SHOULD WE PAY THE COST OF BIRTH CONTROL OR STERILIZATION FOR DRUG ADDICTS?

On the Right By Vernadette Broyles

In Oakland, Calif., one woman offers drug addicts $200 for long-term
birth control or sterilization and, predictably, draws fire from both
the left and the right. Yet, in the United States where 800,000 babies
are born drug-addicted, it raises the interesting question of whether
the state should adopt such an approach and bear the cost of providing
long-term birth control to drug addicts.

Knee-jerk reactions aside, there are interesting pros and cons to this
issue. Sadly, many drug-addicted women do not obtain treatment, even
once they learn they are pregnant. Some would argue that providing
birth control to such women would save many babies from the
devastation of drugs. And it might even help reduce the incidence of
abortion, which both sides are likely to consider a positive.

But the cons to such an approach outweigh the arguable pros. Like
needle-exchange programs, providing state-funded birth control to drug
addicts does nothing to address the real underlying problem and sends
the wrong message about drugs and human dignity.

The state's message about drugs must be unequivocal -- they are
destructive and illegal. Because drugs consume the lives of everyone
they touch, the state's response should be deterrence coupled with
compassion. Compassion in the form of free treatment for individuals
who want to beat their addiction but cannot afford it. Deterrence in
the form of punishment and supervision (through imprisonment or
probation) for those who continue to break the law and refuse
rehabilitation.

Anything else puts the state in the position of enabling drug addicts
in their destructive life choices. It would be like one spouse saying
to the other before leaving on a trip, "We both understand that
sleeping with someone else would destroy our marriage, but if you just
can't control yourself, rather than making a baby with someone else,
here's a condom."

We have become enamored of superficial fixes that do not go to the
roots of social dysfunction. Because such programs fail to provide
lasting solutions for aid recipients and enable irresponsibility and
lawlessness, they will ultimately lead to greater drug abuse, poverty
and degradation. We saw this, for instance, in our welfare system --
after spending $25 trillion, poverty, dependency, fatherlessness, drug
abuse, and violence among vulnerable communities simply continued to
rise.

The key is not necessarily to spend less on fighting drug abuse, but
to spend smarter, with a view to the roots of this problem. These
include broken families, fatherlessness, poor education, domestic
abuse, poor personal choices, etc. This is where we should spend our
tax dollars. By providing birth control to drug addicts we may console
ourselves that we have done some good. But by enabling drug abusers in
their self-destructive behavior, we will only see addiction continue
to rise.

On the Left By Diane Glass, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Columnist

Parents often whip out pictures of their children or line up a barrage
of family photos on their office desk. Their children are their life,
the meaning for existing. They are parents. For a role that has such a
monumental place in our culture, parenthood remains a personal choice,
marginally regulated by law. Being a parent doesn't require a
certificate of achievement or four-year-degree. This may be why good
parenting is in such short supply. Let's be honest. Having children is
something rabbits do, and their brains are a lot smaller.

Be it religious doctrine, narcissism or Darwinian will, we think
humans have a basic instinct or divine right to reproduce. And when
the someone steps up and offers drug addicts money to prevent
pregnancy, the carefully placed dominos of our beliefs go tumbling
down, knocking over our entire reason for being. People point to
reproduction as a birthright. They say having children is a private
matter. There are protests, rage and accusations of racism.

But race isn't the issue. Let's not get out the protest signs just
yet. Drug addicts come in all shades. The issue is about the rights of
children born to drug addicts. Amputation, brain damage and child
abuse are just a few side effects of drug addiction that children
inherit when mommy or daddy shoots up.

Having children may be a private matter. But giving birth to a child
and dragging her through the social welfare system on taxpayers' money
takes this problem out of the crackhouse and broadcasts it in every
American's living room. This isn't about taking away the rights of
women or condoning illegal behavior.

A drug-addicted woman who accepts money as an inducement to use birth
control or to be sterilized isn't being coerced. Maybe, just maybe,
she is acting responsibly. It isn't advocating right-wing values
against pro-choice to rally behind the rights of a child, in
circumstances where addiction is perpetual and persistent.

Parenthood is a role that is given a lot of authority, with little
regulation. Sure, there are laws against child abuse, but where are
the restrictions or rules about becoming a parent? The only
requirement necessary to take on the monumental task of parenthood is
the biological ability. At the very least, access to birth control
allows for self-regulation as an alternative to the slippery slope of
regulating parenthood.

Drug addicts may have impaired reason when considering birth control
methods, but this should not be a barrier to subsidizing birth control
for those out of control. Impairing judgment is the whole point of
taking drugs. Taking drugs is a choice. And being responsible and
taking birth control is another choice. Let's make the right choice
and let drug addicts make a responsible one.