Progressives Cheer: Sterilizing Poor People Is Totally Awesome!

Posted on | July 19, 2014 | 72 Comments

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) was the primary weapon to prevent poor people — mainly black and Latino teenage girls — from reproducing in the Colorado Family Planning Initiative (CFPI). Funded by a “confidential private donor” and operated through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Title X Family Planning Program, CFPI not only paid for LARC — contraceptive implants and intra-uterine devices (IUDs) — but also paid up to $675 for each vasectomy and $2,600 for each tubal ligation (female sterilization) performed in Colorado’s Title X clinics since 2009.

Well, guess what they found out? You shove enough free contraception at poor teenage girls, and you get fewer babies:

Fertility rates among low-income women aged 15–24 were compared with expected trends. Abortion rates and births among high-risk women were tracked, and the numbers of infants receiving services through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) were examined. . . .
By 2011, caseloads had increased by 23%, and LARC use among 15–24-year-olds had grown from 5% to 19%. Cumulatively, one in 15 young, low-income women had received a LARC method, up from one in 170 in 2008. Compared with expected fertility rates in 2011, observed rates were 29% lower among low-income 15–19-year-olds and 14% lower among similar 20–24-year-olds. In CFPI counties, the proportion of births that were high-risk declined by 24% between 2009 and 2011; abortion rates fell 34% and 18%, respectively, among women aged 15–19 and 20–24. Statewide, infant enrollment in WIC declined 23% between 2010 and 2013.

Conclusion: Evil is more effective when it’s free — and the progressives at Daily Kos think this is totally awesome!

Category: Contraceptive Culture

Comments

72 Responses to “Progressives Cheer: Sterilizing Poor People Is Totally Awesome!”

M. Thompson
July 19th, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

Once again, the mask comes off.

Margret Sanger would be so proud of her ideological followers, as would a host of other ghouls.
Bob Belvedere
July 19th, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

Somewhere in the foulest, darkest, and most putrid regions of Hell, Margaret Sanger is smiling.
Bob Belvedere
July 19th, 2014 @ 7:27 pm

‘Great minds…’ and all that jazz, eh?
Grandmaster
July 19th, 2014 @ 7:35 pm

Of course, it’s much better to take rights away from a woman, and give them to a fetus. And once again conservatives mistake a symptom for the disease. This is not a moral failing on the part of minority women(or the men)it’s an economic one, and that is the one that determines family cohesion.
Lisa Graas
July 19th, 2014 @ 7:47 pm

As if kids having sex is a good thing.
robertstacymccain
July 19th, 2014 @ 7:57 pm

Hey, troll at IP 70.208.77.3: Go peddle your misguided sophistry elsewhere.
M. Thompson
July 19th, 2014 @ 8:06 pm

Pretty much.
RS
July 19th, 2014 @ 8:16 pm

It’s not even philosophically coherent. Note, s/he asserts morality is dependent upon economic circumstances, presumably the former increasing with improvement in the latter. (Implied, of course, is that humans have no control over either morality or economic circumstances.) The conclusion, then, is that with increased wealth, comes increased morality, non? Yet, the Progs not only demonize the wealthy, but actively seek to reduce their wealth, thereby increasing their immorality. Such is the septic tank of the Progressive mind.
Grandmaster
July 19th, 2014 @ 8:25 pm

It’s not about morality. That’s my point. it’s about economics. Without a job, stable income, or opportunity, family cohesion frays, or is downright impossible. I know those poor rich who might have to pay some extra income or capital gains tax are so put upon, and will leave them in the same position as poor minority women. moron.
kilo6
July 19th, 2014 @ 8:26 pm

As a general rule if the daily Krock Of S#!t thinks it’s a good idea, it’s likely something that would make the world a crappier place.

Hey I wonder what some secular / progressive idols thought about artificial contraception??

“The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it. So, as you will see, the breach and turning point in the development of sexual life lies in becoming subordinate to the purpose of reproduction. Everything that happens before this turn of events and equally everything that disregards it and that aims solely at obtaining pleasure is given the uncomplimentary name of “perverse” and as such is proscribed.”

-Sigmund Freud

And how about Ghandi’s thoughts on teh birf control.

