Project Prevention

A new type of drug reform?

While pursuing more research, I stumbled upon a program that has taken prenatal substance abuse into their own hands.  Literally. 

Project Prevention is an organization that offers cash incentives to women and men addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long term or permanent birth control.  It is a polite way of saying that they pay addicts to get sterilized.

Now before we jump to debate, let me give you a background of this program and it's founders.  Barbara Harris (the Director and Founder of the organization) started this program after seeing dozens of babies born to drug-addled mothers who couldn’t care for them.  Harris is the mother of her own four adopted children; all of whom are from the same mother, who is addicted to crack-cocaine. 
Their mission: Our mission is to continue to reach out to addicts offering referrals to drug treatment for those interested and to get them on birth control until they can care for the children they conceive are lowering the number of children added to foster care, preventing the addicts from the guilt and pain they feel each time they give birth only to have their child taken away, and preventing suffering of innocent children because even those fortunate enough to be born with no medical or emotional problems after placed in foster care face often a lifetime of longing to feel loved and wanted.
The process: Simple.  Project Prevention gives the client $300 and sets up all the medical procedures at a local hospital or clinic.  The client needs only to sign a release form, and once birth control is in place, they receive their check.

The organization presents a cost effective and solidly seen solution, but it faces harsh criticism.  Lynn Paltrow, who is the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), compares this cash-for-birth-control concept to Hitleresque eugenics.  She agrees that the health system is flawed, but she does not see the solution in sterilization.  Planned Parenthood argues that this organization preys on minorities and the drug-addicted poor, suggesting a form of social engineering.  Harris combats this accusations with honest disgust, using her interracial marriage and biracial children as an example of opposition. 

Legally, critics argue that Project Prevention should be using their money to offer viable treatment to the women that they serve,  especially due to the fact that Medicaid rarely pays for pregnant women to attend inpatient or outpatient drug treatment programs. Harris simply responds: "That's not what we do."

So, do you want to see what they do? Check out their website: http://www.projectprevention.org/
What do you think? Feedback and opinion is encouraged!

Divisional Activity

This chart visually demonstrates the fragmented policy views regarding this issue.

Laws in twelve states agree that a child born exposed to drugs is presumed to be abuse or neglected, and that positive results from a toxicology test performed on a newborn or signed of prenatal drug exposure in newborns constitutes as evidence of child abuse or neglect. This expansion in child welfare law, gives grounds for removing the infant from the mother's custody, and also qualifies as a factor in determining whether to terminate parental rights (Dailard & Nash, 2000).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, twenty-five states have chose nonpunitive and treatment oriented approaches. These states create and fund treatment programs for this population by giving pregnant women priority access to treatment. California, Colorado, and Texas even facilitate the delivery of social services to pregnant substance abusers (Dailard & Nash, 2000).

As a voter, what would you choose?

As a thinker, in what ways could you reconcile both ideas of thought?