Should Addicts Be Paid Not To Have Kids?

Should Addicts Be Paid Not To Have Kids?

Several months ago, WNYC’s Radiolab ran a story about Barbara Harris and her daughter Destiny. Barbara Harris is the founder is the founder of a controversial organization, Project Prevention.  Project Prevention pays drugs addicts to be receive vasectomies or tubal ligation.  

Here is a description of the story: 

When Barbara Harris was 37, she started wishing she could have a daughter. It was 1989, and by that time only two of her six sons were still at home. So she filled out all the paperwork, and later that summer got a call about an 8-month-old baby girl. As soon as Barbara met her, she knew that was it — this was her daughter. She named her Destiny Harris. But before she could take her home, the social worker told Barbara that Destiny had tested positive for crack, PCP, and heroin. Her mom was addicted to drugs, and doctors said Destiny was delayed mentally and physically as a result, and always would be.

Producer Pat Walters flew down to North Carolina to meet Barbara and Destiny, who’s now 22 years old. And Barbara tells Pat, a few months after she brought Destiny home, she and her husband got another call. Destiny’s mom had given birth to another boy. They went to the hospital to pick him up, and he was going through withdrawal from heroin. Then Barbara got another call: a little girl. And a year later, another little boy. By 1994 she’d adopted four kids from the same woman. And she was feeling angry — how could this be allowed to happen? She decided to take a stand by trying to get a law passed for longterm birth control. And when that failed, she decided to take matters into her own hands. She founded an organization called Project Prevention, and began paying women with drug addiction to get IUDs, or get sterilized.

Lynn Paltrow, the Executive Director and founder of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, argues that Project Prevention is misguided and harmful, and articulates many of the objections raised by Barbara’s critics.

Marriage Equality in New Jersey Following Court Battle

On Monday, October 21, Chris Christie ended his fight against the state judiciary to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage in New Jersey; at 12:01a.m. the next day, same-sex couples were permitted to marry.  The drive for marriage equality in New Jersey was by no means an easy one: legislative and judicial initiatives both faced setbacks and opposition at every step.

The legal battle for marriage equality culminated in the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Garden State Equality v. Dow, handed down on Friday, October 18.  That case began in 2011 when the Garden State Equality group and a number of same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in Mercer County’s Superior Court.  The presiding judge at first dismissed the case, but then rescheduled it for trial.  On July 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed for summary judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey; Judge Mary Jacobson granted the plaintiff’s motion on September 27, 2013.

Judge Jacobson’s opinion in part focused on a development that will likely affect all future lawsuits challenging same-sex marriage bans: United States v. Windsor.  In Windsor, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), holding that the federal government’s failure to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in states violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013).

In Garden State Equality, Judge Jacobson determined that  New Jersey’s own equal protection provisions must now be re-examined “in light of the changed circumstances brought about by Windsor.”  Garden State Equality v. Dow, 2013 WL 5397372 (N.J.Super.L.), 20.  After a thorough analysis of both parties’ arguments, Judge Jacobson concluded that New Jersey’s denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the equal protection provisions of the New Jersey constitution.  Id. at 24.

After the Judge Jacobson denied Gov. Christie request for a stay pending  appeal to the state’s appellate courts, he immediately appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. This marked Christie’s second attempt to stymie progress towards marriage equality: in 2012, Christie vetoed a bill passed by the New Jersey legislature which would have permitted same-sex marriage.  On October 18, the New Jersey Supreme Court provided the blunt governor with a blunt answer: it would not grant a stay because it would almost certainly affirm Judge Jacobson’s ruling.  The court determined that same-sex couples could apply for marriage licenses immediately, and Gov. Christie decided to end his legal fight.

What is the significance of this legal victory for marriage equality advocates?  First, it shows that Windsor will be used by state judiciaries to invalidate denials of marriage access to same-sex couples.  Second, it shows a very curious path forward for Gov. Chris Christie and the Republican Party as a whole.  Christie will almost certainly run for president in 2016, and what sets him apart from other prospective candidates is his pragmatic rather than ideological approach to issues.

Thus, Christie’s decision to end his legal efforts against same-sex marriage was entirely keeping with his character: it does not betray any change of heart regarding marriage equality, it instead shows that he saw the writing on the wall: the state supreme court would rule against him sooner or later.  By dropping his appeal, Christie has burnished his “moderate” appeal, especially compared to other probable 2016 contenders like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.  While ending a losing fight might seem logical rather than laudable, Christie nonetheless has positioned himself as a realist devoid of the self-destructive bent towards ideological purity that pervades the Republican Party. While Christie’s political future is not certain, one thing is: as a result of Christie giving up, New Jersey’s same-sex couples are enjoying the benefits of legal marriage earlier than expected.

Feminism is Fiscally Conservative

This may surprise some people, but for most it’s a no brainer: having a baby is more expensive than taking birth control. When you multiply those expenses nationally, these savings can be even more substantial. However, because rights to access birth control and contraception are constantly being challenged and eroded in some states, tax payers are paying the higher costs associated with unplanned pregnancies, rather than for preventative measures.

According to a new report compiled by Guttmacher, in 2008, 2 of 3 unplanned pregnancies resulted in births that were publicly funded, and the combined cost of all those births was $12.5 billion. Overall, more than half (65%) of births that were paid for by public insurance programs were the result of unplanned pregnancies. The study contends that this is the result of low access to birth control and abortion for poor women in states that spend a significant amount of money paying for prenatal, hospital, and post birth care for unplanned children.

Keep in mind that these costs do not take into account later, taxpayer-funded government care, like public school and food stamps.

The study also states that in the absence of the publicly funded family planning effort, the annual public costs of births from unintended pregnancy would have been twice as high — $25 BILLION.

As Erin Gloria Ryan from Jezebel adeptly points out, “the public must either bear the cost of preventing pregnancy, bear the cost of unplanned pregnancy, or allow poor women to bleed and die in the street. Which one is the most pro-life and fiscally conservative?”

When women want access to birth control and other medical services, it’s in the best interest of the country that they have that access. People, regardless of whether or not they can afford children, are going to have sex; and if a person doesn’t want a child, why make them have one? Therefore, a person who believes in freedom from government interference and fiscal responsibility then has the same goal as a feminist: allowing all women access to choice.

The study can be reviewed here: www.guttmacher.org/pubs/public-costs-of-UP.pdf

Sunday Funday: Halloween Costumes and the Objectification of Women

Sunday Funday: Halloween Costumes and the Objectification of Women

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KM3XNhEmdE

Admittedly, this edition of Sunday Funday’s link to public policy may be a bit tenuous; however, the video above from The Daily Show discusses the objectification of women in the context of “sexy” Halloween costumes. Jon Stewart spoke with The Daily Show’s Senior Women’s Issues Correspondent, Kristen Schaal, about this seasonal issue.

For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive.

 

 

 

 

Sunday Funday: Halloween Costumes and the Objectification of Women

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KM3XNhEmdE

Admittedly, this edition of Sunday Funday’s link to public policy may be a bit tenuous; however, the video above from The Daily Show discusses the objectification of women in the context of “sexy” Halloween costumes. Jon Stewart spoke with The Daily Show’s Senior Women’s Issues Correspondent, Kristen Schaal, about this seasonal issue.