Tying poor women's tubes could help taxpayers, legislator says

[Honey]

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.

"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.
It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said.
LaBruzzo, 38, is white, married to a lawyer, has a toddler daughter and holds a bachelor's degree from Louisiana State University.
He is serving his second term in the Legislature, where he drew attention this year for advocating the controversial legislative pay raise and for trying to abolish the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Commission and its Police Department.

His 81st House District runs from Old Metairie north to Bucktown and west along Lake Pontchartrain to the Suburban Canal. In a somewhat different configuration, it is the same district that sent white supremacist David Duke to the Legislature in 1989.
LaBruzzo described the tube-tying incentive as a brainstorming exercise that has yet to take form as a bill for the Legislature to consider. He said it already has drawn critics who argue the idea is racist, sexist, unethical and immoral. He said more white people are on welfare than black people, so his proposal is not targeting race.
LaBruzzo said other, mainstream strategies for attacking poverty, such as education reforms and programs informing people about family planning issues, have repeatedly failed to solve the problem. He said he is simply looking for new ways to address it.
"It's easy to say, 'Oh, he's a racist,' " LaBruzzo said. "The hard part is to sit down and think of some solutions."
LaBruzzo said he opposes abortion and paying people to have abortions. He described a sterilization program as providing poor people with better opportunities to avoid welfare, because they would have fewer children to feed and clothe.
He acknowledged his idea might be a difficult sell politically.
"I don't know if it's a viable option," LaBruzzo said. "Of course people are going to get excited about it. Maybe we'll start a debate on it."

LaBruzzo: Sterilization plan fights poverty- NOLA.com

[tee-ha-ha]

As long as it's 100% voluntary and there is no pressure whatsoever put on any woman to be sterilized, I don't see the problem with it.

Realistically, I think women will probably be pressured and that's not acceptable.

[lurkur]

^^ ITA on everything.

[Rica]

And poor men should get the snip.
Can morons get offered this as well? Perhaps if the stupid people stop breeding in a generation or two the world will be a better place.

[sputnik]

i'm all for it!
development agencies should start doing this in the third world too. offer people money and housing in exchange for getting snipped. especially if they already have children. every time i'm in latin america it breaks my heart to see all those kids whose parents don't have the resources to feed and take care of them properly. i'd rather they have 2 kids they can care for properly than 8 that are running around dirty and illiterate.

[Folieadeux]

I'd much prefer here in Australia that our government paid $1,000 for women (and men) to be sterilized, instead of paying $5,000 for EACH baby they have!

God damn!

[buttmunch]

I'm going to guess that there will be a fair amount of pressure on women to have this done. And I'm not surprised there is no mention from the politico about men being snipped. Personally, the idea that you need to have money to have kids is so bizarre that I can't even think of anything to say. It's just a small step to sterilizing people for alot of other reasons. Shades of Germany...

[Rica]

I'd much prefer here in Australia that our government paid $1,000 for women (and men) to be sterilized, instead of paying $5,000 for EACH baby they have!

God damn!

We dont have paid maternity leave tho...

[buttmunch]

I know and there goes my big idea to knock myself up to fill the endless days.

[Folieadeux]

We dont have paid maternity leave tho...

True. But I don't think we should have it either!

[yanna]

I wish I could vote for this guy!

[buttmunch]

I wish this guy would crawl back under the scary, dank rock he crawled out from under. What an absolute freak.

[McJag]

I'm going to guess that there will be a fair amount of pressure on women to have this done. And I'm not surprised there is no mention from the politico about men being snipped. Personally, the idea that you need to have money to have kids is so bizarre that I can't even think of anything to say. It's just a small step to sterilizing people for alot of other reasons. Shades of Germany...

Butt! Men aren't going to do it, A, and B-some women have babies by different men. This sounds like a better Planned Parenthood to me. Who knows how many women are not able to pay for this or have a partner who refuses to pay. Anyway,he also said this:

It could involve tubal ligation, encouraging other forms of birth control or, to avoid charges of gender discrimination, vasectomies for men.

So I believe that is covered anyway. You do need money for kids-you have to feed ,clothe,etc.. If you have several,a thin line gets stretched thinner. I can see this being the way out for so many women.

[crumpet]

Before even reading this I can tell you I'm already pissed because these folks NEVER advocate for sterilizing men who can make 100 babies per night (whereas a woman can only have 1 per year). Also, vasectomies are far more reversible, less invasive, and have less side effects.

I understand the concept and can agree in theory with the premise, but why is it always about restricting and controlling women? That tells me plenty right there.

[McJag]

Before even reading this I can tell you I'm already pissed because these folks NEVER advocate for sterilizing men who can make 100 babies per night (whereas a woman can only have 1 per year). Also, vasectomies are far more reversible, less invasive, and have less side effects.

I understand the concept and can agree in theory with the premise, but why is it always about restricting and controlling women? That tells me plenty right there.

A) READ IT. He said:It could involve tubal ligation, encouraging other forms of birth control or, to avoid charges of gender discrimination, vasectomies for men.
B) Women are far more trapped by pregnancy-a man can just walk off & often does. I don't see this as restricting or controlling, but as freeing up women who otherwise cannot afford it. women bear the brunt of children anyway you look at it-pregnancy,labor,childbirth,care & feeding of said infant. This-to me-puts the control and power back into a womans hand-permanently. She won't have to worry,period. I can see some women being able to bargin with their idiot partners:"Look-I can get this done and you can have the money".