SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
USA Today reports that Tennessee has become the first state with legislation that will criminally charge women who use drugs while pregnant with assault for harm done to their infants. Tennessee officials have wrestled with what to do about the growing numbers of infants born dependent on drugs (921 in Tennessee in 2013) and who often suffer from a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome. The legislation would allow mothers to avoid criminal charges if they get into one of the state's few treatment programs. Governor Bill Haslam says he wants doctors to encourage women to get into treatment before delivering their babies so they can avoid charges. "The intent of this bill is to give law enforcement and district attorneys a tool to address illicit drug use among pregnant women through treatment programs," says Haslam.
Seventeen states already consider drug use during pregnancy as child abuse and in three of them Minnesota, South Dakota and Wisconsin it is grounds for civil commitment (e.g. forced enrollment in treatment programs). In 15 states, health-care providers are required to report suspected abuse and, in four of those states, they are then also required to test for drug exposure of the child. Eighteen states have treatment programs targeted at pregnant women. Opponents of the bill, including five national medical organizations and local doctors who treat pregnant women, worry that criminalization will scare women away from treatment. "This law separates mothers from their children and is not patient-centered," says Cherisse A. Scott. "Tennessee families who are already being hit the hardest by policies such as the failure to expand Medicaid, poverty and a lack of available drug treatment facilities will be most deeply impacted by this bill."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday May 06 2014, @08:18AM
We here in the south call crap like this "backdoor religion" as it on the surface sounds like they are concerned with the welfare of unborn children but as you note anybody who thinks about it even for a few seconds can spot the flaw while in reality its to sell to the moral majority types (whom I personally cannot stand, they try to block contraceptives and abortions but you don't see their spoiled asses lining up to take the piles of unwanted children that are the result) whom the politicians can sell this as "one more step to abolishing Roe V Wade!". To those type I usually say "Sure lets go back to the back alley abortions of the 50s while the rich jet off to France for "treatment for exhaustion". Hey while you are at it maybe you can put them uppity blacks back in their place?". The scary part is running into those ultra right fundies down in the south all my life? Many of them would probably go for that.
That said there is a simple way to damned near wipe out ALL abortion AND drug addicted babies without having to ban a single thing, but man you want to hear the NAACP/ACLU/ultra liberal types have a screaming shitfit just you dare mention it....offer $5000 in cash to any women of child bearing age who will get her tubes tied, and $2500 to any man. You do that you would have the junkies lining up around the block and within 5 years addicted babies, hell damned near all unwanted pregnancies, would be a thing of the past. But just try suggesting it without the ultra left rushing to throw down their race card, like blacks and latinos are little children that are so weak willed that just the thought of money will be enough to wipe out the entire bunch. Personally I think its damned insulting that the left thinks so little of black people and the NAACP should be ashamed for trying to make it into a race issue, but when you consider how much a drug addicted unwanted child costs ALL of us for the life of that child, from special needs to child abuse to increased crime? That 5k would be money well spent and would save the people several orders of magnitude more than trying to lock up every female junkie in the USA of childbearing age.
Because as someone who has lived on both sides of the tracks I can tell you that is EXACTLY what you'll have to do, as it doesn't take long for a woman with a habit to figure out when she runs out of shit she can trade that ass for dope. Hell there is one I see nearly every day on the street from the building down the way, she is covered in meth sores and is carrying her NINTH kid, which I'm sure the state will get to raise like it has the previous eight, because whenever she runs out of money she just starts trading sex for dope and cash. Even handing out condoms to them won't help as I had to ask her when she was pregnant with number eight why she didn't just have the man use a rubber and got told "You get more for bareback"..sheesh.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06 2014, @08:29AM
I like your idea. The only catch might be increases in rates of STD inflections due to those spending their tube tying monies on new televisions going out and fucking everything that moves under the impression that they're safe.
I'm not religious, but the one merit of a healthy fear of god is that more people may think with their brains than with their privates... OTOH the demographic we're talking about might not think about it much at all; just gimme mah EBT y'all!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @09:29AM
> But just try suggesting it without the ultra left rushing to throw down their race card,
Don't confuse the race card with the poor card. Your idea means that a huge number of desperately poor people would have to give up the chance to have children in the future in order to eat. It would be nice to think, hey that's their choice to make and leave it at that. But that would be simplistic thinking -- just making that offer a standard policy would alter the market so that there would be less alternatives to taking that money.
If it were temporary, like an IUD or a slow-release hormone implant, you'd get far less disagreement.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 06 2014, @02:28PM
I hate to break it to you, but vasectomies and tubal ligations have been reversible for many years now. Your information is decades out of date.
Also, look at the alternative: lots and lots of kids being born into poverty and abusive situations. You really think that's a good thing? What is society supposed to do about that? Give these people lots of money so they can raise their kids better? That just gives people (who already have big problems in life: lack of education, drug addiction, etc.) an incentive to have even more kids, who are going to grow up to be fucked up just like their parents, if not worse.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @05:14PM
> I hate to break it to you, but vasectomies and tubal ligations have been
> reversible for many years now. Your information is decades out of date.
Of course the reality is that it is waaaay more complicated than that. For a poor person, they are effectively irreversible.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 06 2014, @07:08PM
If you're too poor to get a vasectomy reversal, then how the heck do you expect to afford raising a kid?
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @07:53PM
> If you're too poor to get a vasectomy reversal,
> then how the heck do you expect to afford raising a kid?
(1) The underlying premise of your statement is that if someone can't afford to throw away an extra $2k+ (or likely double that given that poor people rarely "marry up" any more) then they deserve not to have any children. That's backdoor eugenics.
(2) Tubal reversal is serious surgery. Far more risky and expensive than the ligation itself and with a significant chance of failure. There is already too much risk of death in child birth [aljazeera.com] and it is mainly clustered in poor women. What you propose means increasing that risk of death and injury.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 06 2014, @08:34PM
then they deserve not to have any children. That's backdoor eugenics.
The underlying premise of your statement is that money grows on trees or children don't cost any money to raise. Please tell me exactly how someone who can't scrape together $2k (let's suppose the service is subsidized a little) can possibly afford to properly raise a child in this economy? $2k in most places is only about 2 month's rent in a 2-bedroom apartment (maybe less in some more rural areas) these days. Not only do you need a proper home (with separate bedroom) for a child, you have to pay for medical care/insurance (it's extra for kids), clothes (they grow quickly; you can save a lot by getting used baby clothes from Goodwill but still...), food, baby formula if breast-feeding isn't working, diapers, a car seat (if you have a car), a stroller, etc. Kids are expensive.
(2) Tubal reversal is serious surgery.
Well this is really a separate issue from the whole "eugenics" thing, so let's assume that we're only talking about paying poor men to get vasectomies.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @08:47PM
> The underlying premise of your statement is that money grows on trees or children don't cost any money to raise.
No, the premise is that adding an additional burden above and beyond what it should cost to raise a child is more than unfair. I don't dispute that children are expensive, what I do dispute is the idea that adding financial barriers to parenthood is moral.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 06 2014, @09:16PM
No one added a financial burden to parenthood, that's the flaw with your reasoning. If the poor men are getting paid to get vasectomies, and then having to pay later to reverse it, they're actually profiting since they're getting a zero-interest loan (let's assume here that the pricing is fixed so that the cost of reversal is the same as the amount they're paid to get a vasectomy). If you're offering these men $2k to get fixed, and then years later they have to pay $2k to reverse it, that's not "an additional burden" at all. Don't forget, by having vasectomies, these men will save money by not having to purchase condoms (though they're still be a good idea for STD prevention if they're having sex with partners they're not sure of), not to mention the huge savings by not having to pay child-support payments to single women they accidentally impregnate.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @09:28PM
That's the same logic that says organ selling should be legal. Because, hey, after all, it is their choice.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 07 2014, @12:23AM
What's the alternative? Let them keep breeding like rabbits, and then give them more welfare assistance?
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:03AM
> What's the alternative? Let them keep breeding like rabbits, and then give them more welfare assistance?
"Breeding like rabbits?" Wow.
The US birthrate is 1.9 per woman, [washingtonpost.com] which is less than what's necessary to maintain population levels, the country needs those kids. Making sure they have the opportunities necessary to succeed ought to be a priority. Given that total spending on welfare for children is less than 1% of the budget, [washingtonpost.com] we can probably afford to do better by them
But, if your problem is with the rabbits, free access to long-term contraception like IUDs -- as I mentioned in my first post -- ought to suit you just fine.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:30PM
The kids are all being born to the lowest classes. Why should the upper classes care about taking care of kids that aren't theirs? And how do you do that anyway, when the kids are in the custody of the poor, uneducated parents who are going to raise the kids to be just like themselves: poor and uneducated? You can't force people to raise their kids in the way you approve of, and you're not going to magically turn all these kids of uneducated people into doctors and engineers, since the most important factor in a child's education is their parents.
The way I see it, this country is headed for a big collapse within a generation.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @04:52PM
Its like everything you write is simply stating the premise as the conclusion, that poor people suck.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 07 2014, @05:03PM
No, only ones who want to have a bunch of kids they can't afford and then expect other people to pay for raising them. That's called "irresponsible" in my book.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @05:10PM
And how do you differentiate between those people and all the other poor people?
Oh yeah, make them pay an extra $4k+ and risk their health in order to prove their worthiness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @01:32AM
I think we could go nearly a century before collapse. We'll recover too, since the worthless won't survive without help, but that could be 2000 years from now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday May 06 2014, @02:45PM
Insightful? Really mods? you guys DO know that both male and female tube tying has been reversible for quite [tubalrever...ration.com] a long time now [wikipedia.org] but unlike the IUD (which has a higher failure rate BTW) they have to actually SPEND MONEY to get it done....I can tell you that most won't, and if having children isn't even worth the $3k it would take to have it reversed? Then I'm sorry but you would be a shitty parent or be unable to support the child without state help, so no child for you.
And just FYI but I would also like to point out for the gallery that just because they have their tubes tied does not keep them from adopting any of the tens of thousands of unwanted children in the SYSTEM RIGHT NOW. If this would make those that truly want children look at adoption as a first or second choice? Its a win/win and worth every cent.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @05:23PM
> I can tell you that most won't, and if having children isn't even worth the $3k
> it would take to have it reversed? Then I'm sorry but you would be a shitty parent
Nevermind the fact that it isn't just as simple as ponying up the money, it is hard to imagine a better demonstration of the utter callousness of your position then that.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday May 06 2014, @06:25PM
As opposed to YOUR callousness as to allow all these unwanted, often drug addicted and later on physically and even sexually abused children to be born? If you 1.- Don't give enough of a shit about your reproductive rights as to be wiling to sell them for as little as 5k and 2.- later on can't be bothered to save up enough to have it reversed? i'm sorry but you simply aren't good parenting material, no way you can possibly spin that into anything else. And I noticed how you completely sidestepped both the fact that they would sell their rights for so cheap AND that they could easily adopt, what does that say about YOUR position, hmm?
Are you REALLY gonna argue that someone who places so little value on their reproductive rights would be a GOOD parent, really? Or are you seriously trying to argue that "those people" are just like little children and don't have enough sense to make up their own minds without you, the righteous middle class white person, making the choice FOR them? Is that really your position? because I have had this argument before and it always comes down to one or the other, either you think they are morons who should be "protected" because the poor and minorities simply can't be trusted to make their own choices, or they take the position that ALL reproductive rights are sacred and it doesn't matter if they are junkies, child abusers, or scum of the earth simply because they have the ability to pop out a kid that should be protected at all costs, welfare of the child and society be damned...so which is it?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @06:51PM
> As opposed to YOUR callousness as to allow all these unwanted, often drug
> addicted and later on physically and even sexually abused children to be born?
Wow. Think of the children! Of course all the kids born to poor parents are unwanted, drug addicted and abused. Poor people are such terrible parents.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday May 06 2014, @10:08PM
Hey my parents were poor but unlike "those people" which is the obvious position you are supporting they WOULD NOT SELL THEIR RIGHTS and THAT is the difference! If you truly believe that "those people" can't be allowed to make their own choices without your white middle class input, why stop there? After all if they can't be trusted to decide whether to have reproductive rights or not what makes you think they have the ability to choose WHEN to use them either? Don't you think YOU would be better at deciding this?
I just hope you see how completely condescending and racist you sound, thinking that somehow 5k will sap them of their will and like little children that eat candy until they get sick they can't even have enough sense to decide how their bodies should be treated without YOU choosing for them.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @10:33PM
> Hey my parents were poor but unlike "those people" which is the obvious position you are supporting they
> WOULD NOT SELL THEIR RIGHTS and THAT is the difference!
Not sure who "those people" are, but it sure is easy for you to claim your parents would never have chosen food, housing, medical treatment or even just transportation to a job so as to give birth to you ten years later.
> After all if they can't be trusted to decide whether to have reproductive rights or not
Of course they can choose, they make that choice every day, the problem is holding them hostage to their poverty. You want to give out free IUDs, that's fine. You start paying people for something that is at best expensive to reverse and you start creating all kinds of perverse incentives.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:58AM
My dad actually worked dead end jobs with a cracked skull just to make sure that my mother could get the medical treatment that was required for me to be born so...yes i think I can say that with 100% certainty. And again you completely avoid (like most of the left wingers that hold this position) explaining why you think that YOU are qualified to decide what THEY can and can't choose. Who are YOU to decide this? Who are YOU to say that all these unwanted children should be born? Are YOU gonna pay for them? How many have YOU adopted? Thought so, you see the left and the right have that in common, they just looove telling OTHERS how THEY should live but when it comes to walking the walk? then its THEIR problem not yours.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:15AM
> My dad actually worked dead end jobs with a cracked skull just to make sure that my mother could get the
> medical treatment that was required for me to be born so...yes i think I can say that with 100% certainty.
Your mother being already pregnant is a completely different situation than what is being discussed here.
> explaining why you think that YOU are qualified to decide what THEY can and can't choose
I never said they can't choose. Offering desperate people money to make a choice is coercion.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:27AM
WRONG sir you are trying to spin the fact that you believe that poor people are children that they have NO free will of their own, simply because they are poor. You sir are arguing the same position that those for affirmative action, that without your help they are incapable of making a responsible choice. You can spin all you want but ultimately that IS your position, that being poor makes "those people" so pathetic and helpless that ONLY with YOU making the choice FOR them they will be okay.
Tell me would YOU sell YOUR reproductive rights simply because you are poor? Then why do you think that they are impotent children that can't choose correctly without you? You DO realize this is the exact same argument that is used for every. single. nanny. state. law. we have had from prohibition on up, the poor are helpless, they are stupid, after all if they weren't they wouldn't be poor would they? they will spend all their money on drugs if they are legal, spend all their money on booze if that is legal, they will gamble away every dime if there is a lotto or casino, your entire argument is based on the frankly offensive position that poor are children, only rich white people like yourself are qualified to make the choices for them.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:04AM
> Tell me would YOU sell YOUR reproductive rights simply because you are poor?
If I was starving, or homeless or dying of a treatable disease and the money would be enough to cure it then I probably would and so would most rationale and sane people.
> WRONG sir you are trying to spin the fact that you believe that poor people are children
Whatevers dude. I think your crazy-ass ranting has discredited your own position way more than anything I could have written and really that's the about the best I could reasonably expect from this conversation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:16AM
I desperately want this to be a valid solution but the sociologists will see it as ethnic clraning. I agree that it should be done as a black man who works with primarily food stamp recipients. However, we would have to that the process is free of cultural and economic decriminalize.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday May 06 2014, @11:57AM
"offer $5000 in cash to any women of child bearing age"
The problem with this logic, is they might be dumb, but they're not that dumb, and they'll get them tied after their little benefit sources are popped out. Below a certain income level, each kid is a net positive financial source.
Crude as it sounds, I'd say bring back the orphanages for about one generation and hand out free heroin to anyone screwed up enough to use it. Skip this meth stuff it doesn't kill them fast enough, go right to the strong stuff. Once the gene pool is cleansed, it'll be a much smaller problem.
One interesting idea is mix-ins with the free .gov stuff. Not poison or injectable birth control, but maybe folic acid, so there will be fewer deformed kids born making the inevitable .gov / taxpayer expense somewhat lower. Still present of course, but lower. Aside from iron, I'm not sure there's anything in prenatal vitamins thats bad for men, or at least worse for them than the heroin. That would have interesting social effects, where the leech class families would end up healthier than working class and some middle class families, which is pretty messed up. Still adding some supplements to the .gov free stuff isn't all that bad of an idea overall.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @12:18PM
> Below a certain income level, each kid is a net positive financial source.
Really? What level is that? Because, to me, that sounds like one of those things everybody knows, but nobody has ever proven. Back before "welfare reform" cut-backs, the marginal value of a kid on welfare was $3/day. [fair.org] Even in 1995 dollars, $3 was barely enough to feed the kid.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 06 2014, @02:14PM
that's kinda the point... you don't have to feed them if they get free breakfast and free lunch at school, and free food pantry for the occasional meal at home.
So food and medical are free, donated clothes are free, um, every penny seems to be pure profit?
"responsibility" is a middle class value, so applying that to another culture is imperialistic, blah blah, just doesn't work. Raising the kid is the .gov's problem, and parent keeps the money, every penny of it.
The problem is the population contains two groups, civilized contributors suffering from a likely temporary lack of money (or permanent due to tragedy, etc) and an uncivilized group providing nothing other than employment to the social work and prison-industrial complex employees. By definition the former is not going to be acting as described, other than occasional accident or whatever, we're only talking about the behavior of the uncivilized latter group.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @05:06PM
> that's kinda the point... you don't have to feed them if they get free breakfast
> and free lunch at school, and free food pantry for the occasional meal at home.
So, your contention is that women on welfare will have children so that years later, when they start going to school where there is free breakfast and lunch, they will get to steal the $90/month for themselves? And what actual proof do you have for your claims other than your belief that poor people aren't responsible?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 06 2014, @05:56PM
As an inductive experiment, lets assume irresponsibility is inversely correlated with poverty ... I can't go on from here ...
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, and with the conclusion of the discussion, have a nice day.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @06:22PM
> As an inductive experiment, lets assume irresponsibility is inversely correlated with poverty
Yes, that seems to be what you have assumed. Poor people are stupid. Man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06 2014, @06:21PM
a lot of the stuff you're saying seems like its coming straight from fox news. granted, there certainly are people who are nothing but a drain on the system, and actually do have more children just to get more cash assistance from the government - i actually know one of them, and its sickening - but the people like that who actually are nothing but a drain are not a majority, they are just a tiny fraction so small it would be considered a rounding error when taken against the whole population, probably even still when considered against those in poverty (which is half the country according to mitt romney).
the majority of the poor really are in your first category - civilized contributors stick in a bad situation, often due to there being no jobs. your latter category is more like the mythical "voter fraud" problem, while it does indeed exist and occur from time to time, it doesnt happen enough to be an actual problem, and is more of a scare tactic than anything else.
posting AC because i havent gone through the whole thread for mod purposes yet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 06 2014, @03:36PM
I'm an NAACP/ACLU/ultra-liberal type. (Also, for the record, the ACLU has not-infrequently stood on the side of conservatives exercising their civil liberties too, and describing it as a liberal organization is at least partially incorrect.)
I don't find your idea wholly a bad one, but don't think it will work quite as well as you might hope. My guess is that most people who end up on drugs and pregnant aren't thinking ahead enough to even know that the program you described exists, much less take advantage of it. I also see potential for waste, fraud, and abuse:
- doctors claiming to have performed sterilizations they hadn't
- snatching people up off of the street, sterilizing them, and taking their $5K. Or pimps doing the same thing to their prostitutes.
- bad folks working with unscrupulous doctors pretend to be 3 different people, doctor performs 1 sterilization, claims to have done 3, and the person gets $15K instead of $5K.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.