View Full Version : John Labruzzo is studying a plan to pay women to get their tubes tied
This idiot excuse for a lawmaker is now proposing paying poor people to be sterilized. While I wish that those who can not afford to have children would not have children, I think paying people to be sterile sounds a little like - ah - eugenics.
I agree we have problems with the gene pool in this country and especially here in Louisiana, but I think Johny is going way to far and this is a desperate attempt for him to try to gain some of the political clout that he has lost over the past several months. (that is based on the assumption he ever had any political clout)
Keep in mind that this guy was a vocal proponent of the pay raise, voted for it, and then went crying to Jindal to veto it after he realized that the people were not going to stand for it. He also has a recall petition hanging over him as a result of his spastic and cowardly actions.
I wonder how much it would cost to keep Johny from reproducing?
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/labruzzo_sterilization_plan_fi.html
Can we at least make it good for N.O. then if not the whole state.
Until someone shows me another way to slow down the continued cycle of good for nothing crackhead mothers having father-less children, lets roll with another idea for a while.
I do agree that it sounds like some political show boating though.
Can we at least make it good for N.O. then if not the whole state.
Until someone shows me another way to slow down the continued cycle of good for nothing crackhead mothers having father-less children, lets roll with another idea for a while.
I do agree that it sounds like some political show boating though.
Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients would be a good start.
justagirl
09-24-2008, 04:39 PM
Well, he did say he never intended for this to get out but now that it has he'll talk about it. (duh)
I always said I'd never get elected to public office because I think you should have to get a license to procreate, so needless to say, I don't think this is a terrible idea. Maybe poor execution but overall I'm not against the idea. And I'm all for drug testing people receiving anything such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment, ect.
I agree we need welfare reform, but this is over the the top and probably unconstitutional. At least Labruzzo had the sense to add the word voluntary or else the ACLU would probably try to file suit before the end of the day. While I feel it is not the governments business to try to dictate or bribe people in regards to their reproductive rights, I also believe it is not the governments business to supply deadbeats with cash. Perhaps some type of law that limits welfare based on the number of children you have would be in order. The primary reason for this problem is that the government rewards welfare recipients for the number of children they have now. That needs to be stopped.
In my opinion it would probably be much easier to pass a law that stipulates that once you have your second or third child you are no longer elegible to recieve welfare checks. One could always reason that by concieving a second or third child one is admitting that they have the necesarry funds to live without welfare. After all, if you can afford to have two or three children then you most certainly can afford to live without taxpayer assitance.
I guarantee that nothing would close the legs faster then the threat of losing a welfare check and food stamps. If people knew that the sex they were having could lead to a loss of welfare money I can assure you that they would avail themselves of all the free birth control that is currently available.
Putting a time limit on how long one can recieve such benefits would also be a good practice. I have heard that some states already do this. I have also heard that in some states one must work in order to recieve their checks. These are all options that should be explored by the legislature before giving people money to be sterile.
Oh well. I guess he has had second thoughts - AGAIN - lol
"After further thought, LaBruzzo said, he has modified his position toward calling for financial incentives for temporary forms of birth control, instead of surgery. "That's probably a safe and better way to go," he said, acknowledging that poor women might decide at a later time, when they are in a better economic position, to have children."
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/labruzzo_idea_at_odds_with_wel.html#preview
The welfare system provides the incentive for them to have MORE children. The tax benefits and added foodstamp money given to people who continually have more children they cannot afford gives paople plenty of incentive to have more, more, more...................
The welfare system provides the incentive for them to have MORE children. The tax benefits and added foodstamp money given to people who continually have more children they cannot afford gives paople plenty of incentive to have more, more, more...................
Exactly! So why would someone who gets paid by the child accept a one time payment for a tubal ligation when there is more money to be made by having the children. If one gets an extra $100 a month per child, then that child is worth $1200 a year for 17 years. A grand total of $20,400. Welfare mothers know their economics and wil not trade 20K for 1K.
Edited to add:
Johny's plan sucks
Exactly! So why would someone who gets paid by the child accept a one time payment for a tubal ligation when there is more money to be made by having the children. If one gets an extra $100 a month per child, then that child is worth $1200 a year for 17 years. A grand total of $20,400. Welfare mothers know their economics and wil not trade 20K for 1K.
Edited to add:
Johny's plan sucks
Alex,
You are a level headed normal American. The people this plan is targeting... ..not so much. If they had the forsight and discipline to sit down and figure out how much money they were going to get in the future based on a decision they were making now, they would not be having kids at 15 and dropping out of school.
That $1,000 payout could make for one hell of a great party, a weeks worth of drugs, and some fly clothes. I think there would be some takers.
Besides, I think the whole making babies to get more welfare thing is a little hyperbole. I don't know that any of these people are living the good life or getting financially stable by popping out more kids.
Kids be expensive.
Suzy Wong
09-25-2008, 11:19 AM
What I don't get, an extra 100.00 a month? Someone would have a child over that?????????:eek:
I have a 10 yr old son, and 100.00 GOES NOWHERE, spent in an instant.
edible complex
09-25-2008, 12:25 PM
Exactly! So why would someone who gets paid by the child accept a one time payment for a tubal ligation when there is more money to be made by having the children. If one gets an extra $100 a month per child, then that child is worth $1200 a year for 17 years. A grand total of $20,400. Welfare mothers know their economics and wil not trade 20K for 1K.
That public school education is teaching them math.
