"Thank you so much for caring enough to call CRACK. If this call is not regarding birth control please call __________ that's ___________. We realize that it is not easy to kick your drug or alcohol problem and hope that you will take us up on our cash for birth control offer to prevent unplanned pregnancies that often result in abortions, damaged babies, or children that end up in foster care. If you'd like to volunteer for our cash for birth control offer, leave us an address and we'll mail you out two forms - one is a client survey form that you'll fill out and the second you'll take to the doctor or clinic of your choice to obtain your birth control. We pay $200 if you choose a Tubal Ligation, Vasectomy, Norplant or an IUD. If you choose Depo-Provera injections you will receive $25 every three months after the first three injections and $125 after the fourth injection. If you have questions please leave your number and we'll call you back a soon as possible, otherwise please leave your name and address, your complete address. Don't forget to include your city, state and zip code, spell out your city and name. Please speak slowly and once again thank you for caring enough to call CRACK."

The classist, racist elements of the philosophy on which this organization is founded are disturbing and run deep. Equally problematic is the current of able-bodied supremacy running through Positive Prevention's approach to addressing the ramifications of drug use.

Why should the disability community actively oppose CRACK/Positive Prevention?

•	Engage young people in small discussion groups about communicating powerfully and with integrity with sex partners.
•	Positive Prevention/CRACK promotes reproductive oppression in a manner that is similar to the reproductive oppression that people with disabilities experience.
•	The organization advances able-bodied supremacy.
•	The organization perverts the ethic of "caring" for members of the community.

How is the mission of CRACK/Positive Prevention related to the history of reproductive oppression of people with disabilities?
There has been a long history of reproductive oppression within the disability community. Preventing people with disabilities and others deemed undesirable from reproducing was the centerpiece of the Eugenics Movement. The movement gained a foothold in the US in 1907 and became widely accepted in this country until World War II. During these years 30 states enacted sterilization laws to prevent "the feeble minded" and other "degenerates" from reproducing. By 1935, 20,000 Americans had been forcibly sterilized (10,000 in the state of California alone). Although remaining sterilization laws are not strictly enforced, sadly 20 states still had laws on the books making forced sterilization legal as of 1997.

The slaughter of World War II damaged the image of the Eugenics Movement in its original form. The latest incarnation of what was the Eugenics Movement is now rearing its head in laboratories all over the world that develop new prenatal genetic tests for the purpose of identifying "genetic defects" and eliminating fetuses exhibiting "abnormalities." There's no need to forcibly sterilize people who are never born in the first place. But even if every fetus that would become a child with a disability could be identified in advance and eliminated, able-bodied society would still face the dilemma of reproduction of existing people with disabilities.

Women with disabilities of childbearing age are regularly pressured to use methods of contraception like Depo-Provera, which have high efficacy rates but many potential side effects. The history of Depo-Provera is not disclosed to women who are using it; they aren't told that the FDA declined the request to bring it to market in the US the first time it was subjected to scrutiny. Only after testing Depo-Provera on women in developing nations and several years of pressure from the pharmaceutical lobby was this questionable form of contraception made available to women in the United States.

How does the history of the reproductive oppression of people with disabilities relate to CRACK's effort to provide cash incentives to drug users who will be temporarily sterilized? There are several similarities worth considering:

•	In both cases self-appointed moral authorities use a subjective set of values to determine who will be a fit parent. Instead of assisting potential parents in developing and strengthening parenting skills, the moral authority dismisses the possibility for personal growth or a change of behavior that would enhance parenting skills.
•	Whether it be the oppression of people with disabilities or CRACK the importance of informed consent as opposed to coercion is ignored.
•	In both cases people are encouraged to use potentially harmful forms of contraception.

How is the mission of CRACK/Positive Prevention advancing able-bodied supremacy?
CRACK advances able-bodied supremacy in two key ways: first, by embracing a common but flawed quality of life argument and second, by supporting the idea that offspring of drug users will inevitably burden society.

