Should welfare recipients be required to use birth control?

Yes they should. They should also be forced to work or have thier welfare taken away after a few months if they dont have a job. Maybe somekind of job coach is needed. This subject eats me up I know a few "people" who"cant work" have new cars have what they want do actualy work (under the table) while I bust my butt barly making a lining for me and my 6 year old. The rules for welfare should be strictor and somebody from the welfare department should keep an Eye on them. should they be on birth control yes! the more kids you have the more money you get and in the mean time there are people who want kids and cant afford them.

WOW!! WELL I THINK NOT. SOME PPL ARE ON WELFARE FOR A REASON BUT I DO THINK THAT IF U ARE ABUSING THE SYSTEM THEN U SHOULD BE CUT OFF. THERE SHOULD BE A TIME LIMIT ON HOW LONG ONE CAN STAY ON WELFARE AND I THINK ENOUGH TIME TO GET A 2YR DEGREE AND THATS IT. BUT TO PUT SOMEONE ON BIRTH CONTROL IS HARSH. SOME PPL GO ON IT CAUSE THEY LOSE THERE JOBS, THE HAVE A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROBLEM, TEEN PARENTS. REPEAT OFFENDERS SHOULD BE DENIED, LIKE SPANISH PPL. IN MY CITY THEY ARE TAKING OVER EVERTHING. I PASS BY THE WELFARE OFFICE ON MY WAY TO WORK AND THEY BE LINED UP DOWN THE BLOCK WITH LIKE A WHOLE ARMY OF KIDS. THEY ARE THE TOP REPEAT OFFENDERS

Interesting question. I agree but disagree with some of your statement. I don't think they should be required to use birth control. As birth control is been proven not to be 100% affected. It is easy to be come pregnat on birth control. Also alot of women can't take birth controls because of the hormones. I am one of those women. I tried the pill and other methods to find out that it had adverse effects on my body and did work. I also don't like the fact that it would discrimiante against only women. I do however think after being on welfare for a certain of time...Say three years (that gives them time to get a two year degree and time to get a job) and then if still on welfare (only for non working welfare recipants). Than I think they should get fixed. Not just the women. But the males as well. It would only be fair to do it that way. That would be a one time fee paid by the goverment to get these people fixed. Thus preventing more births or costs of birth control. I do think when they get on welfare that they should sign a piece of paper agreeing that if they are still on welfare and not working in three years. That they will have the operation done. Or they will loose their benefits until they comply. Let me see where it has proven that people on welfare produce the most children. I haven't never heard anything alot that line. You just hear about those more. Becaus eit makes for an interesting story and sells papers. ALso what makes you think someone on welfare can't take care of their kids? You are implying all welfare recipants are like that. But that is clearly not the case.

Great idea, but in the long run I don't think it would work either. They would just 'forget' and/or say that they were using it and it failed. Also, there would be costs incurred with that system as well. There would be the cost of the birth control as well as medical costs incurred due to side effects of the birth control. Should one of them suffer a stroke from being on the birth control, there would likely be a law suit. There would likely be law suits anyway, due to infringing upon their rights making them take the birth control. Perhaps limiting the amount of money you get for your family...no matter how many people are in it would work? I know I have heard some people who are on government aid say things like, "Its time to have another child...I need more money." Make me sick!

I married at 17 had three kids buy 20 had my tubes tied and divorced my exhusband refused to pay child support I work as a nurses aid I took 3rd shift becase it paid more but still needed welfare how about getting these guys fixed who go around and getting many weman pregnant and then not supporting them I know of such a guy who has at least 8 kids buy differant women and doesnt pay child support and my ex has 6 and didnt pay childsupport to me until he thought he would go to jail and I know he doesnt pay for his other kids.

Interesting question, but I have to say no. That would be infringing on their rights, besides as someone else pointed out it would not work. The system needs to be reformed so that it is not so easy to abuse, like not paying per child after say three and limiting the number of years you can be on welfare. Forcing receipients to take birth control would not lower costs by any means.

No, I don't think so. Not everyone can use hormonal birth control or an IUD, and those are really the only kinds of non-permanent birth control that could be monitored. What if someone preferred to stay abstinant? How would they prove it? I don't think people should be having kids on welfare, but I do not believe in making medical decisions for other people.

I think that making the ones who are lazy get on birth control is a great idea, but not one that is practical. As someone else said people would still have children because it would be too hard to enforce. I do think that people who just have kids to stay on welfare and then don't take care of their kids, should have them taken away. I know it sounds harsh. But come on, if the parents aren't using the money to take care of the children, why should they have it? Taxpayers are going to have to support these kids no matter what, though. If we take them away from their parents, though, we won't be supporting full grown adults that just don't want to work so much. And there is a chance that these kids could be placed in homes where they are actually taken care of.

According to whom do "these people have the most children & not take good care of them"? I was ready to agree with you more or less until we got to those last lines. Being poor or wealthy in no way proves one will or won't be a good parent. Have you watched the Spears drama unfold? As far as the first half of your statements. The state I live in implemented a cap a few years back. No family can collect for more than 24 months in any 5 year period, and before the 24 months are up the adult/adults must be either working or volunteering x# of hours per week. I'm not positive about those details, but I believe it's a min of 30 hours per week. It won't cover children born 10 months or more after one starts to receive benefits. You could have another child if you so desired, but you won't collect more for that child. There are some exceptions made for parents who are handicapped or who have children who are handicapped; but all in all it seems logical & to be working well. You really can't make birth control use mandatory. Which form of birth control would the government "force" and then what liability would the government have if it caused a woman a health issue or if it failed to work for her? My state's medicaid program does cover any & all forms of birth control and I think that's a sound policy too. Some states do not cover birth control expenses and that seems very foolish to me.