Man Who Wants Full Abortion Ban In Louisiana Once Advocated Sterilizing Poor Women


When Louisiana Rep. John LaBruzzo announced he was authoring a bill to enact a full ban on all abortions in the state, he claimed that language that a woman obtaining an abortion would be charged with “feticide” was “accidentally” left in the bill.

But based on his past legislative acts involving women, it wasn’t an accident at all.

In 2008, LaBruzzo was known for another controversial idea — one where he proposed paying poor women $1000 each to have their tubes tied.

Via NOLA.com:

Worried that welfare costs are rising as the number of taxpayers declines, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said Tuesday he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

“We’re on a train headed to the future and there’s a bridge out, ” LaBruzzo said of what he suspects are dangerous demographic trends. “And nobody wants to talk about it.”

LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government. He said he is gathering statistics now.

“What I’m really studying is any and all possibilities that we can reduce the number of people that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare, ” he said.

Oh, and in case you didn’t fully grasp this is a class thing, he advocated giving extra tax incentives “for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children.”

Jail women who have abortions, sterilize the poor, and reward rich people for procreating.  Sounds about right.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on Twitter: @robinmarty

To schedule an interview with Robin Marty please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • ldan

    I bet he tosses out the ‘Sanger was a eugenicist!” card at Planned Parenthood too…with no sense of irony or hypocrisy.

  • mayab

    I’m not sure what to make of this post. I’m completely pro-choice but I also think paying those who can’t afford to have kids to do the right thing and not have them is just fine too. And before some of you get your panties twisted, I’m not talking forced abortions or tubals. A reversible method like IUD is just fine with me. I’ve never understood why liberals (which I am) get so mad about positive reinforcement when it comes to contraception. There’s too many people in the world, birth control is under-utilized and, big shocker, poor folks do tend to have more unwanted pregnancies and more kids. It’s not racist or classist, it’s a fact. So why not use my tax money to give them some extra cash to stop having too many babies, and they can use it to start a college fund for the kids they have now (or more likely buy Fritos and another TV, but whatever…)

     Can I get an amen?

  • ack

    Sweet potato(e) fries, I hope you’re joking.

     

    I’m completely pro-choice but I also think paying those who can’t afford to have kids to do the right thing andnot have them is just fine too.

     

    That’s not choice, that’s coercion.

     

    And before some of you get your panties twisted, I’m not talking forced abortions or tubals. A reversible method like IUD is just fine with me.

     

    IUD insertion is a painful, invasive medical procedure. You’re talking about coercing poor women into undergoing an unwanted procedure. Bodily autonomy is the cornerstone of many pro-choice beliefs. We use the same argument about coercing women into undergoing pregnancy and childbirth. Minimizing the process doesn’t make the reality any different.

     

    So why not use my tax money to give them some extra cash to stop having too many babies, 

    How about making contraception free for the people who want to use it?

     

    they can use it to start a college fund for the kids they have now (or more likely buy Fritos and another TV, but whatever…)

     

    Wow. Just wow. You can call yourself a liberal because you vote Democratic, but you’re not anti-oppression. This sentence completely negates any commentary you have on classism. 


  • arekushieru

    IUD insertion is a painful, invasive medical procedure. You’re talking about coercing poor women into undergoing an unwanted procedure. Bodily autonomy is the cornerstone of many pro-choice beliefs. We use the same argument about coercing women into undergoing pregnancy and childbirth. Minimizing the process doesn’t make the reality any different.

    That’s exactly the same argument I use when an anti-choicer asks why a woman can’t simply have a hysterectomy, if she doesn’t want children?  Whatever happened to the right to medical privacy…?

  • ack

    I think you hit the nail on the head, whether intentionally or not, when you used the word “simply.” It’s all “simple,” or it’s “just xyz.” Pregnancy is “just nine months.” Hysterectomies are a “simple surgery.” Getting your tubes tied is “simple.” 

     

    And for those who are against abortion rights but in favor of contraception, women and girls “just” need to use it. 

     

    There’s no recognition that there is NOTHING simple about any of those things for a lot of people. Most doctors won’t perform tubal ligations on women who haven’t had kids. Many doctors won’t consider an IUD for women or girls who haven’t given birth. (It’s not more dangerous, it just takes more skill on the part of the practitioner.) Contraceptive access is NOT simple for poor women, uninsured women, women in rural communities, or women with health conditions that make hormonal methods riskier. The lack of recognition of barriers to access to reproductive health care is astounding. It reeks of privilege.

     

    There is nothing simple about it. We can increase access to contraception. That’s about it.

