and tubaligations for recipients that already have children if requested. I know because I had mine done this way. Now that I have my crap together its kinda sad that I cant have a baby with my new husband but it was really a blessing....I didnt need anymore kids and my ex husband was intent on getting me pregnant.
This program would not be available to childless mothers under a certain age (as the current program isn't) will save thousands in the cost of LABOR & delivery that medicaid pays for and keep in mind children born into poverty are more likely to be born with birth defects, premature birth and spend more time in the hospital.
BIG PICTURE is cost savings... period.
(which I don't even care about) what I do care about is that these inner cities will stop being so overpopulated, the school systems cant manage class sizes, not enough tax paying citizens to fund adequate school programs; and MOST OF ALL these women can get jobs and support themselves without having to depend on daycare assistance (oh yes, the state has to fund THIS too!!) and food stamps when these dead beats leave them with kids to raise.
This is an incentive for mothers already on welfare...and an opportunity to get a bit of cash in savings to take care of the kids they already have and give them a chance at being able to have a decent future.
The tax incentives for wealthy child bearers sounds horrible but lets look at the BIG picture: Children born into wealthy families are healthier, get a better education, and have social and family support systems in place that will help them through life struggles...they are more likely to get good jobs, buy houses and contribute to society.
Why do we need them? Currently the baby boomers are getting older and wealthy people see the overpopulation problems and are deciding to have smaller families to save money and help the environment. Eventually, our population will be primarily made up of elderly....and if a majority the youth and offspring are composed of the "bottom feeders" then that leads us to a more difficult problem....the future potential of our national....
so, bring down the populations of people who are suffering due to overpopulation and inability to take care of their young and give the wealthy a bit more responsibility that they can handle so that in the future we have a self-reliant society full of potential.
win. win. as long as it remains optional I'm all for it...definitely beats ABORTION! booo! get it out of here...:)
I was iffy on the tax incentives for the wealthy too when I first heard it but then I remembered studying the affect of our aging society on the nations economic status .....
It does make sense because their wont be enough tax paying citizens to support the surplus elderly that have paid into social security all their lives...how is it fair that the small portion on youthful tax payers should have the burden of supporting the generational poor (that this program is geared towards) and the elderly with their tax dollars?
offspring of the wealthy will put more tax payers in society.
...just personal opinion based on my upbringing and observations...
People from the "hood" know about birth control, its free at the clinics, they know its over-populated but they are so wrapped up in their problems and life that they have blinders on to everything else...it's called "hood mentality" I imagine the same could be for anyone's living situation but this is where I grew up so I can only speak on this. Hood mentality is one of survival...being 100% self-sufficient doesn't seem like an option...born on assistance, and will raise their children on it. I had a very good friend who had 4 generations living in the same projects, her grandmother (only 29 years older than her) her mother (15 years older than her) and her daughter (16 years younger)....her daughter turned 18 and what did she do? She put in an application for public housing to get her own "spot"....she looked for a low paying job so she would be accepted...and within a year she got pregnant to get Food stamps and health insurance....the childs father soon bailed. My friend moved out and bought a house but most of her relatives still live there.
You think aiding them in controlling the population is unfair?
What about allowing them to further deplete their resources by thinking they are making better lives by having more kids? You can try to tell them but they will follow their piers...maybe this 1000.00 will motivate them to do it... but even if it does, I don't see the harm in it...especially if they already have offspring.
The fact that wealthy Americans pushed poor people into these ghetto impoverished communities and low paying jobs and took their tax dollars and fled to the suburbs (where poor could never afford to go) and built businesses (where public transpo didn't reach), which led to generations of poverty and eventually, for lack of a better word "bad breeding" ...((lack of proper nutrition & prenatal care=cognitive delays & further dysfunctions personality disorders/ due to being raised in bad conditions and at constant struggle...all of these traits then passed on to the next generation))...
so ... with this being said ...this problem is more than "human rights" at this point, we're messed up our urban cities and their dwellers so bad that many of them unfortunately don't even relate to the average American...
many of my family own family members haven't recovered from the mentality and to be honest I struggled to teach myself things about life (credit, social skills, professionalism, money management, housing, loans, health care, etc) that many people are taught from early on their parents.
The sad truth is that not everyone is capable or qualified to parent, much of it is not their fault, but it's still true.