VivirLatino

I think Louisiana state Representative John LaBruzzo has a good idea. He offering a real way to lower unwanted pregnancies. I think it is sooooo racist to hear the words 'welfare' or 'poor' and automatically think of blacks and latinos, considering most welfare receipiant are white, I think that says a lot about his opponents. I happen to be a young black man and I know a few females who would jump at the opportunity.

Oh, I know there are many women that would jump at the chance for permanent sterilization, and men too. In my state, they don't cover male sterilization so we had to pay out of pocket w/ my male partner and I decided enough was enough.

But I am tired of sterilization being the only option that poor/women of color have. I know far more women/girls who would jump at the chance for a thousand dollar scholarship than want their tubes tied--and you have to wonder why it is that *never* do they say, if you go to school, we'll pay your way.

Also, please note, I used the terms "poor" AND "women of color" insinuating that these sterilization programs target poor white women and women of color. Given the history of forced sterilization of poor white and women of color in the U.S., I think you'd be hard pressed to convince many women in those populations that this isn't a deliberate targeting that continues and extends the deliberate targeting that has historically happened in their communities.

So a medical equipment salesman wants to pay $1,000 to have women get their tubes tied. Seems profitable for him. Like having a bank subsidize a low income condo project at the condition that it's the only bank allowed for the mortgages.

Doesn't he heard about the Human Cost theory? Roughly, here is goes: poor people have more kids because they are cheap to raise and begin to earn money fast for their families. Don't tell me you never saw a teen helping out at the cash of a family run convenience store. Rich people, on the other hand, find kids costly to raise (what with private school, uniforms, braces and such) and when they finally get out of university and start earning money, they leave the nest. No gain. Sounds harsh, but is does explain a lot, like why it would give better results to spend his thousand dollars directly in bursaries and improving the public school system.

Comparing a sterilization program to a college subsidization in the amount of $1000 is wrong on so many levels. Most importantly, it is obvious that one (the sterilization) would be effective 100% of the time, whereas the $1000 college subsidization would be effective a small percentage of the time.

First, $1000 is not enough to continue to pay for a college education. At best you will be able to take three classes with that kind of money, without any other types of financial credits. If you insist the person getting the subsidy would be pursuing these financial credits, you are probably wrong. If they had the drive in the first place they would have pursued them long ago, and probably would not have needed the $1000 to begin with.

Secondly, the majority of people taking this money will probably enroll in a class, get the check, and then never show up for the class. This opens the door for all kinds of corruption as well, and since the collegiate system is a huge con job as it is, I imagine there will be plenty to go around.

You may argue with the ethics of such a program, but you certainly cannot argue its merits. I, for one, will neither argue the ethics or the merits. This program is at the very least worth trying on a small scale. The alternative is to allow the dependent base of the country become larger, while the supporting base of the country dwindles. That is not a sustainable position.

Doesn't matter rich or poor, too many babies being born. Stop the babies... How many are planned anyway??