It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

[Representative] LaBruzzo considering plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have tubes tied

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

[Representative] LaBruzzo considering plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have tubes tied


www.nola.com

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.

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 no
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

"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.


When he puts it like that it doesn't sound as bad as t he sensationalist headline makes it seem. If you can't afford to have kids, and realize this but can't afford to have this operation, this sort of program seems like a good option. It's voluntary, and IMO seems like $1000 well spent.

Thoughts? Opinions?

www.nola.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
While I favor the idea of limiting birth rates in this demographic, $1000 is an insulting amount for such an operation.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


What makes you say that?

What amount do you think would be more appropriate?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 


I think we must strike a balance here. We have to approach the problem of the birth rates, but we also must show the women respect and dignity. Trading your fertility for a thousand is dehumanizing, imo. She may regret it in the long run. The operation can be reversed at a later date but the success rates are far from perfect.

$10,000 may be better. God knows the government can afford it.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
No way. I think they should offer to pay for the operation and any related costs, but to offer more is just asking for abuses.

Tubal ligation, as far as I'm aware, is irreversible.

What do you say to the 30-yr-old woman who has gotten her life together and gotten off welfare, but whose abusive boyfriend when she was 21 convinced her to do this?

EDIT: I'm wrong. It can be reversed, but in 60-80% of reversals fertility is not restored. So, though wrong about the specifics, I stand by my point.

[edit on 9/25/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Why is 1000 dollars not enough for them to get their baby makers fixed? Most of these people are leeching off of the system and have multiple children from multiple fathers that are never around to support their children in the first place. In many cases the mothers are never around either. On top of that these same baby makers get food stamps, free health care, daycare, housing, donations from churches and charities, and a whole assortment of other "perks" that I couldn't even name off the top of my head.

Meanwhile, those that have families, go to school to better themselves and family, and work one or more jobs become indebted by the system, and cannot even get health care from the government. I think paying them $1000 is too much. It should be mandatory after a certain # of kids if they arent making an effort to do anything back for the system that feeds, clothes, and nuture these children, besides keep the national birthrate up.

These people and their children place an unfair burden on the rest of us, with the exception of some that desire to break away from their parents ignorance. I see the movie "idiocracy" every day in my neighborhood when I take a step out side.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
How about we just make these people be responsible for their actions, and stop propping them and their hordes of children up with welfare, just because they don't have the self-control or intelligence to stop whoring about. Let them watch themselves and the people like them starve and die as a consequence of their own actions, and maybe they will think first before breeding. You certainly can't get rid of a cancer by feeding it!

If I should choose to help the less fortunate, that's my right. But I have NO obligation to do so. They made their choices, let them reap what they sow. A helping hand to get someone back on their feet is one thing...but a crutch that spans generations is sickening. The last thing we need to do is throw more money at them!



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
First, this guy doesn't even have any numbers to prove that 'generational' welfare families are a problem.

Last I checked the average welfare family was white, had less than 3 kids and 70% of them were off welfare by two years - 85% by 4 years. AND welfare costs less than 1% of the federal budget, so go figure.

And when he spoke on CNN he said basicly, we have all this financial trouble now and threw around the 700 billion number, and said the least that these people could do is not be a burden on welfare.

Which is just ludicruous. Oh yeah, it's welfare that's the problem alright - CORPORATE welfare.

I won't even get into tubes tied versus vasectomy argument.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
How about all violent felons have to have a vasectomy?

I think that is a better idea.

Get those prone to violence out of the gene pool.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Careful. You set that number too high and you'll start seeing extremely poor "ghetto" women threatening to pop out child after child for the welfare. If women can consciously decide to have children to extend their welfare (a no longer friend of mine sat with her boyfriend and did just that) then they can certainly threaten to create multiple government defendants lest the pay-off be increased.

I can see a whole new topic for the Maury Povich show growing out of this.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
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.

Awww but hes so perfect isn't he?
With his offshore tax havens and subsidiary corporations so he pays 0 tax.
His offshore accounts in fake names to pay high class hookers from his bribes he receives from corporations.
I think he should authorize $1000 payments for corrupt politicians to jump off bridges.
That sounds a little better.
Wonder why I can find no family history for him?Is that because his mom had 8 kids on welfare?


John LaBruzzo (born July 6, 1970, New Orleans, Louisiana) is a Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, representing District 81 in Metairie, Louisiana. LaBruzzo has spent the last 12 years in medical sales, and has recently expanded his business career into real estate.
In winning the seat he campaigned on two particular promises; to help businesses in the state and to pass a tax credit for parents of private school students.

Oh yeah hes really for the people yeah?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I doubt if a thousand dollars would pay for the operation now days....
don't know if medicaid does.

I wanted to have mine tied after I had my third one, but well, with the cost of the third child's birth, the cost of an extra operation was a little much...we didn't have insurance and well, we didn't have the gov't helping us out. luckily we lived next to a pediatrician who was willing to let us work off the bill- she wanted some selves hung in her office and such.
really, if a women doesn't want to have another child, I'd rather see her have her tubes tied, than keep having abortions, or kids she cannot afford, or be on harmones for a long lenth of time. it's probably less stressful to her body, not to mention society with all the problems that we seem to have that are connected to unaffordable children.
it shouldn't be considered an elective surgery, medicaid, insurance, ect....should be willing to pay for it for those women who chose to do it. it would be less costly in the long run.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sc2099

If you can't afford to have kids, and realize this but can't afford to have this operation, this sort of program seems like a good option. It's voluntary, and IMO seems like $1000 well spent.

