Project Prevention-PAID to get sterilized

[deleted account] ( 14 moms have responded )

I learned about this organization last night watching the news. Any of you ever hear of it? Project Prevention is a program that PAYS drug addicts to get sterilized in order to prevent drug-addicted babies. I read through the web site and especially the testimonials. Makes sense to me, but obviously met with criticism. What are your thoughts?

http://projectprevention.org/

"The main objective of Project Prevention is to reduce the number of substance exposed births to zero.

In doing so, Project Prevention seeks to reduce the burden of this social problem on taxpayers, trim down social worker caseloads, and alleviate from our clients the burden of having children that will potentially be taken away.

Unlike incarceration, Project Prevention extremely cost effective and does not punish the participants.

We seek and welcome alliances with all sectors of our communities including drug treatment programs, hospitals, social service departments, among others, and have established such contacts throughout the United States.

Project Prevention does not have the resources to combat the national problems of poverty, housing, nutrition, education and rehabilitation services. Those resources we do have are spent entirely on reducing the number of substance-exposed births to zero.

Project Prevention offers cash incentives to women that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long-term or permanent birth control.

Project Prevention is a national, 501 (C) 3 organization that has paid clients in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

Our mission is to reduce the number of substance exposed births to zero."

This conversation has been closed to further comments

14 Comments

View replies by

Emma - posted on 04/30/2010

1,590

15

114

They should not pay them but offer it and other long team birth control for free

[deleted account]

I'm sure a lot of my taxes go towards caring for those babies--I have absolutely no problem with that at all. To me, they deserve the care, and the money it takes to give it to them. They could not help their situation, they didn't make the choices that put them in their situations. What I would have a problem with is my taxes repeatedly paying for expensive birth control so drug addicts can continue to sleep around with no consequences.

I think that if they accept the money, they should be placed in mandatory rehab. I know that will cost a lot, but drug addicts don't need enablers, they need HELP and this is not help.
Just for the record, I also don't think mothers who give birth to drug addicted babies should be sent to prison. I think they should be sent to intensive rehab. If what Jo Stred said is true (and it very well could be, maybe I've just had a worse than usual experience) then their babies would be cared for while they are in rehab, they will be allowed visitation to their children, and once they show that they can stay clean for a year, they can get their babies back. I know this would cost a lot, and statistics show that drug addicts 90 someodd percent of the time (sorry, forget the exact stat) are repeat offenders, give birth to multiple special needs children, and serve multiple prison sentences. If we spend a little (ok, a lot) extra to help them on the FIRST baby, and they recover, that would prevent the additional babies, preserve prison space for violent offenders (most inmates serving time for drug offences never commit a violent crime), and save a lot of tax money used during their repeated trials. PLUS there would be a lot less drug babies (which are hard to get adopted due to their health and emotional issues) in the foster system.

I'm sorry, I'm sure I got way off there, but those are my thoughts.

?? - posted on 04/19/2010

4,974

0

172

I think when a woman has her first drug-addicted baby she should be put in the position to accept rehababilitation, accept mandatory birth control, or accept sterilization.

What about men? How do we stop men from reproducing? Dead beat dads continue to cause just as many problems for children - drug addicted maybe not - but mothers who 'want to do the right thing' end up supporting children who's daddy's are addicted and can't, won't and don't choose to give money to support the child instead they go and buy heroin, crack, meth, etc etc etc...

Is this program only to stop women from harming babies? Because the drug addicted men do just as much harm, in different ways, as drug addicted women.

[deleted account]

I do support the program's mission of reducing the number of live drug-addicted babies. I would agree that the long term birth control is more favorable than complete sterilization. But on the other hand, if there's a drug addict that is on her 4th drug addicted baby that was removed from her care upon birth, yeah, I would support complete sterilization in those cases. The focus of the organization is providing the tools to reduce the drug babies, which in turn cost us taxpayers millions of dollars. So for that I believe the program is important.

Krista - posted on 04/19/2010

12,562

16

847

I could be wrong, but I somehow doubt they're receiving any sort of government grants, due to the controversial nature of their work.

And even if some of your tax money WAS going towards this...isn't some of your tax money already going towards caring for the babies of addicts? Medical treatment, social services' expenses, court time...all that stuff probably costs a lot more than an IUD, if I had to guess.

