DEAR STRANGER: I am writing in response to the article "Peddling Birth Control" [Phil Campbell, June 14] about the "activists" who are upset about Ella Sonnenberg's program Project Prevention, which pays drug-addicted women to use long-term forms of birth control. As a liberal, pro-choice woman, I am wholeheartedly behind programs like Project Prevention. The women who are so "appalled" by programs like these need to pull their heads out of the academic haze of liberal theory, and get a dose of solid reality.
Women who engage in unprotected sex while they are addicted to drugs are behaving irresponsibly. Whether they are being irresponsible by choice or because of their addiction is irrelevant to the developing fetus once they get pregnant: The devastating results are the same. While you're sitting up there in a classroom at Seattle Central Community College bitching about this program, why don't you get some real information about the long-term [effects] of babies born with severe fetal alcohol syndrome, and babies born to crack or heroin addicts? Why don't you talk to some people who are raising these unwanted, drug-addicted babies or taking them in as foster parents... and learn a little about how difficult these children are to raise into adulthood? Why don't you do some research about the long-term costs to society of paying for these children's needs through the social programs they will require until they reach adulthood?
Which is more socially responsible: paying a drug addict $200 to get on Norplant, or paying hundreds of thousands for someone else to raise the child affected by the addict's drug addiction? Who's being more socially responsible: the addict who accepts Sonnenberg's offer and protects herself from pregnancy, or the addict who doesn't give a shit if she's pregnant, or what she's doing to her developing fetus, as long as she gets that next high? And what are these women's issues with Norplant, anyhow? It's temporary birth control. I'm not in favor of permanently sterilizing addicts or anyone else, but Norplant allows an addict to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy without having to remember to take a pill every day--still allowing for the possibility that she might get her shit together someday, get off the drugs, and be a responsible mother.
My fellow pro-choice liberals are quick to shoot back to pro-lifers the argument that unless they are willing to start adopting the unwanted babies that could have been aborted, they have no right to wave signs and protest against legal abortion. To Theryn Kigvamasud'Vashti, who says the idea behind Project Prevention is "appalling," and her friends over at CARA (Communities Against Rape and Abuse)--I have a challenge for you. Instead of organizing yourselves for a protest with posters and loud voices, why don't you organize a group of liberal women who are willing to actually adopt or provide foster care for unwanted babies born to drug- and alcohol-addicted mothers? You can all be first on the list to take in a child or two for yourselves, and I expect Kigvamasud'Vashti to be first in line.
Kimberly Voynar, Bellevue
PHIL CAMPBELL: I would like to thank you for reporting on the efforts of Ella Sonnenberg and the organization known as CRACK [Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity]. To be honest, I find it completely mind-boggling that any self-proclaimed feminist would stand in opposition to an organization that has taken on the incredibly difficult task of preventing the births of drug-addicted and drug-damaged babies. The truth, however unpleasant it may be, is that drug addicts don't usually think about getting up in the morning and taking their daily birth control pills, nor can they be expected to remember to purchase condoms when their last few bucks can go toward a fix. I can already hear a rebuttal to this: "But there are free condoms handed out at health clinics!" Gee, what a nice, rosy world where even the strung-out addict thinks twice before having unsafe sex (hell, I know lots of sober people who can't always get that one right).
It's absurd to accuse CRACK of targeting minorities. Do those who oppose CRACK think it is good for minority women to have lots of drug-damaged babies? Do they actually believe that if drug-addicted minority women don't have babies, those [minority groups] will be faced with depopulation? That suggests a far more dangerous--and definitely racist--line of thinking than the mere prevention of high-risk births.
There exists an enormous divide between what the feminist group at Seattle Central Community College sees as justice, and what is actually going on outside of their insulated world.
If drug-addicted women do manage to clean themselves up and want to have babies, fine! Good for them! They can get their Norplant implants taken out, or adopt a kid (no one mentioned that most of the women who participate in the CRACK program already have kids, many lost to social services). Would-be feminists who sit in judgment from afar need to dirty their hands a bit and see what really happens when drug addicts have babies.
Until there is a better answer, I support realists like Ella Sonnenberg who don't just sit around and complain about the subtleties of ethical issues. Who knows how much suffering people like her have already prevented? In my eyes, that is a much more worthy accomplishment than most.
Sharon Corse, Olympia
EDITORS: Thanks to Paula Gilovich for an interesting story about strip clubs and law enforcement ["Strip Search," June 14]. What puzzles me is why she also felt the need to describe what she likes (to watch men) as superior to what I like (to watch women).
"There are no desperate men at Centerfolds, overweight on barstools, trying to work out their dark wants and their faltering lives." Okay. But there are no men at all, since the club does not let them in. Are any of the women overweight? If so, do they sit on barstools? Do any of the women have dark wants or faltering lives?
"The dank smell of semen is pleasantly absent from Centerfolds." Geez, I've been to Déjà Vu and Rick's a few times, and I can't say I've ever smelled any semen (it would take a lot of semen to overpower the smell of tobacco smoke, hair spray, and cheap perfume).
Semen probably gets spilled after guys leave strip clubs; I'm sure a few vibrators get a workout after Gilovich's "attractive women in their early 20s" get home from Centerfolds.
Watching people strip is kinda fun, kinda dumb, and a quick way to dispose of excess cash. Why try to make more or less of it for a particular group?
Tom Phillips, Kent
LOW STANDARDS
JOSH FEIT: There are a couple of problems with your proposal [Five to Four, Josh Feit, June 21]. Refusing to use the bus service in Montgomery is a boycott. Refusing to pay one's power bill is theft.
Not using any of City Light's power is closer to a boycott. For you or Rev. Jeffrey to advise blacks to not pay their light bill and then "dare" City Light to turn off their power is race-baiting, and promotes a double standard. If all the blacks in the C.D. stop paying their bills, City Light should shut off their power, just like they would if I stopped paying mine. City Light would be in the right, and it wouldn't be racism. Blacks shouldn't get to steal and get away with it simply because they're black.
Anonymous, via e-mail
DEAR JEFF DeROCHE: I book some rock bands here, and have been doing so for quite some time. Living and working here in lovely Seattle, I pay close attention to the local papers, and by virtue of my profession, I also tend to follow the music sections of a lot of national papers. Your creation and implementation of One-Night Stand is simply brilliant. I have yet to find anything like it. It is EXACTLY the kind of random, democratic, fair coverage any local music scene needs. I just wanted to tell you that someone has finally managed to give a legitimate and desperately needed "break" to struggling young bands, and that someone is you.
Your writing of One-Night Stand is also remarkably well wrought and articulate. You, sir, are an innovator, which is all the more impressive. Very, very nice work. It is appreciated.