“Artificial methods [of contraception] are like putting a premium on vice. They make men and women reckless …. Nature is relentless and will have full revenge for any such violation of her laws. Moral results can only be produced by moral restraints. All other restraints defeat the very purpose for which they are intended. If artificial methods become the order of the day, nothing but moral degradation can be the result. A society that has already become enervated through a variety of causes will still become further enervated by the adoption of artificial [birth control] methods …. As it is, man has sufficiently degraded women for his lust, and artificial methods, no matter how well-meaning the advocates may be, will still further degrade her.”
RS
July 19th, 2014 @ 8:41 pm

And your point is false and patently absurd. “Family cohesion” is nothing if not morality. And there have been legions of poor people who survived and maintained intact families with multiple children. Your point, such as it is, insults the poor in order to justify your envy of those with more than you have. Covetousness cannot be made attractive by camouflaging it in bromides about helping the poor.
Eastwood Ravine
July 19th, 2014 @ 8:56 pm

What the Left wants is precedent to expand the scope of who is subject to sterilization. They want to sterilize anyone who opposes their belief system, especially Christians and conservatives.
CrassyKnoll
July 19th, 2014 @ 9:03 pm

If there is any poetic justice to Hell then Sanger is perpetually in labor giving birth to black babies who then ascend into Heaven.
Paratisi
July 19th, 2014 @ 9:03 pm

Nothing quite like Approving & Defending NAZI Style Sterilization to let the rest of the world know who you are. Wow! These are some truly sick puppies at the DailyKKK. #PJNET

God Bless America!
John Bradley
July 19th, 2014 @ 9:09 pm

I’m failing to see the Evil here, actually. If objectively-useless (or anyone else, for that matter) members of society wish to delete themselves from the gene pool on someone else’s (freely donated) dime, why is that of any concern? I thought we were all pretty much of the “contraceptives are peachy, but don’t be aborting babies” mindset on the right. Well, that’s what seems to be happening in this case. Win-win.
Grandmaster
July 19th, 2014 @ 9:21 pm

Morality doesn’t pay the bills, dummy, or put clothes on children’s backs, buy homes, or send them to college. Money does. Family cohesion breaks down when economic needs can’t be met. Zohar should be obvious to anyone without his or her head up their ass. The rest of your little screed is just a load of lame cliche, and demonization(I’m envious), and does ZERO to advance your argument. Those supposed poor people are not doing it in 21st century America with wage stagnation going on since the 80’s and the disintegration of stable jobs. I love the simple mindedness of conservatives who deem any challenge to their way of thinking must stem from envy, immaturity, etc. It’s bullshit, and you know it.
Grandmaster
July 19th, 2014 @ 9:26 pm

Wow, your wife, or girlfriend(assuming you have one or the other) is a lucky gal! You must be a ton of fun in bed! And you’re quoting Freud who was around at a time in Europe when a Victorian era morality still reigned supreme? And second, you’re assuming that he is using the word perversion in the same context or sense that you are. He’s actually ridiculing that concept and believed a healthy sexuality involved pleasure, dummy.
Grandmaster
July 19th, 2014 @ 9:30 pm

And are we really supposed to give a shit, or defer to Gandhi’s sexual morality born of a bygone, and more sexually repressive time? Healthy, and creative cultures are erotic ones, while repressive ones(the Middle East, dark ages Europe) are, or were, not.
Grandmaster
July 19th, 2014 @ 9:41 pm

And why do you think marriage, and birth rates are down, along with home ownership over the last 7, or 8 years, or the last 20 in Japan? because of a lack of sexual morality and birth control? that’s absurd. It’s due to economics, and a poor labor market. when polled the number reason a woman had an abortion was also economic, and not so she can continue to sleep around as you suggest.
Daniel O'Brien
July 19th, 2014 @ 9:48 pm

In my world view, MS is being reincarnated and aborted over and over and over… But each to their own viewpoint. 🙂
Arya_Stark
July 19th, 2014 @ 10:47 pm

I suppose I’m missing the “evilness” of this as well. No one tied these people down and forcibly sterilized them, they chose it of their own will. If paying for some long term (albeit sometimes irreversible) birth control saves the taxpayer from a lifetime of welfare payments for the undesirable, underachievers of society, some people would view that as a good investment.
RKae
July 19th, 2014 @ 11:27 pm

That’s the thing: never forget that the left always operates by incrementalism. Whatever they’re doing today, you have to look down the road and ask, “What’s the game actually about?”
Mike G.
July 20th, 2014 @ 12:18 am

At one time, North Carolina did use forced sterilization as a tactic to keep “undesirables” from having children. They are having to pay for it now to survivors.
Progressives Cheer: Sterilizing Poor People Is Totally Awesome! | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
July 20th, 2014 @ 12:21 am

[…] Progressives Cheer: Sterilizing Poor People Is Totally Awesome!. […]
Amy Alkon
July 20th, 2014 @ 1:42 am

Isn’t birth control and sterilization preferable to unwanted children being brought into the world or abortion? What’s wrong with a financial incentive to get them to the clinic? I’ve blogged in the past about a woman who set up a program like this — I think it was on the East Coast. I admired her for doing it.
richard mcenroe
July 20th, 2014 @ 2:13 am

As evil raciss’ conservative white folks (by and large) aren’t we supposed to in favor of this stuff? Confused.
DeadMessenger
July 20th, 2014 @ 2:30 am

“…do you think marriage and birth rates are down…because of a lack of sexual morality…?”

Yes, that’s what I think. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
DeadMessenger
July 20th, 2014 @ 2:41 am

“Healthy” and “creative” and “erotic” like the sort of culture that spawns stuff like the Folsom Street Fair? Oh yes, a culture that is built entirely upon sexual proclivity is healthy all right, if you define a healthy culture as one without restraint or principle. The culture in this country is circling the drain, and you want to dance on its grave, troll.
Squid Hunt
July 20th, 2014 @ 6:30 am

Do we want poor, single women, unable to take care of their children, to have babies?
Jeanette Victoria
July 20th, 2014 @ 8:46 am

Ewww I just went there
Jeanette Victoria
July 20th, 2014 @ 8:50 am

No SELF-CONTROL is preferable. Sadly no one teaches that anymore
Quartermaster
July 20th, 2014 @ 8:55 am

The progRat troll is back.

Freud is correct in the quote. OTOH, healthy is something you progRats have no truck with. Perversion is your thing, just as you pervert almost anything you low life people touch.
Quartermaster
July 20th, 2014 @ 8:58 am

Like the average progRat, you have things reversed. Morality affects everything we so. You can not maintain a cohesive society, and the economic strength that will generate without a moral people. No sane woman will want to bring a child into the world if she can not be assured that she will be supported by a faithful man while she raises that child. We are seeing the results across the world of the lack of such conditions.
Grandmaster01
July 20th, 2014 @ 10:24 am

Well, then not only would you be wrong, but judgmental, and stupid, too. Try doing some research. Young people are putting these things off due to a lack of stable, decent paying jobs which are 100% necessary to building a family. To think that this is due to the fact that they just want to sleep around is the height of stupidity, and saves conservatives the trouble of dealing with the labor market, especially in minority communities.
Grandmaster
July 20th, 2014 @ 10:28 am

nonsense. there are plenty of amoral, immoral, and godless people running around with fat bank accounts, and stable positions. Women look for financial stability first because there is no real indicator as to whether or not a man will be faithful, or stick around indefinitely. economics trumps morality every time, but you don’t want to hear because it brings up serious flaws I the capitalist system. And FYI, for a supposed liver of Christ, you’re not only a dick, but a judgmental, cold prig, to boot.
Amy Alkon
July 20th, 2014 @ 10:30 am

Actually, it takes self-control to get to the place to get birth control or get sterilized. To offer “Self control is preferable…” — well, yes, as is raising children in intact families. Pie in the sky wishes here are not helpful. If you find abortion creepy and troubling, which I do — though I am not for outlawing it — you favor finding ways to get people to use birth control preferable. Also, this is probably too complex for a blog comment, but a new line in anthropology, “life history theory,” shows how growing up in a violent and uncertain environment leads people to engage in risky, short-term-favoring behaviors. Children who grow up in stable, intact homes in non-violent, stable neighborhoods are primed for a long-term orientation and better self-regulation. The fewer women who have children as poor single women, the better.
Grandmaster01
July 20th, 2014 @ 10:33 am

