As I commented there, all the evidence I’m aware of tells us that existing fertility patterns are dysgenic: by measures of intelligence, earning power, education, and general got-it-togetherness, the best parents are more likely to limit their own fecudity, while the worst are more likely to let sh!t happen all the way to the delivery room. Thus, as Steve Sailer has conclusively demonstrated, a non-targeted “eugenics” program like abortion tends to keep those with the most going for them from becoming parents rather than those with the least.
Arguably, this would be true within a targeted; population as well: drug addicts with the most potential would be most likely to avail themselves of Project Prevention’s offer. But, also arguably, the drug-addicted population is sufficiently dysfunctional that even culling the “best” of them from the gene pool would still; be eugenic by the median standards of the non-addicted population.
So . . . before I get out my checkbook, can anyone tell me why this program might have unintended consequences?