Back in May of this year, Judge Sam Benningfield from White County, Tennessee signed a standing order that allows convicted criminals to voluntarily opt into a program that allows them to reduce their sentence by 30 days, with the only catch that they must either receive a vasectomy or get Nexplanon, which is an implant form of birth control in the arm that lasts up to 3 years. Additionally, they can also earn an additional two days off their sentences for completing a Tennessee Department of Health Neonatal Syndrome Education Program, which is a class aimed to educate people about the concerns of children being born addicted to substances. It should be noted from the start that Nexplanon can be removed at any time, and fertility can return as early as 1-week after removal. Vasectomies can also be reversed, but the likelihood of fertility returning is not 100%, and the likelihood that fertility returns continues to decrease as more time goes by after the vasectomy first occurs. Here's a tl;dr video on it:
The vasectomy procedure and the Nexplanon would be free-of-charge to the inmates through the Tennessee Department of Health. Thus far, a total of 32 women have received the Nexplanon and 38 men have agreed to have a vasectomy, and are waiting for the procedure, since the program began. Immediately, however, the program was met with resistance by community members and the ACLU. The ACLU argues that such sterilization programs are unconstitutional, and reference cases like Skinner v. Oklahoma (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma) that ruled that forced sterilization for convicted criminals of different crimes is unconstitutional. However, the main difference here is that this program is voluntary, but the ACLU maintains that such a program is still unconstitutional because it is coercive. Executive director of the Tennessee ACLU, Hedy Weinberg, said that:
Quote (ACLU-TN)
"Offering a so-called 'choice' between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it. Judges play an important role in our community – overseeing individuals’ childbearing capacity should not be part of that role".
Judge Benningfield, however, argues that there's nothing coercive about the program because it is completely voluntary, and that it actually is beneficial to the inmates who are attempting to create a sense of balance in their lives. He goes on to say that he's trying to break a cycle and that “I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, to not to be burdened with children. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves".
What are your thoughts, PaRD?