Sterilizing poor people

Worried that welfare costs are rising as the number of taxpayers declines, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said Tuesday he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

"We're on a train headed to the future and there's a bridge out," LaBruzzo said of what he suspects are dangerous demographic trends. "And nobody wants to talk about it."

LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government. He said he is gathering statistics now. (cont.)

No votes yet

Of course it's strictly NOT PC, but I think it's a great idea.
Why in the hell should the taxpayers have to keep shelling out more and more money to welfare mom's who keep popping out babies like it's going out of style?

Remember the woman who had her apartment catch fire and her 6 children and 1 child she was supposed to be watching for her sister were all killed?
At the time it happened I told friends, it's a tragedy of course, but mark my words, she'll be pregnant in no time. She could have gotten 35 years in prison, but somehow she only received 1 year. By the time she was sentenced she already had a 4 month old. I figured out the math and came to the conclusion that she was in "mourning" for all of 1 month before she got pregnant again.

I would even be willing to say, let welfare moms have 1 child while they are on public assistance. After that it should be mandatory birth control, and no more money if they have another child.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

In some states, there are (crazy) people trying to make the argument that Medicaid should cover the cost of fertility treatments. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that...will see if I can find a link.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to insist on sterilization. (I don't disagree in theory with the general concept that someone on welfare shouldn't be having more children...just think it would be hard to implement a sterilization program in a reasonable way.) But I sure as hell would strongly object to Medicaid funding fertility treatments.

on the one hand people on this blog and Republicans, oppose, vehementally, abortion and then on the other hand want to sterilize women. HUH?

Spin me a tale of how exactly voluntarily preventing unwanted pregnancies, and aborting a viable, living  human life is the same thing.

And the U.S. rambles on about human rights in China, which has a similar policy and also orphanages full with children looking for homes.

Not every family that has many children are wards of the state.

We want government out of our lives and yet we invite it back in again, time and time again.

Technically, if a person is accepting government assistance, the government is already in their lives.

(And I wouldn't be likely to support a mandatory birth control or sterilization movement, though I do think that there should be some sort of incentives for a person already on public assistance to not continue to bring more children they can't afford into the world. If you can't take care of yourself and the children you already have, why in the world would you add another child into the mix?)

--->"What I'm really studying is any and all possibilities that we can reduce the number of people that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare," he said.

He said his program would be voluntary. It could involve tubal ligation, encouraging other forms of birth control or, to avoid charges of gender discrimination, vasectomies for men. <---

If you actually read the article the above is what you would have seen. As an aside, I think it is a fantastic idea.

The legislator also proposes;

"It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said. "

Less poor people and more rich people and the government will reward the rich to procreate and the poor not too.

The implications seem to be pretty clear.

This issue of Sterilizing Poor People sounds like a plan for modern day genocide.

This should not be permitted.

In addition, I know I will lose some conservative christians out there when I say this:

But, when it comes to abortion; as a man I don't have a right to tell a woman what to do or what not to do with her body.

Let me be clear. I don't agree with abortion under certain terms.

If a woman is being frivilous and loose and having sex and not protecting herself accordingly, and she becomes pregnant. I think it is wrong for the women to use abortion as a form of birth control. In other words, the women should not continue to have unprotected sex, knowing that if she gets pregnant all she will have to do is get an abortion anyway.

Now, on the other side of the equation...a woman that has been raped or molested and as a result gets pregnant; I think that they should be able to get an abortion, and I support them in that. For a women to be raped is a very tragic thing. Can you imagine the lifetime of emotional abuse that the woman would have to carry for the rest of her life? And then to add to that, she has to carry a baby 9 months of which is a result of rape. And/or everyday having to look at the baby and say your here as a result of rape?

I don't know about that one, I think abortion should be granted in such situations. Otherwise, life may be a living hell for that woman, that victim of rape.

Lastly, there are far too many men wearing suits and sitting behind desk making decisions about what women can and cannot do with their own bodies. That's just not right.

Fascism of the first order. One of the first things that Hitler and the Nazis did was the creation of the Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses ("Forced Sterilization Law")to order the sterilizations of people with a wide variety of mental and physical disorders, including such conditions as hereditary blindness, epilepsy, and alcoholism. Over 400,000 people in the Nazi era were sterilized against their will.

Of course, I'm sure that there are more than a few modern Americans who think that forced sterilization is a desirable goal to elminate people they see as welfare cheats, criminals, or other "undesirables." Remember, though: it's a small step from forced sterilization to forced euthanasia, like the Nazi's Aktion T4, a program of "euthanizing" some 275,000 people with mental and physical disorders.

And after T-4, it was just another small step toward the mass genocide of the Holocaust.

Let's think this through, folks, before we start creating the groundwork for an American version of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing.

Fiscal cleansing.

Encourage the low wage earners to not have kids and encourage high wage earners to have kids.

On the surface at first it sounds like a good idea. Offering permenant birth control to low income women.

You just know though that at some point it will move beyond it being something offered as an option to something with the more sinister undertones that History Mike is pointing to.

At some point someone will decide that too many women, because lets be honest here it won't be fathers who are heading into the welfare office with kids in tow, are saying "Thanks, but No thanks" to the offered procedures. Pretty soon it becomes a requirement or the kids you already have go hungry and or homeless.

Thats one slope we need to stay off of.


Poverty cleansing. Po' trash cleansing. Trailer park cleansing.

If we tried hard enough, as hypothetical fascists, we could find a euphemism that would make sterilization programs sound, well, not so threatening. Like the Nazis did in the Holocaust, for example: transport to a death camp was known as "resettlement," "special action," or "evacuation." Gas chambers were "bath houses" or "delousing showers," and death camps were "relocation centers."

Maybe future American fascists could use terms like "economically challenged fecundity reduction," or "proactive indigence abatement procedures." That sounds a lot better than forced sterilization, doesn't it? Let's give genocide a happy name, shall we?


Many societies have tried schemes to "get rid of" the unwanted poor and other "undesirable" groups. For the British, the North American and Australian colonies became dumping grounds for criminals and the poor, at least until they figured out that there just developed more poor people and more criminals to take the place of the ones shipped out. Other colonial powers tried the same sorts of techniques with "excess" populaton.

The Russians and Soviets used to "encourage" migration to undepopulated areas like Siberia, shipping dissidents, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities out of the cities and prime agricultural lands. And let's not forget the transatlantic slave trade, in which African kingdoms sold off "excess" people from the lands of defeated enemies to profit-minded European slave traders on the coasts.

More recently, the Chinese tried the one-child rule to reduce overpopulation, with the result that parents began to participate in infanticide when they did not give birth to a boy to carry on the family name. the early Twentieth Century, I think support of sterilization programs are probably more for eugenics than economics. After all, we never know, despite the environment, who will rise from poverty to bring a lot of good to this world. I know the odds are against it but our past is filled with genius that arose from poverty.

Old South End Broadway

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.