I have worked with far too many moms/dads that had far too many kids with far too many dads/moms so they could maximize benefits. Extended families at their generational best.
Just this morning in line at the grocery, some mom is using food stamps, pushing her 6 mo. old, while spending $100 for a toy for the 10 yr. old. I SH$T you not!
When we had to get those immunizations for post-K re-entry, I heard some stories of how lavish that gov't housing can be inside from some of the nurses (who were none too happy about that situation).
I'm not begrudging anyone having kids or treasures, but not at taxpayer's expense.
I loved it when Wanda Sykes had her own show; one episode she went door to door asking to see the neighbors' kids school grades and asking why they weren't studying, as she was paying for that public school eduction. Performance Bonds, I say!
What I don't get, an extra 100.00 a month? Someone would have a child over that?????????:eek:
I have a 10 yr old son, and 100.00 GOES NOWHERE, spent in an instant.
I have no idea how much extra recipients get per child - I used $100 to make the math easier.
Alex,
You are a level headed normal American. The people this plan is targeting... ..not so much. If they had the forsight and discipline to sit down and figure out how much money they were going to get in the future based on a decision they were making now, they would not be having kids at 15 and dropping out of school.
That $1,000 payout could make for one hell of a great party, a weeks worth of drugs, and some fly clothes. I think there would be some takers.
Besides, I think the whole making babies to get more welfare thing is a little hyperbole. I don't know that any of these people are living the good life or getting financially stable by popping out more kids.
Kids be expensive.
Indeed these are all valid points with the exception of your first one. I have to doubt how level headed I am. I am one of the people who voted for Johny Labruzzo when he first ran for office.
More is more to a brainless moron. There is no calculation done to determine future benefits of having more children just so there is more money coming in. If you have all of your living expenses paid by the government, why would you care how many children you had regardless of the cost of raising a child? More is more.
praline
09-26-2008, 12:47 PM
Labruzzo is an idiot. I voted for him the first time and I didn't get to vote AGAINST him the second term becuase he was unopposed. He pissed me off at a political fundraiser a couple of years ago. :crap:
Maybe he is on to something though. Maybe we can use the poor and impoverished to provide vital organs for those who need them. We can buy off their kidney's, lungs, etc. Yeah! Let's treat them like chattel and buy off of them whatever society needs. After all, it would surely be voluntary... :rolleyes:
Idiot small-minded Johnny. Where IS that recall petition? They gave up too soon. :mad:
Oh great - now it is national news :(
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=5886592&page=1
Does Larry Flynt still have the "Asshole of the Month" column? I have a nominee.
Johnny got a letter from PETA:
September 30, 2008
The Honorable John LaBruzzo
Louisiana House of Representatives
Dear Representative LaBruzzo,
We hope that this letter finds you well. PETA is the world's largest animal rights organization, with more than 2 million members and supporters, including tens of thousands in Louisiana. We would like to join your efforts to stem the tide of unwanted births in your state by encouraging you to go a step further than your current plan to encourage low-income women to use birth control. Overpopulation isn't just a human problem, and PETA believes that everyone should consider the impact that population growth of all types has on the Earth, animals, and our limited resources. Please consider introducing a separate bill that would provide low- or no-cost spay-and-neuter programs for the dogs and cats of underserved families in Louisiana.
The companion animal overpopulation crisis costs taxpayer money and animal lives. Taxpayers foot the bill for animal control officers to pick up and transport stray animals to municipal shelters that must house, feed, and provide veterinary care for these animals as well as pay staff and ultimately adopt out or euthanize and dispose of many of these animals. Each year, about 6 to 8 million unwanted animals end up in U.S. animal shelters, and about half of them must be euthanized for lack of good homes. The estimated annual taxpayer cost to round up, house, put to death, and dispose of unwanted animals in the U.S is an astounding $2 billion.
Louisiana can prevent unwanted births and save countless animal lives and thousands of taxpayer dollars by subsidizing and promoting low-cost spay-and-neuter programs. As the old adage says, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," and nowhere is that more aptly applied than in a discussion of the overpopulation crisis. Consider that without spaying, one female dog and her offspring can produce 67,000 puppies in six years, and one female cat and her offspring can create 420,000 kittens in seven years. Spaying just one cat or dog can prevent tens of thousands of animals from being born. And remember, when it comes to animal birth control methods, dogs and cats rely on humans to make these lifesaving decisions.
To limit births and save money, there's no better place to start than with dogs and cats. Providing low- or no-cost spay-and-neuter programs to your underserved communities would be a win-win solution for an out-of-control problem. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you and help you in any way that I can. Thank you for your time and your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Candace Hertzel, Legislative and Outreach Specialist
Cruelty Investigations Department
"A Metairie lawmaker who suggested paid sterilization of poor women as a way to shrink the welfare roles was ousted Monday from a House leadership position.
House Speaker Jim Tucker, R-Terrytown, removed state Rep. John LaBruzzo as vice chairman of the House Health and Welfare Committee."
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/30552344.html
THANKS JIM TUCKER!
Suzy Wong
10-08-2008, 05:01 PM
I had never heard of him before you posted. I assumed he was some ancient hillbilly but I was surprised he was so young. Ah the ignorance of yut.......;)
I had never heard of him before you posted. I assumed he was some ancient hillbilly but I was surprised he was so young. Ah the ignorance of yut.......;)
He is one year older then THE GOVERNOR! He aint ignorant because of his age, he is just plain ignorant.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.