?? - posted on 04/19/2010

4,974

0

172

"I've never seen an addict recover well enough to make a good parent so I don't see any harm in taking that right from them." -- Kelly Hazel



I'm right here. Almost 10 years ago I would have GLADLY said "GIVE ME THE MONEY." And now I wouldn't have my beautiful son. People change. Things change. The permanence of it all is equally as irresponsible as the addiction. In a lot of cases of addiction recovery the REASON the addict chooses recovery is because of their children. Maybe personally you don't know anyone Kelly, but most of the recovering addicts I know chose to live because of their children, and the ones who have been successful are just as good of parents as the parents I know who haven't touched any drugs.



I would even go to say they are even better parents (not better than people who haven't been addicted - I mean better than they would have been otherwise) because of their recovery, they've experienced something that gives them 'the inside edge' of what CAN happen, they've been through the therapy and have learned coping skills and mechanisms that they can utilize that most people don't have, even if they've never had any sort of emotional problem... they're more understanding, more able to adapt to problems, and have an easier time accepting their childrens flaws as much as their wonderful qualities as well as teaching their children those flaws do not make them a bad person.



I can't support this because I am living proof that being an addict is not *always* forever.

Tah - posted on 04/19/2010

7,412

22

400

what if you know someone that isn't on drugs but really shouldn't reproduce..can you recommend them???????????

[deleted account]

I think if they are actually getting paid for it, they should be sterilized. I'm not against offering free longterm bc to addicts as long as it is a complete charity and they are not receiving any government grants or funds--I hate to think I'm paying for someone else's bc after I had to go shell out $1200 for mine last month. I wish I'd known about it then, all I had to do was go smoke a few joints, fail a test, and I could've gotten paid to get my IUD! Too bad I'm a responsible person.

?? - posted on 04/19/2010

4,974

0

172

I think we had this topic up awhile ago, my suggestion -- offer rehab and then after a 90 day clean probation period they can choose to stay in treatment and get better or take the $$ and get sterilized OR stay in treatment and go on some sort of birth control or take the money and go on some sort of birth control...... I think offering addicts money outright is stupid and irresponsible. Fantastic way to be an enabler and not doing anything to help the actual issue.

Lindsay - posted on 04/19/2010

3,532

26

267

Well not much of a debate here, I agree with you ladies as well. I think it's a great idea for the long term BC like and IUD. Complete sterilization though is really pushing it on an ethical level. In a healthcare setting, the patient needs to be of sound mind to make a decision like that. Obviously, they're not of sound mind when they are addicted to drugs and not able to make that logical decision. Being able to have the option to have a baby after you are clean may just be enough motivation for some trying to get clean to make that final step in the right direction. But how sad would it be for someone to work so hard to better themself and their life and not be able to try for that baby later in life?

Johnny - posted on 04/19/2010

8,686

26

322

Drug addicts have been known to try to sell their babies for drugs. Of course they would sell their fertility for drugs. It's a no brainer. And this group is taking advantage of that desperation. I agree with Krista, long-term contraception is an excellent idea. Providing 5 or 10 year IUD's to drug addicts would be a real step forward. But sterilizing a vulnerable segment of society just smacks of eugenics. Drug addicts become clean all the time, they should have the same rights to conceive as anyone else.

Carolee - posted on 04/18/2010

21,950

17

585

I don't think they should pay the participants, but I do think it's a good idea. If they simply provided the service for free, that would be good, too.

Cassie - posted on 04/18/2010

0

0

182

I agree with Krista. While I think it is wonderful to provide drug and alcohol addicts long term birth control options, I don't necessarily agree with them being paid to be sterilized. An addicts mind is basically on a one way track, the next high. If they are desperate for that high and find that they can be paid for sterilization, they may go ahead with the decision solely to get high. If those people were to clean up their lives one day, it is a very sad fact that they would be unable to have children of their own.

I 100% support providing them with the 5 or 10 year IUD in order to prevent pregnancy long term but I don't think they should be paid for complete sterilization. At the height of their addiction, they are unable to look out for their own best interest so it is unfair to take advantage of their situation to "push" sterilization.

Krista - posted on 04/18/2010

12,562

16

847

I'm not sure how keen I am on them being sterilized. Some drug addicts do get clean, and it's sad to think that they would not be able to have a child because they made that decision when they were in a completely different place in their lives.



I DO, however, love the idea of them being paid to go on long-term, reversible birth control, like a 5-year or 10-year IUD. If a woman is addicted to drugs, she really should not be having a baby. And it's not like a lot of them would be in a frame of mind to be responsible enough to take a pill every day or make their partner use a condom.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms