Louisiana Republican proposes an abortion ban, paying poor to sterilize them.

Because this doesn't smack of eugenics at all.

Quote :

Louisiana State Rep John Labruzzo (R) has introduced "feticide" legislation to ban all abortion in his state and sentence women and doctors who violate the ban to 15 years hard labor.

More grist for the massive privatized prison system they have down there. I guess that will grease a few palms and make a few bucks. The teenager who had an abortion because her boyfriend or her parents forced her into it? The wife who had an abortion because her child was killing her in the womb? The woman who felt suicidal so she tried to kill herself and killed only her fetus as well? Well... uhhhhh... FOLSOM PRISON BLUES for them!

Quote :

Labruzzo has also suggested Louisiana law should pay poor women to be sterilized and well-to-do women to crank out more financially secure kids into the American gene-pool.
....

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...

Hey, why pay them? I mean, there's a budget crisis on, dude! Just go ahead and do it to 'em, man! Rock out with tyin' up those Fallopian tubes of the unwashed, probably minority-laden poor like it's the 1930s! I mean, it's for the good of the country, right? Right?

And yet another elected official makes an ass of himself. Why, God, why are voters so dumb?

Isn't this.... exactly what they did during eugenics time?

In my darkest, most angry moments, I too have felt the world would be better off euthanizing certain people I don't like. When that happens I do what normal people do: vent in privacy, then feel bad about it because wishing your ideological opponents dead is a pretty shitty thing to do. I get introspective, a sense of perspective returns, and only then do I resume engaging with the world.

I guess the standard method of dealing with roiling, blinding anger for Republicans is to call a press conference and vent those feelings out to the world. That's the only explanation I can think of for why such stupid, hateful, vile statements come out of the mouths of Republicans on a daily basis.

Hey, the world's over-populated anyway. When China runs out of women because so many of the smaller villages are still pulling the dowry shit, they'll see a lot more value in women then. Hell, soon enough it'll be reversed and guys will be paying to get a girl. Oh yeah, they do that already - it's called prostitution - but hookers aren't well known for their tendency to keep any babies getting through.

But giving people money and therefore incentive to sterilise themselves? That's just...

Well, wasn't there this thing, I don't remember when, but there was, where they were sterilising the retarded and disabled and so on? Was that eugenics? Cus that was just... cold. Inhuman, even. Regardless of any proof or logic, sometimes logic isn't what you should listen to.

What is this

Is this a hyena trying to decide what is inhuman

Go birth some hyenatards through your oversized clitoris

Adults are speaking

Oho, Penguin, so you think that...

Well, let's just cut to the chase and say that by childishly insulting my opinion that this is inhumane, you clearly seem to think this is a reasonable idea. After all, those poor and disadvantaged people have got to find money somewhere and they really ought to quit selling their kidneys.

That, or you're infinitely more immature than I am.

If you think it's a good idea, you could just say so, without any need to insult me at all. You could just insult Malagnis, or Lady Anne.

...

...

No.

That's not okay dude.

You don't have any say over anyone's reproductive rights. In fact, I have a better idea! That thousand dollars you wanted to give each and every poor woman in your state?

Let's do some math here. According to this place, in 1999, the percentage of families living below the poverty line was 15.8%. Families with only a mother are 40.6%. 60.7% of them have children under five. Now, Katrina has happened since 1999, obviously. But we're going to use this as base number anyway, just to be on the low side.

109,526 women x $1000 = 109,526,000. And that was the low end.

What could that much money do? Hey, I know! Let's take that surplus your poverty-stricken state seems to be hording and make some jobs. Let's build some better schools, work on your heavily damaged roads, etc. Why, one would think, with jobs available, the unemployment rate might *gasp* go down. And maybe with better schools, those kids could actually learn something and be able to learn a useful trade or go to university if they are so inclined.

Or maybe you're talking out of your ass, don't have two red cents to rub together, much less a $1000, and your state will continue to teeter on the brink, thanks to being ranked 47th in the country in education, your unemployment rate of 7.9%, and your many, many other problems.

Or Lapin.

Damn right that money could go to better places and projects.

In fact, it occurs to me, that he doesn't have that money (or he might be fucking doing something with it already). He's just mouthing off to get attention and pretend that these beliefs of his are still something he strives towards, when he knows damn well that this sort of bill would never pass.

It's like bluffing at poker, "Har har!" he shouts, "Look at how strongly I believe in this or that, to see the fanaticist laws I'm prepared to fight for! I've got a great hand! And money to burn!"

But he knows it would never get through, so it doesn't matter that he doesn't have the money to do it anyway.

Malganis wrote:

Hey, why pay them? I mean, there's a budget crisis on, dude! Just go ahead and do it to 'em, man! Rock out with tyin' up those Fallopian tubes of the unwashed, probably minority-laden poor like it's the 1930s! I mean, it's for the good of the country, right? Right?

Too bad the dude's not in Michigan. Then he could declare the poor to be in a financial crisis, take away all their rights and force them to get sterilized.

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

Yet another in the long line of anti-abortion measures being brought at State level this year. After all, if the forced birth brigade can't overturn Roe, they might as well hollow it out until it's meaningless. Who's going to stop them?

Lady Anne wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

Tube-tying is much more invasive and complicated than a vasectomy. If there are other risk factors at play, a doctor might be unwilling to get involved.

Lady Anne wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

I don't know about The Alien, but a lot of doctors won't sterilize women who haven't had children yet or under a certain age because they might change their mind. Even if the women are 100 percent sure that they know what they want. There's a lot to be said about women's health care, but I don't think this is an appropriate post.

Regarding tax breaks for popping out babies, there was a study (or an article, I can't remember which) that showed how tax breaks are all well and good but the thing that encourages women to have babies more than anything else is affordable child care, not a few hundred dollars added to their tax refunds.

Penguin wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

Tube-tying is much more invasive and complicated than a vasectomy. If there are other risk factors at play, a doctor might be unwilling to get involved.

Speaking of, why are they so worried about the women? Men sleep around too. Wouldn't it be more effective if they were shooting blanks as well?

Sakurelf wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

Tube-tying is much more invasive and complicated than a vasectomy. If there are other risk factors at play, a doctor might be unwilling to get involved.

Speaking of, why are they so worried about the women? Men sleep around too. Wouldn't it be more effective if they were shooting blanks as well?

Pfft. Don't be silly. Men don't have babies! Women have babies! You've gotta go after the problem!

Sakurelf wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

Tube-tying is much more invasive and complicated than a vasectomy. If there are other risk factors at play, a doctor might be unwilling to get involved.

Speaking of, why are they so worried about the women? Men sleep around too. Wouldn't it be more effective if they were shooting blanks as well?

Vasectomies aren't bulletproof (hurr hurr). There are plenty of examples out there of dudes being slapped with paternity cases against men who react with "WTF? I had a vasectomy!" and then a DNA test shows that the kid is, in fact, theirs. It's rare, but it is known to happen.

Penguin wrote:

Sakurelf wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

Tube-tying is much more invasive and complicated than a vasectomy. If there are other risk factors at play, a doctor might be unwilling to get involved.

Speaking of, why are they so worried about the women? Men sleep around too. Wouldn't it be more effective if they were shooting blanks as well?

Vasectomies aren't bulletproof (hurr hurr). There are plenty of examples out there of dudes being slapped with paternity cases against men who react with "WTF? I had a vasectomy!" and then a DNA test shows that the kid is, in fact, theirs. It's rare, but it is known to happen.

Tubal ligation isn't foolproof, either. My neighbor had her tubes tied and then got pregnant anyway.

Soylent Green wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

I don't know about The Alien, but a lot of doctors won't sterilize women who haven't had children yet or under a certain age because they might change their mind. Even if the women are 100 percent sure that they know what they want.

