While I was getting my daily dose of CNN, a particular story caught my attention. It was about a woman named Barbara Harris who founded an organization called Project Prevention. This organization offers a cash incentive for alcoholic and drug-addicted women to either take birth control, or to undergo sterilization procedures. Project Prevention does this in an effort to reduce the number of babies born addicted to drugs, as well as those who suffer birth defects caused by pre-natal drug use and alcohol consumption.
The establishment offers addicts a one-time payment of $300 cash to get their tubes tied, and if addicts choose to have an IUD (a form of birth control) implanted instead, they receive $300 every six months. The addicts are referred to Project Prevention by social workers and people who work in prisons. Since money is always a precious and scarce commodity for drug addicts, this cash incentive can almost guarantee business for the organization.
Although Project Prevention’s intentions are good, the organization has gotten a lot of negative feedback. People who oppose the ideology that fuels this group claim that it promotes a negative stigma that is already tied to children who are born to drug addicted mothers.
Another opposing view consists of the belief that, since drug addicts and alcoholics are typically not in a sound frame of mind, they will do absolutely anything to get money, even something they may regret later, such as undergoing surgery that could permanently prevent them from having children. Therefore, some believe the organization is taking advantage of this reality, and their practices are immoral. The more radical contenders have gone as far as to call Harris a Nazi, and even to say the organization is practicing eugenics.
While both sides of this issue present persuasive evidence, I personally feel that encouraging alcoholics and drug addicts to take birth control is something that should be more prevalent in America. However, I don’t condone bribing a person who is constantly in an altered state of mind to do potential permanent damage to their reproductive system. This is because they may regret it later in life if they get sober and want to start a family.
Harris’s prerogative stems from the children she adopted, all of whom were born to drug-addicted mothers. Although they now live full lives, her children were very ill due to their mothers’ drug use. Thus, her motives for creating this organization were out of love, not because she wanted to stop people from reproducing. Harris simply did not want any child to go through the pain and agony her children suffered when they were first brought into this world.
Isn’t this what everyone wants? Is there anything more saddening than a baby who is born addicted to cocaine because of its mother’s disease? No, there’s not. These babies did not ask to be born, and I seriously doubt the women who birth these children have always aspired to be drug addicts. And despite the fact they are constantly drunk or high, I’m sure these women feel terrible about mistreating their unborn babies. So shouldn’t we do everything we can to prevent this?
Offering drug-addicts and alcoholics money to get an IUD is definitely a step in the right direction, especially since they may not be able to afford birth control themselves. If the program eliminated the whole sterilization offer, I think the whole country would be able to get on board with Harris and the rest of the Project Prevention team.
Nora Donnelly is the opinion editor of The Reflector. She can be contacted at [email protected].