Deconstructing the quality of life argument:
Consider CRACK's decision to refer to babies born to the drug users as "damaged babies." This is not a casual choice of language. CRACK has intentionally chosen this negative reference to establish that infants born to drug users are worth less than those born to non-drug users. This idea of diminished worth is based on the assumption that these babies will experience short and long term health effects based on their parents' drug use. The trouble is that it's inaccurate to say that all babies born to drug users will be in poor health. Some will be affected, but even so, health is a poor and subjective criterion for determining the value of a human life. Too often the standard for judging what a quality life is, is an able-bodied standard. Why is that arrogance so often unquestioned? True - walking may be more convenient than not walking, in a world designed by those who walk. Seeing beauty in a new face can be moving, but no more so than discovering the same beauty through sensitive fingertips. There is more than one way of knowing the world and it is foolish to use a criterion like health to determine that one way of knowing is more valuable than another. If a baby is born with multiple disabilities his or her life has as much inherent value as any other newborn. This life may not be as easy but is life ever really easy? Is it supposed to be? Positive Prevention in its wisdom has determined that it is better not to be born than to be born a "damaged baby" and this is the ultimate example of able-bodied supremacy.

Burdens To Society?
Another motivation for discouraging the birth of "damaged babies" is the judgment that such babies are likely to be burdens on society. There are components to the argument that a person can be a burden to society - capitalism, utilitarianism, and the importance of self-sufficiency.

The value of people with disabilities is too often measured in capitalist terms - in fact when officials are determining if a person meets the federal definition of disability one of the ten criteria considered is whether the person is economically self-sufficient. Just as one's ability to make an economic contribution is a criterion used by federal officials to determine if a person has a disability, capitalistic considerations play an important role in CRACK's evaluation of whether these "damaged babies" will be burdens to society. Remember this is an organization that places a two hundred dollar monetary value on reproduction so there is clear evidence that the organization is invested in capitalism. CRACK again acting on an assumption, figures that babies born to drug users will automatically cost taxpayers more than they will ever contribute to the tax base. Whittling down the value of a person to dollars and cents is troubling on many levels, but outside of moral objections there are other problems with CRACK's assumption.

First, there is no proof that all babies born to drug users will have long-term health effects. Second, many people with disabilities are gainfully employed and regularly contribute to the tax base. Third, people with disabilities who receive entitlements and need assistance with daily tasks contribute to the tax base indirectly by creating jobs. Medical professionals, those working in the disability field and others working in the pharmaceutical industry pay taxes, and participate in the economy so people with disabilities make important contributions to this capitalist economy.

The second component of the burden to society argument is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the good of the many outweighing the good of the individual. CRACK supports the idea that it is an undue burden on the resources of the many to accommodate the needs of a few "damaged babies." What's interesting about this aspect of the argument is that it points to the way that the organization isolates these "damaged babies" from the rest of the community at large; "damaged babies" are not part of the community they are others. More importantly the utilitarian component of the argument conflicts with capitalism and self-sufficiency. Capitalism depends on the many poor and middle class people working (often without realizing it) to maintain the wealth of the few - the opposite of utilitarianism. Self-sufficiency conflicts with Utilitarianism because in an effort to maintain his well being an individual may put his needs before the needs of the majority - also in opposition to Utilitarianism.

The third component of the burden to society argument is the widely held American belief that it is better for a person to be self-sufficient, independent, rather than dependent. If a person needs too much help he or she is seen as weak and burdensome. The idea that anyone can be clearly categorized as independent or dependent is false. The idea of self-sufficiency is a myth. There is no such thing as complete independence or dependence there is only varying degrees of interdependence. If one flips a light switch and the light comes on he has turned on the light independently, or has he? Actually flipping the switch accomplishes nothing unless someone else has strung the power lines, installed the light fixture, and manufactured the light bulb. Turning on the light is an act of faith and example of interdependence.

People with disabilities are more likely than our able-bodied counterparts to understand that needing help is part of life. For this reason we have had an opportunity to consider interdependence. Many able-bodied people build their identities on an assumption of independence. To challenge independence and self-sufficiency is to challenge the able-bodied worldview. But once the myth of independence is debunked and interdependence is understood, it becomes clear that nobody can be a burden. Everyone has needs and we depend on others directly or indirectly to help us get those needs met. If nobody needs help nobody learns how to offer it. If nobody understands what it's like to be in need than there can be no compassion for those in need. Understanding the nature of interdependence is key to understanding human experience.

CRACK/ Positive Prevention uses flawed quality of life and burden to society arguments to advance able-bodied supremacy. Upon closer examination these reasons for supporting the temporary or permanent sterilization of drug users are as problematic as the racist, classist aspects of the philosophy on which the organization is founded.