Yes, this exactly. I'm 23, in college, unmarried, and have yet to drop any babies. I have known ever since my mother told me where babies come from that I do not wish to pop anything larger than a blood clot out of my vagina. I don't wanna have to worry every time I have sex if the condom worked or not. If I choose to have children, I would like for all of them to be adopted because I want to give disadvantaged children a chance to have a loving home instead of adding more babies to our overpopulated planet.

Soylent Green wrote:

Regarding tax breaks for popping out babies, there was a study (or an article, I can't remember which) that showed how tax breaks are all well and good but the thing that encourages women to have babies more than anything else is affordable child care, not a few hundred dollars added to their tax refunds.

I can see how this would be true. A few hundred dollars would only cover childcare for a month, if that long.

Soylent Green wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

I don't know about The Alien, but a lot of doctors won't sterilize women who haven't had children yet or under a certain age because they might change their mind. Even if the women are 100 percent sure that they know what they want. There's a lot to be said about women's health care, but I don't think this is an appropriate post.

Well into the 1970s, many US hospitals employed what they called the "Rule of 120": no woman would be voluntarily sterilized by her own request unless her age multiplied by the number of children she'd given birth to equaled 120.

Cactus Wren wrote:

Soylent Green wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Yet another one of those "Terrible, but why am I not surprised?" stories. :|

Granted, government-funded sterilization could help poor women who don't want any/more babies to be able to have procedure. But forcing people to do it? And more tax breaks for the rich? Just for having babies? Economics doesn't work like that. Keeping in mind these are the same politicians who think we need less government intervention and social programs.

And here I am wishing there was a doctor that would actually be willing to perform a sterilizing procedure on me because I don't want children.

Why won't a doctor perform a sterilizing procedure on you? Isn't it your body?

I don't know about The Alien, but a lot of doctors won't sterilize women who haven't had children yet or under a certain age because they might change their mind. Even if the women are 100 percent sure that they know what they want. There's a lot to be said about women's health care, but I don't think this is an appropriate post.

Well into the 1970s, many US hospitals employed what they called the "Rule of 120": no woman would be voluntarily sterilized by her own request unless her age multiplied by the number of children she'd given birth to equaled 120.

I'll get right on those six kids.

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

Soylent Green wrote:

I don't know about The Alien, but a lot of doctors won't sterilize women who haven't had children yet or under a certain age because they might change their mind. Even if the women are 100 percent sure that they know what they want.

Yes, this exactly. I'm 23, in college, unmarried, and have yet to drop any babies. I have known ever since my mother told me where babies come from that I do not wish to pop anything larger than a blood clot out of my vagina.

When I was 20, I wanted an IUCD for exactly that reason (and because my body hated birth control pills and reacted by piling on weight like I was made of doughnut) and I was refused. It took me literally years to persuade medics that an IUCD would suit me better, and even then they didn't want to give me one because I'd never had children. In vain I pointed out that I never would - they always countered with 'You'll change your mind'.

I decided I didn't want children when I was five years old, and I'm now 49. I've changed my mind about lots of things over the years, but never about that.

Why only pay to sterilise women?

A woman can only pop out one baby at a time. Or two, sometimes. But you know what I mean.

A man can go around and potentially make dozens of women pregnant at once in a matter of days. If anything, we need less fertile men, not less fertile women.

I'm still not advocating this; it's insane. If you want less babies so badly, ease up on abortion laws.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Why only pay to sterilise women?

A woman can only pop out one baby at a time. Or two, sometimes. But you know what I mean.

A man can go around and potentially make dozens of women pregnant at once in a matter of days. If anything, we need less fertile men, not less fertile women.

You've got it backwards. To stop a population of a given species from increasing, you have to take as many females out of the picture as possible. Males can reproduce repeatedly in a period of time where females can only reproduce once... provided that the males have additional females to mate with.