Mandatory birth control for women on welfare, what do you think?

link

The writer of this article is (Very rudely) stating that ALL women on welfare are incompetent and should not be allowed to have children.

This has greatly offended me. I am a single mom, on welfare, and I am a wonderful mom. My son is healthy, happy and thriving. The only reason I don't have a job is because I want to spend time with him until he is old enough to be away from me a little more.

I am in college right now so that I CAN give him a good life, and I cannot believe this article.

I understand that a good majority of people on welfare, are on it for the wrong reasons. But to judge an entire group of people based on economical status and opinion is completely unethical. less

I think that there are too many rich people having children. I say that the rich should not be allowed to breed, because they are stealing money from the working class to send their children off to expensive private schools.

The class war is the only war worth fighting! less

Enforced sterility is barbaric and quite illegal. When you consider that most birth control also reduces libido it's just plain criminal to say that just because you are on welfare you don't have the right to a libido or sexual reproduction. Now I also believe that people should be responsible for their decisions. I don't think increasing a person's welfare check because they have had another baby is necessarily correct either. No one increased my husband's paycheck or my lifepartner's paycheck when we had Monkey. Tax breaks should be available...still I dunno there really isn't an equitable solution. Forcing people to take drugs isn't the answer.
You are doing what you are supposed to Cherry You are in school to provide a better life for yourself and your child, you have nothing to be ashamed of...nor should you feel pressured to take birth control. The problem is with these young women who DON'T care about providing more for their kids...and like I said there really isn't an equitable answer that won't hurt someone. less

I didn't "go on welfare so I could spend time with my kid". He doesn't have his father, period. And he needs me around. I have tons of other resources personally that I am going to and the one thing that bothers me about all this is that people think that single moms on welfare are lazy and don't want to work. That isn't the case; I go to school half time and working my way up because I would rather work on having enough money so I can get OFF welfare.

And not everyone who is on welfare is incompetent to take care of their kids. I can't stand those women that have a kid every other year to make money. I agree with the fact that, that is horrible and the children don't deserve to be in that situation.

On the other hand, I know that with the economy the way it is right now a lot more people are turning to welfare to help keep their heads above water. I guess it strikes a chord with me because I take care of myself and my son and I make sure that I get things done that need to be.

Up here women on welfare do go to job placement agencies. I actually wish I could work right now but how are we supposed to find jobs when there are none? less

Personally, I feel that a person on welfare is on it because they do not have money. Therefore, they cannot AFFORD to have a child. Until they have the means to fully support and take care of a child, they should not have one, no - it is a disservice to the child themselves. Aside for that though, they are not incompetent or unintelligent - having no money means none of this. less

I agree with this post, because if a parent was truly the type to want their children to have a good life, they would wait until they could provide for them before they had more. Welfare as I've seen it barely gives families enough to get by, so it seems irresponsible to add another baby into that situation and there's no excuse for it.

However, I've seen the nasty side effects that modern birth control (not including condoms) has on many women, my wife included, so I don't advocate anyone telling a woman that she has to subject her body to that garbage. less

It sounds just like Eugenics part II to me and is equally wrong and disturbing. Here in the U.S. no one should agree with forcing people to give up any right based on their socioeconomic status. And if anyone is unfamiliar with the Eugenics Project, born out of a cousin of Charles Darwin here in the U.S., Virginia, I think, you should look it up. The history was well hidden.

I do think that people should be reasonable and at least try not to have babies they can't care for, but that's personal responsibility. And if they're bad enough parents, social services/child welfare can step in. But seriously, poor parents does not equal bad parents. They have just as much love, support, and morality as people with money. And the rich can easily become bankrupt and the poor can definitely alter their circumstances as well. less

AGREED. The great USA has a long history of sterilizing the poor (which was, more often than not, women of colour) or the "damaged" (the deaf, blind, epileptics, the physically disabled and thementally ill) in the name of "public interest" without the knowledge or consent of those sterilized.

This is a hot-button issue of mine but I really concur the need for people to be more informed on the American tradition of eugenics. less

You should know that for some people waiting until they are more financially stable is not an option. I have a friend who I have known since we were 4, she finished teaching school and her and her new husband are both working as substitute teachers. I don't know if you know anything about substituting, but it is a very unstable work situation, you never know when you will have money coming in, sometimes it is a lot, other times hardly anything at all. However it is a necessary step in working as a full time teacher, it builds reputation in schools which puts you in a position where you are likely to be hired when a position becomes available. Now I don't know about you but I think that teaching is a very respectable job.

