Here’s an idea–sterilize drug addicted women, and pay them to undergo the procedure. This sounds like a joke–or at least something from early proponents twentieth century eugenics, like Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), Adolph Hitler, or Harry Laughlin (author of the Model Sterilization Act). Certainly this is not something that is going on today, in America. Maybe in China, right? Not so fast. Barbara Harris’ Project Prevention, based in Concord, NC aims to do just that. And, though this may surprise you, I don’t see a problem with it.
If a drug addict wants to trade her choice to produce offspring in the future for her next fix, what is wrong with that? Drug addicts who give birth perform a terrible evil on their newborns, who, if they survive, will endure unbearable pain and, are inordinately special needs children. Those who instead abort their children perform an even more unspeakable evil. Additionally, drug use during pregnancy can result in placental abruption, low birth weight, premature labor and maternal death.
Approximately $161 billion is wasted in the U.S. every year, year after year. If that sounds like the result of some hair brained government grab bag, you are probably right. But this $161 billion is the approximate cost of illegal drug use in the U.S. each year, the same as the costs of cancer and diabetes. Of that $161 billion, I am sure no small portion is spent on the 45,000 babies born every year exposed to cocaine (not to mention drugs like meth, Oxycontin, and heroin).
After giving birth, women who are drug users are far and away single mothers. Though a difficult and trying task, single parenthood is in the end one of the worst things you can do to a child. The stats are clear. Single motherhood drives crime, poverty, and, more drug use–and apparently people aren’t listening to those long term birth control and ‘safe sex’ campaigns in high school health classes. So, if we can’t make men stick around, and we can’t make women not become drug addicts and then have unprotected sex, we can at least make them undergo sterilization, right? Not constitutionally. But, organizations like Project Prevention, Harris says, can pay women who are drug addicts $300 to undergo voluntary sterilization. One might say this is compassion, even.
Compassion? What is compassionate about removing someone’s ability to procreate, possibly after they get clean? According to her website, Barbara Harris, founder of Project Prevention, personally adopted four of the eight children born of one Los Angeles drug addict. Harris watched as her children went through hours of painful withdrawal. “Something had to be done,” says Harris, and thus Project Prevention was born. And, while the drug addicts in the program are referred to drug treatment programs, Project Prevention is intended to reduce substance abuse related births specifically.
In a world that encourages women like this to destroy the human life inside them, paying drug addicted women to undergo sterilization is a humane, ethical method of preventing costly and immoral tragedies to be wrought over and over again. Harris is reducing the number of drug addicted babies, abortions and ruined lives, all for the cost of $300.
According to her website, Harris has paid over 3,000 women, who had been pregnant a total of 14,000 times, not including miscarriages. These women had given birth 10,000 times, and undergone over 4,000 abortions. 1,000 of the children born to these women were stillborn or died shortly after birth, and 6,000 remain in foster care to date. 29 men have also undergone the procedure.
To compare voluntary sterilization, as some have, to social engineering is misguided and, I think, ignorant of the purposes of social engineering. Especially, when many of the critics support the national holocaust begun by the likes of Margaret Sanger, a true eugenicist who aimed to eradicate “human weeds”, like the negro race (her words, not mine). Project Prevention aims to save children from enduring the torturous abuse of their drug addicted parents. Sanger wanted to eradicate entire people groups. I welcome thoughts and opinions regarding this issue.
David Teesdale, likes to stir the pudding. Unless it is tapioca pudding. That stuff is gross.