Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 22:06:58 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Eugenics, Poverty & Drugs in the U
Cracking Open CRA
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…
These are the words of Barbara Harris, founder of the organization CRACK, Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity. Based in California, CRACK’s mission is to permanently or temporarily sterilize women with substance abuse problems using monetary incentives of $200. As of September 1, 1999, 65 women received cash from CRACK in return for their fertility; 46 of them were permanently sterilized. CRACK has opened a chapter in Chicago and is planning to expand to Minnesota, Florida, Seattle and the New England area.
What is so shocking about CRACK is not only the fact that it exists?eugenic thinking is all too alive and well in the US?but the fact that it has received such positive press attention, with favorable articles or editorials in People, Time, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, and the Chicago Tribune. Once again sacrificing the reproductive rights of poor women and women of color is considered the simple solution to complex social ills.
In its fact sheet on CRACK, the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment lays out the reasons why we should strongly oppose the organization:
1) CRACK’S MISSION IS ESSENTIALLY EUGENIC. Eugenic sterilization laws in the early decades of this century led to the compulsory sterilization of some 60,000 Native-Americans, African-Americans, the mentally and physically disabled, and the poor. Now, at the end of the century, private fertility clinics offer young, educated and privileged women $2500-50,000 to donate their eggs, while CRACK offers poor women with substance abuse problems $200 not to have children.
Though apparently voluntary, CRACK’s incentives have far more to do with coercion than with choice. Poor women with substance abuse problems are not likely to be able to make an informed decision about their reproductive capacity if offered cash as an incentive. CRACK takes advantage of their vulnerability by advertising, Don’t let a pregnancy ruin your drug habit, and If you use drugs, get birth control, get $200 cash.
2) CRACK LIMITS BIRTH CONTROL OPTIONS AND INCREASES HEALTH RISKS. CRACK irresponsibly limits birth control options by compensating only for long-term, provider-controlled methods: tubal ligation, Norplant, Depo Provera and IUDs. These are all associated with substantial health risks, and it is unlikely that women who are CRACK targets have access to the kind of health care which provides adequate contraceptive counseling, screening for contraindications and monitoring of side effects. Meanwhile, barrier methods such as the condom which protect against HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases are not compensated by CRACK.
3) CRACK IMPEDES THE GOAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT. CRACK’s quick-fix approach effectively gives up on treatment as a solution to addiction. So long as women with addiction problems stop having children, nothing else seems to matter. CRACK does not recognize addiction as a medical problem which responds to appropriate treatment. This is part of a larger national trend of criminalizing poor women of color with addiction problems, putting them in prison for ‘child abuse’ during pregnancy, rather than offering them drug treatment programs.
4) CRACK CAPITALIZES ON THE NOTION OF ‘CRACK BABIES’ AS WASTED LIVES. Acknowledging that using drugs during pregnancy can harm an infant is very different from CRACK’s message that women on drugs should not have babies at all. The notion of ‘crack babies’ as wasted human lives came about in the late 1980s when reporters exaggerated the effect of crack cocaine on infants and preschoolers. They emphasized the most alarming predictions of doctors and researchers that these infants would experience learning disabilities,
Student Behavior
Inadequate
Acceptable
Distinguished
Sharing Personal Experiences
Does not give examples
Describes two examples
Describes more than two examples
Discussion
No discussion with peers
Held discussions with two peers
Held discussions with more than two peers
Immediacy
Did not respond to peers timely
Responded to peers in 48 hours
Responded to peers in 24 hours
Contributor
Did not contribute any strategies individually or in collaboration
Contributed two of the 16 strategies individually or in collaboration
Contributed more than two strategies In collaboration
Application of Theory
Did not use resources to support strategies
Used only the provided resources
Used outside and suggested resources
Reflected on Activity
Did not complete the survey
Completed the survey but did not reflectively comment
Completed the survey and offered reflective comm
Please read the CRACKING OPEN CRACK article and post your original response