This same girl however has a mother who had a hormonal cancer, which is a cancer that is greatly effected by the types and amount of hormones in a persons body. This means that my friend has a higher likelyhood of developing this same type of cancer. Now, the problem is that every year that she does NOT get pregnant after the age of 26, the likelyhood of her developing this cancer goes up by 10%. She is already at an increased risk, so the question is, does she have a baby now? Lowering her risk of cancer substantially but bringing a baby into a less stable financial situation. Or does she wait, increasing her likelyhood of developing cancer, being in an even less stable financial situation when she can't work and cancer related bills are sucking her and her husbands finances dry, and then possibly dying leaving her child with no mother?

This is actually the case for many women, as cancer risk factors and exposure to carcinogenic materials ais on the rise. Breast cancer is far more common in women who waited and had children later in life. On top of that, there are increased risks during pregnancy, to both the mother and baby every year after a woman is 35.

How about the increased risk of breast cancer linked to the estrogen in birth control pills? There are A LOT of factors one must consider.

This is a system designed to help people temporarily, so that they have a better chance of becomming self reliant later. There are many many programs attached to Welfare, at least in Canada, aimed towards providing funding for work training, going back to school to become better educated and career ready, or simply just finding any sort of work that is out there to be had.
Somebody being in a situation where they need this system and take advantage of it, so that they can better their lives, is not something you should hold against them. Many MANY women end up on the system because they are in a relationship where the man works and wants the woman to stay home and take care of their children. The relationship breaks down and the woman is left alone, with children to support and no job or education beyond highschool or some college. Thus leaving them in a situation where they would be lucky to find a job that pays more than minimum wage, which depending on how many children they have, is not enough to support their family. It is not their fault they are in the situation they are in. They did not have children when they could not support them.

I agree fully that people abusing the system is wrong, and having babies solely to increase your welfare payments is FUCKED. A child should be brought into the world because the parents wanted a child to love and adore. For no other reason. less

btaylor I completely agree and I would include sterilization into that program. I also feel they need to remove the age limit on sterilization. I wanted to have my tubes tied when I was about 27 years old and I could not find a doctor to do it because I was young and had no children.

I am 41 now and still have no children and feel that I should have been allowed to have my tubes tied. Now I risk cancer from taking drugs that women over 40 are not supposed to take and can not afford to have my tubes tied.

I realize they do this because they don't want to reverse sterilizations, but shouldn't it be the woman's choice (or man's) as long as they understand the consequences?

Currently in my state a man can get assistance to have a vasectomy but there is no assistance for a tubiligation.

As for the article, I find it offensive as well. While I don't think it is a good idea to have more children while on welfare, I don't think forced sterilization is the answer.

By the way in the US most birthcontrol is free through organizations like Planned Parenthood for low income people. As I mentioned above they will even provide vasectomies. Even when I have insurance and a good job, I use Planned Parenthood to support what they do. Providing birth control resources is very important in my opinion. less

It sounds just like Eugenics part II to me and is equally wrong and disturbing. Here in the U.S. no one should agree with forcing people to give up any right based on their socioeconomic status. And if anyone is unfamiliar with the Eugenics Project, born out of a cousin of Charles Darwin here in the U.S., Virginia, I think, you should look it up. The history was well hidden.

I do think that people should be reasonable and at least try not to have babies they can't care for, but that's personal responsibility. And if they're bad enough parents, social services/child welfare can step in. But seriously, poor parents does not equal bad parents. They have just as much love, support, and morality as people with money. And the rich can easily become bankrupt and the poor can definitely alter their circumstances as well. less

Wow that Eugenics stuff is interesting. I might do my final paper on that. I was thinking about doing it on this whole thing about the welfare/birth control.

Alicia- I understand where you are coming from as well. Trust me I am perfectly capable of working and I can't wait to get my ass back out there and do it. But between jobs being scarce and my son being so young still with just me, I decided to just keep my nose in the books. I'd rather do that now and be able to have a good job in the future for him so that we can turn around and help others.

That's why I'm glad that I am able to adopt a family for christmas. I am more than grateful to be able to give back to the community that helps me out so much, and I have eden to thank for that. less

Wow that Eugenics stuff is interesting. I might do my final paper on that. I was thinking about doing it on this whole thing about the welfare/birth control.

Alicia- I understand where you are coming from as well. Trust me I am perfectly capable of working and I can't wait to get my ass back out there and do it. But between jobs being scarce and my son being so young still with just me, I decided to just keep my nose in the books. I'd rather do that now and be able to have a good job in the future for him so that we can turn around and help others.

That's why I'm glad that I am able to adopt a family for christmas. I am more than grateful to be able to give back to the community that helps me out so much, and I have eden to thank for that. less

I think this is an absolutely perfect example of why the concept of making a socioeconomic-wide rule just wouldn't be right at all. Thank you for sharing, Girl With Fire! And good luck to your friend as well. Teachers are the most important job in my opinion and they deserve more respect. Without teachers, we couldn't have any children growing up to be any profession at all. less