Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control

I look forward to debating this controversial topic. For the purpose of this debate, I’d like to clarify that the word “welfare” will mean benefits or resources typically provided to the average non-recipient through wages earned, or through an employer. These could include healthcare benefits, cash payments, food assistance, or housing. At the core of this particular debate is not the “right” or “wrong” of the welfare system, nor is this debate’s purpose to demonize or otherwise judge the personal moral and societal conduct of those Americans who receive welfare benefits. The very clear resolution here is the simple idea that an individual’s Constitutional right to reproduce at will is directly related to their ability to provide for the common good of any human beings they create, much like an Individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms is directly related to their willingness to exercise that right within the confines of responsible conduct pertaining to the said exercise. In addition, the reproductive rights of the individual must be weighed against the greater collective right of members who are already meeting their individual responsibilities to be free from the burden of taking on the care of those who choose to exercise their reproductive rights in an irresponsible manner. While the Constitution holds individual rights to be sacred, the Supreme Court has held that our rights are only able to be exercised to the extent that they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore, the irresponsible exercise of reproductive rights by welfare recipients (who demonstrate by their temporary or long-term dependence on government assistance an inability to be fully financially self-sufficient at that time) infringes upon the independent individual by forcing the support of said irresponsible behavior. Americans by and large support this idea, as shown in a 2001 Zogby poll, which found that “62% would support legislating birth control with benefits, and agree with the implication that welfare recipients too often have children they are not financially able to support. ” [1] "We're asking welfare mothers to take responsibility for what they do," [Massachusetts welfare director Claire McIntire] said about a similar program to stop additional benefits for mothers who continue to have children on welfare. "We're not saying you're absolutely forbidden to have children. It's your choice, knowing if you have a child you will receive no additional money from the taxpayers. " [3] Example Case Studies: People v. Johnson highlighted the issue of mandatory birth control in 1990. Darlene Johnson, a welfare-dependent mother, was convicted of abusing her four children. At the time, Johnson was pregnant with her fifth child. The case judge offered her a choice: she could serve a seven year prison term, or she could choose to serve one year and have the Norplant birth control implant for the duration of her probation. After initially agreeing to the Norplant, she later changed her mind and appealed the decision. Johnson violated her parole before her appellate hearing by using cocaine, and was sentenced to five years for the violation, thus negating the original decision involving Norplant. [2] Shante Hodges, an 18-year-old with two children and a third on the way, said that being told not to have another child because she is on welfare is like “a stranger in the street telling me I shouldn't wear those sneakers… politicians tell them not to have a baby, but that doesn't mean they're not going to have it. ” [3] Hodges is a perfect example of why mandatory birth control is necessary. “[She] had been on birth control pills, she said, but quit taking them because her boyfriend was in jail. When he was released, she didn't have any contraceptives around the house. And that's when she became pregnant. ” This particular example shows, absent any moral judgment, a basic lack of personal responsibility for one’s actions. “Sylvia Missal, who runs a young parent program at Children's Hospital in Boston,” says that welfare mothers say they do not want more children but “they’re not able to organize themselves. ” [3] As a nation we would never mandate that citizens adopt children. Why then do we mandate that citizens who are independently supporting themselves also support—financially “adopting” through taxpayer-funded programs—those who refuse to exercise their rights responsibly? [1] . http://old.zogby.com... [2] . http://academic.udayton.edu... [3] . http://www.washingtonpost.com...