I don’t get it. Was that supposed to imply that because I think women should only be sterilized non-coercively and because I’ve researched the effects of drug addiction on fetuses (which, if you actually read the post, you’ll see is relevant to my legal studies) that I must be a drug user myself? And I supposed I must also be getting repeatedly pregnant and alternating between having abortions and birthing drug-addicted infants, just for fun, right?

You’ve really got my number.

What’s your drug of choice?

If drug-addicted women wish to be permanently sterilized or go on long-term birth control, that’s their choice. But it should not be coerced. It should, in my ideal world, be free and accessible for them and all women to prevent pregnancy, but you’ll have to take that up with pro-life Republicans.

I would love to find a better one but you must admit it is a good Idea

Um, no you don’t. Not when it’s a coercive, terrible idea, especially placed in context. The women sterilized by Project Prevention are disproportionately women of color (this is according to their own statistics). Given the long history of forced, coerced and non-consensual sterilizations that black and Latina women in the United States have faced, I’d say that this is a terrible idea, and thinly veiled racism. Google articles about this program, and see how its founder refers to drug-addicted women as animals who have “litters” of children. There’s a lot of thinly-veiled racism here. Putting up signs around black neighborhoods with slogans like, “Don’t let a child ruin your high” and offering drug addicts more money for drugs in exchange for their reproduction is abhorrent. I wonder about the moral compass of anyone who thinks this is a good idea.