Yes, exactly. and look at any fertile artistic period either here or abroad, and there was always a strong level of sexual hedonism attached to it. it’s economically circling the drain, and it’s our economics thst have created an immoral culture highlighted by greed. your Christian morality is your own perspective, but never confuse it with objectivity because that’s the last thing it is.
Grandmaster01
July 20th, 2014 @ 10:40 am

They don’t want to hear that. They only want to hear that these women, and the people handing them birth control, are immoral, godless, encouraging a sexually permissive culture , etc. This way they don’t have to think about, or deal with the long term socio-economic structural problems these people deal with. Poor economic situations break down family bonds, and atomize people. What’s really ironic about her comment, and beyond the layers of stupidity, is that she wants them to stop breeding as well, but instead of allowing them birth control so they can have sex occasionally and perhaps feel good, she prefers rigid abstinence in accordance with rigid religious morality. These people are cretins.
Grandmaster01
July 20th, 2014 @ 10:42 am

Yeah, da sex is only for baby makin! you’re a true cretin. only good news is that when polled only 20% of young people consider themselves socially conservative which means your ways are dead in maybe ten years tops. Liberals always win.
Escher's House
July 20th, 2014 @ 11:17 am

Confidential private donor = some centi-millionaire or billionaire who despises poor people. These wildly rich types really go in for this population control, eugenics stuff and always have. This has been one of the pet projects of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations since they were founded. What makes them so prone to this? Rank bigotry is at the root of it, I think.
Andrew
July 20th, 2014 @ 11:55 am

The plan is to never lose another election because a minimum of 14% of the population will be voting democrat because they are dependent on them.

“These N*****s, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”
“I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” = LBJ, Democratic President of the United States.
richard mcenroe
July 20th, 2014 @ 1:22 pm

African-American influence is dwindling as their population dwindles. They usually have the lowest percentage of turnout of any ethnicity (the Obama elections were a wild aberration), and they’re an extremely expensive demographic to support in comparison to financing they provide TO the party. That’s why the Democrats are farming Hispanics now.

By 2020 the African-American community will be politically irrelevant on the national scale, and growing so at the state and city level.
Quartermaster
July 20th, 2014 @ 1:29 pm

Like the progRat you are, you try to move the goal posts when someone points out where you are wrong. You are welcome to deal with anecdotes all you like, but an immoral society will fail.

As for your last sentence, I’ll leave the such things to you. Anyone that challenges your nonsense is judgmental, or a cold prig. Being a person full of hate, such characteristics are reserved for you.
Quartermaster
July 20th, 2014 @ 1:30 pm

I didn’t say that, you just did.

What you are calling liberalism isn’t. It is progressivism and the two have no relationship. But, a progRat is not able to deal such small points as that. progRats always lose because they don’t realize they are fighting against human nature.
Southern Air Pirate
July 20th, 2014 @ 1:47 pm

Because how soon till we see laws like we used to have when Eugenics was the rage at the turn of the 20th century?
http://www.uvm.edu/%7Elkaelber/eugenics/
Oh and some of those laws are still on the books some 100 yrs since even though they quit being enforced when Reagan took office.

Where we had all manner of people being committed to sterilization because we need to eliminate crimes, poverty, laziness, and “genetic” defects that are really social issues? Let alone the reality of attempts to bred out the unwanted genes that cause all the bad like down syndrome or cerable palsy or even dwarfism. If that is tbe world you want to open again? Remember it lead to whole slew of bad things when we took that peusdo-science based on faulty logic and failed understanding of how genes or even evolution worked.
Southern Air Pirate
July 20th, 2014 @ 1:54 pm

What is old is new again because progress!
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled

What we really need is some laws about force sterilization because it will work this time because we are better at it because science!

http://www.uvm.edu/%7Elkaelber/eugenics/
Wombat_socho
July 20th, 2014 @ 2:15 pm

Well, the progs obviously think so.
Wombat_socho
July 20th, 2014 @ 2:17 pm

Given the track record of programs like this in Third World countries, I’m skeptical about how “voluntary” this was.
Wombat_socho
July 20th, 2014 @ 2:18 pm

Could have sworn there were a whole raft of rather expensive government programs to assist single mothers, but maybe I hit a pocket of bad air last night while tunneling and was just hallucinating.
Arya_Stark
July 20th, 2014 @ 2:24 pm

Yeah but we aren’t talking about “forced” anything in this article. Do try and keep up.