Thoughts? Opinions?



If you're poor and can't afford this operation what is the $1,000. going to do for you ? A tubal ligation costs way more than $1,000. I could be mistaken, but i believe that if you are on welfare tubal ligations are covered by the states insurance.


Most doctor's won't perform a tubal ligation on a woman under a certain age, nor on a woman with less than a certain amount of children.

His idea is unethical and immoral. The goverment should not be involved in this part pf people's lives. He must not think very much of these women if he thinks that offering someone a mere $1,000 is an incentive for them to give up their ability to have children.

If his idea were allowed to become a reality, how long before they would try to make it mandatory?

While true that there are people that are third & fourth generation welfare recipeints, this is not the answer. They need to come up with a more realistic and humane solution to the problem.

It seems to me that his agenda is really something totally different if you read the whole article. Being that he said that the plan may also include a tax incentive for college educated people to have more children, it seems as though he may have a bit of an elitest agenda.

So he wants to pay the poor, uneducated people to stop having children and the educated, non-poor to have more children. somehow his reasons for this don't ring true when you look at everything he said.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I think this is a good idea but they should pay the women a little more coin. Since they are "poor" I think they should do a little more to help them get on their feet; $1000 is hardly first and last months rent for a tiny one bedroom apartment. Besides, if they did have that child and had to ask the government for support, it would cost one hell of a lot more money that a grand! The government seems to be getting a way better deal when you look at it like that.

It is possible to reverse the operation as well so they could collect the money , reverse the operation and then ask the government for money down the road. IMO this is a better idea:

- $10,000
- Mother signs a legally binding agreement that effectively makes her ineligible to collect monetary assistance from the government to assist in raising any children she may have at a later date. She may still reverse it later in life if she can better afford to raise children, but the government will not help her do so.
- Some of her eggs are removed and kept in a cold storage bank so she may have children at a time down the road when she is financially secure through artificial insemination and implantation.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If women can consciously decide to have children to extend their welfare


That is the point my friend. We correct it by reversing the outcome. The payment is a one-off, after that they are on their own.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet

Let them watch themselves and the people like them starve and die as a consequence of their own actions, and maybe they will think first before breeding.



If you truely believe that these people should starve and die as a consequence of their own actions, that's you're right.

I'm curious though what about their "hordes of children" should they also starve and die as a consequence of their parent's actions ?

What about the fathers of these children that don't help to support their children (which is a big part of the problem) should they also be forced to starve and die along with their children as a consequence of their inaction to help raise and support their children ?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Then the doctors who perform abortions will lose business.


Seriously. I like this idea. I'm also for abortion for the same reason.

But no matter what you do, with this idea along with many other ideas in history. Ideas that bring solutions to problems eventually create new and possibly bigger problems.

For example you can use atomic energy to light a whole city and enable it to prosper. Or you can do the exact opposite--destroy it.

Same thing here. Eventually this could pave the way towards forced sterilization similar to that in Nazi Germany.

Like everything else. There will always be pros and cons.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
I think this is a good idea but they should pay the women a little more coin. Since they are "poor" I think they should do a little more to help them get on their feet; $1000 is hardly first and last months rent for a tiny one bedroom apartment. Besides, if they did have that child and had to ask the government for support, it would cost one hell of a lot more money that a grand! The government seems to be getting a way better deal when you look at it like that.

It is possible to reverse the operation as well so they could collect the money , reverse the operation and then ask the government for money down the road. IMO this is a better idea:

- $10,000
- Mother signs a legally binding agreement that effectively makes her ineligible to collect monetary assistance from the government to assist in raising any children she may have at a later date. She may still reverse it later in life if she can better afford to raise children, but the government will not help her do so.
- Some of her eggs are removed and kept in a cold storage bank so she may have children at a time down the road when she is financially secure through artificial insemination and implantation.


Forget about the money.
Money isn't real.
It doesn't exist.
Its not worth the paper its printed on.
Its merely a mind control tool to keep you as a slave to the ones who created it.
Don't get me wrong, I like money too.
I like to play the game.
I like to buy nice pretty things too.
But at the end of the day, I know what it is.
It is nothing.
It has never been anything.
And it will never be anything.
Its just here to keep you thinking and doing as you are.
Being a slave to it.
If there was no money.
What would they use as an enticement to make people butcher themselves?
Food?Air?Water?
A human life is a real thing.
A human life feels, cry's, gets sad, gets happy, laughs, smiles, causes pain, causes pleasure.
A human soul is all those things as well.
Money is none of those things.
So what is more important you tell me?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
How about we just make these people be responsible for their actions, and stop propping them and their hordes of children up with welfare, just because they don't have the self-control or intelligence to stop whoring about. Let them watch themselves and the people like them starve and die as a consequence of their own actions, and maybe they will think first before breeding. You certainly can't get rid of a cancer by feeding it!

If I should choose to help the less fortunate, that's my right. But I have NO obligation to do so. They made their choices, let them reap what they sow. A helping hand to get someone back on their feet is one thing...but a crutch that spans generations is sickening. The last thing we need to do is throw more money at them!


Amen. This isn't a bit politically correct and I applaud you for that. I totally agree. If they werent getting more benefits for more kids they would quit having them.

How come people who cant afford their children can keep having more and benefit from it, but hard working people have to wait to have a baby until they can afford it? That doesnt seem a bit right.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by justsomeboreddude]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join