We'll Pay You Not to Have Kids
June 28, 1999
Web posted at: 1:10 p.m. EDT (1710 GMT)
by Jeffrey P. Kahn, Ph.D., M.P.H.
University of Minnesota
A California-based private group called C.R.A.C.K. (Children Requiring A
Caring Kommunity) has reportedly been succeeding in its goal of preventing
drug-addicted women from having unwanted children. The program offers
cash payments of $200 to men or women who undergo long-term birth control
(like Norplant, or an IUD) or permanent sterilization (such as tubal
ligation or vasectomy). And now C.R.A.C.K. has begun exporting its program
to other states. This approach pits the goals of protecting children from
harm against reproductive liberty, and we need to ask how
far we should go in favor of each.
Selling the right to procreate?
No one should have children they don't want. It's bad for both the children
and their parents. And contraception offers a way to avoid it. But offering cash in return for long-term contraception
makes birth control someone else's idea.
Some people lack the financial means to obtain birth control,
but public health programs offer it to them for free.
Paying drug-addicted women to give up the ability to have children
takes advantage of the fact that drug addiction often leads people
to do anything for money to support their habit. Offering cash in return
for sterilization can lead to questionable, and potentially irreversible,
decisions. Since the right to procreate is basic in our society, how
appropriate is it to allow women to "sell" that right under the duress of
Deciding who counts as a good parent
C.R.A.C.K.'s underlying principle seems to be that these women and men should not be
having children. Its activities put those who run the program in the
position of determining what counts as acceptable parenting. We certainly
all have our views about what makes good parents, and we are generally free
to apply them in our own lives. But paid sterilization begins to impose one
perspective onto a particularly vulnerable group. Efforts to
help people succeed in conceiving or not conceiving children are good so
long as it is the individuals' desires that are served, not those of
whoever runs a program like C.R.A.C.K.
Efforts to influence reproductive choices are not new. Some have even
suggested licensing parents as a way of controlling who is allowed to have
children. But who gets to set the standards for licensing, and how would
society enforce them? Could we tolerate forced contraception and the
"reproduction police" needed to carry out such a policy? It is easy to see
why such an approach would and should fail.
Good options, good choices
We can all agree that we ought to do what we can to protect the interests of
children, but we can go too far. Does preventing
the birth of a child protect his or her interests? Should we focus on
discouraging drug-addicted women from having babies, or on the drug abuse
that is the root cause of questionable decision-making? Programs that
combine drug abuse rehabilitation with free contraception might give women
the means they need to make better choices for themselves and their
We long ago determined that no one should be forced to give up their right
to procreation, and while offers of payment are not the same as threats of
force, both succeed by undermining free decisions. Programs such as
C.R.A.C.K. force us to ask just how free we want these decisions to be.
A California-based group called C.R.A.C.K. (Children Requiring A Caring
Kommunity) offers cash payments of $200 to drug-addicted men or women who
undergo long-term birth control or permanent sterilization. How far should
we go in protecting children from harm when the cost is reproductive
liberty? Who should decide who can be a parent, and how can such decisions
be enforced? Should programs such as C.R.A.C.K. be allowed?
Post your opinion here.
"Ethics Matters" Archive
where you'll find other columns from Jeffrey Kahn
on a wide range of bioethics topics.
"Ethics Matters" is a biweekly feature from the
Center for Bioethics and CNN Interactive.
Ex-drug addict mom wins custody battle
March 9, 1999
D.C. needle exchange faces funding cutoff
October 24, 1998
Woman pays addicts if they get sterilized
November 7, 1997
LATEST HEALTH STORIES:
China SARS numbers pass 5,000
Report: Form of HIV in humans by 1940
Fewer infections for back-sleeping babies
Pneumonia vaccine may help heart, too