Program: Coercing Women's
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for HARVARD LAW SCHO Your Search: "program: coercing women's" Date/Time of Request: Monday, October 8, 2012 00:44 Central Client Identifier: HLS Database: JLR Citation Text: 5 JLSOCIETY 187 Lines: 435 Documents: 1 Images: 0 The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters, West and their affiliates. 5 JLSOCIETY 187 Page 1 5 J. L. Society 187 Journal of Law in Society Fall, 2003 Article *187 REMARKS ON THE “CRACK” PROGRAM: COERCING WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES Renee Chelian [FNa1] Copyright (c) 2003 Wayne State University; Renee Chelian Introduction As the President of MARAL (the Michigan affiliate of NARAL Pro-Choice America) and as a women's health care provider, I believe it is essential that we speak out and weigh in whenever women's reproductive rights are threatened. This is especially important when the women who are being targeted are some of society's most vulnerable. As you know, I am here today to share my thoughts and NARAL Pro-Choice America's posi- tion on the C.R.A.C.K. program, which has been offering money to drug-addicted women in exchange for steril- ization and other forms of long-term birth control. First, I will offer a bit of background on the program to provide some context, then I will discuss some of the problems with this program. I will wrap up by sharing with you NARAL Pro-Choice America's position on the program. In the last several years, a private organization known as C.R.A.C.K., which stands for “Children Requiring a CaringKommunity,” also called “Project Prevention,” has been offering money to drug addicts in exchange for sterilization or the use of long-term birth control. This program was started in California in 1997, and has been proliferating in major metropolitan areas throughout the United States. The C.R.A.C.K. program offers a cash payment of $200 to women addicted to drugs or alcohol in exchange for their commitment to use permanent or long-term birth control methods including tubal ligation, a surgical form of sterilization; Depo-Provera, a contraceptive shot; intra-uterine devices, or IUDs; and Norplant, a five year contraceptive implant. [FN1] *188 C.R.A.C.K. was launched in Stanton, CA in 1997 by Barbara Harris, after she failed to pass legislation that criminalized drug-addicted women who have children. [FN2] Harris has reported to the press that her mo- tivation was to punishthe drug-addicted birth mother of her four adopted children.fter her legislative plan failed she turned her attention to the founding of C.R.A.C.K. [FN3] Supporters of the program include ultra- conservative philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife, as well as a prominent right-wing radio talk show host, Dr. Laura Schlessinger. [FN4] The organization does not pay for actual medical procedures. Instead, after receiving inquiries from the par- ticipants-often through their toll free number-C.R.A.C.K. sends out forms that must be completed by a doctor after participants undergo sterilization or obtain long-term birth control. Once the forms are mailed back to C.R.A.C.K. and they verify that the participants have satisfied requirements, C.R.A.C.K. mails participants a check for $200. [FN5] Most participants qualify for government-funded birth control and therefore are able to © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 5 JLSOCIETY 187 Page 2 5 J. L. Society 187 use the $200 cash payment to buy whatever they want-including drugs. The program has been steadily expanding to new metropolitan areas, and now claims to have 23 chapters throughout the United States. [FN6] *189 C.R.A.C.K. reports that as of March 17, 2003, of the 907 participants they claim to have paid, 372 have had tubal ligations, 361 received Depo Provera, 115 IUDs, and 37 Norplant. While the program is heavily targeted toward women, men may also receive payment for sterilization, and C.R.A.C.K. also claims to have provided the cash payments to 22 men for undergoing vasectomies. [FN7] When the C.R.A.C.K. program first began, Harris paid participants on a sliding scale, offering more money to those who used the irreversible tubal ligation procedure for sterilization than to those who opted for the five- year contraceptive Norplant, and even less for those who agree to a year's worth of Depo-Provera shots, which last three months. [FN8] A news release in Oakland, CA early in the program was explicit about the preference for sterilization, “Get sterilized-Get $200.” [FN9] A firestorm of