{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012186379928315413, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01003584229390681, 'mean_word_length': 4.5396825396825395, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Norplant and the 'coerced conception' controversy.

Norplant was approved for use by the FDA on December 10 1990. This approval started a strong debate over the issue of coerced contraception because of this unique method of contraception. It is a series of tubes the size of a match stick which are implanted under the skin of the upper arm and last for 5 years. It can be easily monitored by checking to see that the tubes are in place. Almost as soon as it came out an editorial appeared in the December 12th edition of the Philadelphia Enquirer calling for financial incentives for welfare mothers to use it. The editor later apologized. In January a California court sentenced a women to use is it when she pleaded guilty to a child abuse charge. In February the Kansas state legislature proposed the state pay women on welfare $500 to use it. The bill was never passed although it certainly added to the debate. Over the last 10 years lower courts have used contraception or sterilization as part of plea bargain agreements in child abuse neglect or endangerment cases. These agreements violate Supreme Court rulings establishing the rights to reproductive freedom; however there have been no cases contesting these sentences. If there were to be an appeal of such a sentence it is probable that the Court of Appeals would have to over turn the sentence because of its unconstitutionality.