Too much power to the government in letting them force this on women. That removes the woman's freedom and violates her rights. I agree that a woman who brings a baby into the world under said conditions should face jail time and/or other penalties. As for drug testing welfare recipients, that is totally different. That is something that is not forced upon anyone. They only have to do it if they choose to be tested. Of course, they may not get assistance if they do not get tested but they have the choice.

Of course, there should be a sample ballot. In this day and age with all of the technology available it wouldn't take them 2 minutes to post one on the site!

I understand both what you mean and how you feel about the subject. I just think this is the wrong way to go about it. There has to be a better and safer way to deal with this issue than sterilizing women by force.

We DO live in Monroe County, Tn., it does not surprise me!

Rick some would argue though that just a simple blood test is invasive because the government knows what you are doing in your personal life, (I am all for drug testing welfare by the way). I actually agree with you if the woman on drugs gets cleaned up years later but I think for the most part once an addict always an addict (not in all cases but very few want to actually change). I have no sympathy for them and I'd rather see one hurt by not being able to have a child later in life than to see drug babies that will live a difficult life.

That's a good point Crystal, but you have to take certain situations into consideration. Deciding to accept government assistance is voluntary. Having to take a drug test for such assistance is nothing more than a regulation, and is not that invasive. It's just like getting your blood drawn. Being forced to submit to a surgery like tubal ligation may not be a major surgery, but the ramifications can be long standing, and in some cases irreversible. Let's say a drug addict is forced to get a tubal ligation. She does so. Five years later she has been clean and sober for over three years and can legally get a tubal reversal. She sees a fertility specialist, but is unfortunately informed that not only can the reversal not work, but that serious health risks could be involved. Oh, and by the way, it will only cost you several thousand dollars too. It's just not the right solution to the problem. Aside from the risks involved one also has to consider the legality as well. The government should not have the right to make this type of very personal decision for one of its own citizens.

I would hope any woman/mother would have enough respect for themselves and the life of their child not to take drugs during their pregnancy, but we don't have the right to make that decision for them.

BTW, I rather enjoyed the flight clearance line.

Well if those studies are true I may curl up in a corner and cry. ;) Hand gestures don't encourage me to interact they actually irritate me. So as I said before I'm in trouble. My mind is a bit odd, as for some reason I can solve complex problems but subconsciously ignore a persons name as I'm being introduced for the first time. Interesting article/research though. I'm sure I may have been more perceptive to hand gestures and motions when I was a young child.

My mind actually triggers an ignore flag when someone uses excessive hand gestures. I either focus on the ridiculous gestures or my mind wanders off on something else but either way some of my attention is taken away from the content of the individual using gestures. Again, this may have something to do with my age, who knows. Just something I've noticed as of recently.

So we force drug testing on welfare but its wrong to force tubal ligation on drug mothers? These poor drug babies that are born to drug moms arent going to have much of a life and are most likely going to be taken away from their mothers and be in and out of foster care until they are 18 and possibly repeat the same pattern. Tubal ligation is not a major surgery and would insure that these mothers ( while hurting themselves on drugs) would not be killing and/or making it very difficult for their children to live normal lives.

LOL. You enable video and I might require a control tower in the front yard for flight clearance.

As for Chuck's ad the people he spoke to could likely have been paid actors or party participants who instructed him to nod as though he were listening intently. The fact is just as you stated, none of them are actors. Like I commented before on the video of him working at McDonalds he seemed more relaxed because they were real situations, and not choreographed pieces of advertisement. I just don't put much stock into political ads like these.

I've always gestured with my hands while I talk. Read the page I provided below. It's pretty interesting.

http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/09/the-secret-code-of-learning/

Really? You didn't see anything that could be seen as cheesy or phony? Nodding? I may have to pull a behavior specialist; taking with your hands I see as someone whether intentional or not, speaking down to people.

Note: Do not enable video comments or Rick may use extensive hand gesturing. lol

Hey, that's not fair. Some people just naturally use hand movements and gestures when they talk. It's more habit than it is anything. I do it quite a bit. I watched the video and can honestly say that I saw nothing that seemed unnatural about his gesturing, posturing, or otherwise. Don't you think you're being a little harsh? I personally wouldn't vote for him for several reasons, but we all know the number one reason. LOL. I watched the McDonald's video. He did seem more relaxed in that one, and more conversational, but ads are just not a whole determination for me when deciding on a candidate. I read about their policies, their previous voting records, their personal platforms and beliefs. Most ads are just partisan negativity wrapped in an American flag anyway.