criticism led Harris to modify this approach and pay $200 for either sterilization or the use of long-term birth control methods like Depo-Provera, IUDs or Norplant. [FN10] C.R.A.C.K. does not offer the $200 payment for the use of shorter-term methods like the pill or barrier methods. In order to reach its participants, C.R.A.C.K. advertises on billboards, bus benches and sometimes on benches outside welfare offices. [FN11] Some of C.R.A.C.K.'s advertisements read: “Don't Let a *190 Preg- nancy Ruin Your Drug Habit,” [FN12] “If You Are Addicted to Drugs, Get Birth Control, Get $200,” [FN13] “Stop the cycle of addicted newborns now!” [FN14] In addition to outdoor advertising, C.R.A.C.K. also conducts outreach to local agencies that may come into contact with substance-abusing women, distributes fliers to hospitals, health clinics, police departments, proba- tion departments, jails, and homeless shelters and urges social service workers to refer women to the toll free number. [FN15] Most of this advertising appears to have been placed in poor communities of color, which has led many to charge C.R.A.C.K. with racism, eugenics and even genocidal intentions. [FN16]arbara Harris and C.R.A.C.K. dispute charges of racial targeting. As of March 17, 2003, C.R.A.C.K. reports that 437 Caucasian, 311 African American, 90 *191 Hispanic and 69 people of “other ethnic backgrounds” participated in the CRACK program. [FN17] I. The C.R.A.C.K. Program Dehumanizes Women Struggling with Addiction One major area of concern is that programs such as C.R.A.C.K. are fundamentally dehumanizing to women struggling with addiction, and they fail to account for the unique circumstances of each individual woman. C.R.A.C.K. Founder Barbara Harris revealed her attitude toward the women targeted by C.R.A.C.K. in an inter- view with the British edition of Marie Claire magazine when she said, “We don't allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children.” [FN18] She also has stated, “These women are not getting pregnant because they love children, but because they're totally irresponsible.” [FN19] These comments suggest that Harris fails to see women who struggle with substance abuse as capable of the same sort of motivation for having children as all women. [FN20] This callous and dehumanizing attitude*192 is also reflected by the focus of the program. C.R.A.C.K. singles out a particular group of women and creates a so- cial stigma that these women are not worthy of reproducing. As Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, put it: © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 5 JLSOCIETY 187 Page 3 5 J. L. Society 187 What she's doing is suggesting there are certain neighborhoods where it is dangerous for some people to be reproducing... It suggests they are not worthy of reproducing. It is very much like the eugenics his- tory in America. The Nazis said if you just sterilized the sick people and Jews you would improve the economy. [FN21] II. The C.R.A.C.K. Program Fails to Address the Problem of Addiction Another disturbing aspect of this program is that rather than gearing its efforts toward improving the lives of women haunted by substance abuse problems, C.R.A.C.K. is strictly focused on preventing those women from having children. There is an increasing consensus that addiction, like many other diseases, is a disease that can be cured with appropriate treatment. Medical professionals and addiction specialists have heavily criticized Har- ris's approach, pointing out that contraceptive*193 options should be offered as a part of a larger comprehensive treatment plan managed by health care professionals concerned about the woman's well being. As Bill McColl, executive director of the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors put it, “Two hundred dollars would buy more than a week of long-term residential care.” [FN22] He also called C.R.A.C.K. a “non-program [that] preys on addicts' need for cash, stigmatizes them as inhuman, raises ex- traordinary ethical questions and highlights our society's unwillingness to find real solutions for real problems.” [FN23] Indeed, Barbara Harris herself admitted that the well-being of the women who participate in C.R.A.C.K. is not a focus of the program when she said, “[i]t's sad that they are on drugs, but our program is not about the women. It's about the children.” [FN24] Because of its callous failure to respond to the needs of women, the C.R.A.C.K. program can be viewed as one element of a broader trend towards punishing women for behavior during pregnancy.