     

    I don’t have kids. I don’t want to raise kids right now. I want to raise them someday. I’m sexually active. There are millions of women and girls in my situation in the US. Hysterectomies and tubal ligations are not for us. But I have privilege. I have a job that provides some extra income beyond my most basic needs. I have health insurance through that job. I have a partner who respects my wishes about hormonal contraception, and supports me financially in that respect by paying half of the cost of my pills. Through my insurance, it costs about $15 per month. But…

     

    I’m not using my preferred method. I’m on generic Ortho-tricyclen, when I did MUCH better on a low dose hormonal method. But they don’t make the low dose in a generic, and it was going to cost $45 per month. I can’t afford that.

     

    Simple? Yeah, right.

  • arekushieru

    Yup, and there are those who aren’t even privileged enough to even afford an extra 15 dollars each month.

    How’s that for ‘simple’, especially when that person would never overtly ask for the same decision from any other group of humans… (and certainly not the great white, cisgendered, heterosexual, sexually active, commonly-abled male)?

  • beenthere72

    I’m lucky that hubby is snipped, but my teeanage step daughter apparently has to go to her doctor every 6 months to have her blood pressure checked in order to get her birth control pill prescription refilled.    Nothing simple about that when both her father and I work full time and have to pull her out of school/take time off work to get her to her doctor.   It’s ridiculous.    So we find this out the hard way, she misses a few days of her pill, and she has to start the cycle all over again.  

     

    Simple is: putting on a condom.

  • crowepps

    I’m sorry, but your comment reeks of disrespect.  “Poor folks” have more unwanted pregnancies and more kids because the cost of obtaining reliable birth control is artificially high and they can’t AFFORD to control their fertility.  It isn’t necessary to “give them some extra cash” to use contraception, all that’s necessary is to eliminate the artificial barriers that prevent them from meeting their desire for affordable birth control.  Heading off the lunatics in their mission to defund Planned Parenthood would be an excellent beginning.

  • ack

    Simple is: putting on a condom.

     

    The last time I bought condoms, a large box was about $20, and proper use requires that both partners cooperate and are committed to using them. Every time.

  • beenthere72

    But it is the only birth control you can buy at your local 7-11.  LOL.

  • ack

    True! Plus, we’ll all be getting our pap smears there anyway if the R’s defund Planned Parenthood. I mean, you can already get them at Walgreens. It’s just good business to offer them while we’re filling up our cars!

  • mayab

    Somewhere between lack of access and pap smears at the 7-11, I got a few comments that made sense. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough when I said I’m pro-choice: yes I believe in access to contraception. Duh. If I had my way, there would be condom dispensers on every corner and all birth control and abortion would be free and on demand to everyone. Seriously.

     

    We give people 5 cents back for recycling a bottle. I worked for an HMO that “coerced” families to get their kids immunized by giving them free bike helmets if their kid’s shots were up to date. Is that bad? (Anti-vaccination folks, please ignore that question.)

     

    “Coercion” is far too strong a term to providing cash for contraception. It’s more like icing on the cake. Two rights making a right. And even if someone felt slightly coerced, what’s the worst that could happen? One less unneeded and unwanted kid? Fewer people in the world? *shudder*

     

    What about “trusting women” as Dr Tiller said? I have enough faith that when a woman decides she’s ready to have a child, she’ll be smart enough to know it and will say no thank-you to the payment that month or year.

     

  • mayab

    Oh by the way, you know what hurts more than getting an IUD? HAVING A BABY!

  • arekushieru

    Money IS coercive.  It isn’t a question of that, anyways.  It’s whether the coercion is targeted at disadvantaged groups, or just people in general.  The families getting their kids immunized were from all walks of life.  There’s the difference you’re missing….  Also, what is the difference between paying someone money to keep a pregnancy and paying someone to avoid it, especially since they’re both targeted at disadvantaged groups?  Thanks.

  • crowepps

    An additional point is that bike helmets are actually another type of immunization, against brain damage, rather than a bribe to get parents to bring in their children.

     

    I find the underlying subtext of ‘stupid, lazy women/parents don’t bother to prevent pregnancy and so have too many worthless children others have to support’ stereotypical and offensive.  I think all pregnancies should be wanted not because the children are excess and not worth the trouble but because I think when children are born they deserve to be regarded as a joy instead of a burden.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ I would not be surprised if the religious group who approached this women torturing creep John LaBruzzo, was not Tony Perkins of Family Research Council.

    Tony Perkins is a chronic hatemonger,  he loves Erik Prince though. ~

  • mayab

    I agree crow, bike helmets are a good immunization, and I’m sure all those parents wanted to protect their wee kids, but nevertheless, vaccination rates went up whenever a prize was given. Yes we “coerced” them to take their kids to the doctor; does that make it bad?

     

    I want all pregnancies to be wanted too. I also want to ride unicorns over rainbows in the sky, but that aint gonna happen either. But imagine how much healthier and better off the planet and population would be if births were spaced out. If a little bribe helps gets us there, I still think it’s a good thing.

  • arekushieru

    You’re missing the point.  Please read then address it. Thanks.