Women on welfare would have had to prove rape

[LSN80]

In a bill proposed last October by 6 Pennsylvania state representatives, women already on welfare would be denied any extra benefits should they give birth again, unless they could prove the child was the product of rape or incest.

http://thegrio.com/2012/10/25/propo...-require-mothers-under-welfare-to-prove-rape/

TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, is essentially the only cash benefits system left available to low-income families in the state of Pennsylvanai. Should a woman become pregnant while on TANF, benefits would no longer increase as they had in the past. In essence, during a time where the money would be needed most, it would no longer be available.

I'm all for encouraging personal responsibility in individuals and families, it's what I do every day at my job. And while every child is a blessing, far too many are conceived when a parent hasn't the means to provide for one, let alone a second or more. However, denying assistance in these situations is an example of the 'Sins of the parent being visited upon the child'. I would have no problem with the money being linked so that it could only be spent on certain things relative to the care of the child, but to but to push a single mother or a family further into poverty creates an abhorrent environment for a newborn, and their siblings, when help is needed most.

Secondly, it puts women who do get pregnant in compromising positions. There are many out there that believe abortion is wrong that may reconsider if they know they won't be able to provide for the baby. Or, if they're insistent on carrying the baby to term, they may put the child up for adoption(not a bad thing) even if they truly wanted to keep it(not a good thing). Many women in low income situations find themselves there because of a lack of support from the father, and often lose that support when the father finds out the mother is pregnant. Again, it's punishing the wrong people.

Finally, the bill subjects women to unnecessary trauma. In a recent study done, it was shown that almost 80% of women who are raped don't report it, either out of shame, or not wanting to face their attacker. The bill would allow for the increase in benefits only if the woman had shown that she had filed a police report against her offender, and named the attacker(if known), while signing an affidavit that false reporting is punishable by law. But the nature of this bill in of itself would create a very plausible scenario where women would cry rape in order to receive funds. Tara Culp-Ressler of Think Process said the following:

"Not only do some low-income women not have access to affordable contraception, but the bill also perpetuates a dangerous attitude toward survivors of sexual assault. Forcing women to prove the legitimacy of their sexual assault, and warning them about the serious consequences of ‘crying rape’ to cheat the system, puts forth the misguided assumption that victims of sexual violence are not to be believed."

The very next day, the bill was quickly pulled due to the incredible amount of backlash received, according to lead proponent, Republican State Representative RoseMarie Swanger. She stated that the bill's language wasn't what she had originally proposed, and that she was working on a better bill of a similar nature to be put on the table sometime in 2013. So while the original bill and it's swift removal are somewhat dated, it's relevance is not being that a similar proposal is in the works.

I find it to be a poor idea all around, even if the spirit of personal responsibility is one I agree with.

Thoughts on this? Agree or disagree with the stipulations in this bill? How would you propose welfare be handled in these situations?

 

[The Butcher]

This is going to be a short and controversial reply, but I'm starting to feel as if these women should just be given the option to either keep collecting and be sterilized or to get off of welfare immediately and keep their tubes untied. Let them have a certain number of welfare babies and when they've reached their limit they can either keep receiving funds at the expense of their clown car or they can get a job and close their legs on their own. I'm just sick of this issue and the resultant impact on what are often unwanted children that don't benefit from the funds their mothers collect. Welfare is government assistance, not an incentive to procreate. People who work, pay taxes, and donate to charity do our part to give our less fortunate countrymen a leg up. We sacrifice for the greater good. It's time to ask them to give up something in return.

Lambaste me if you must. I'm open to better options.

 

[Mustang Sally]

When I was 15 (this was before the 6/30/96 law that "ended welfare as we know it"), I was talking to another girl the same age. She had gotten pregnant and had no intention of getting the father further involved in her life; but was just chomping at the bit at the idea of having a baby. She said she was on good terms with her parents and could live at home and raise the child. But, she decided to "keep her independence" by going on welfare, getting herself an apartment and living there with the child. (forget about finishing high school).

To her, this represented independence, but as I saw it, either her parents were taking care of her, or the state was doing it. Nothing independent about that.

This was before welfare changed and supposedly made it harder for young women to become burdens on the system. But today, this type of thing seems to be seeping back in.

Someday, we may not have the privileges that society has allowed to expand too far in the past half-century. Someday, the government may determine for us how many children we can have......and they may also determine whether it makes a difference if they're conceived by rape or incest. No, I'm not advocating any of that, but we may yet see it.

At this time, things seem to stand quite a long distance from that: today, no one had better interfere with a woman's right to get pregnant. An organization will get legally clobbered if they do. Problem is, if women want to be treated equally in the workplace but can use pregnancy to get out of professional obligations that men must adhere to, we're creating a climate that may invite restrictions to our "freedoms" in the future. Doesn't China have them already?

Personally, I agree with the idea of not increasing welfare payments if a woman who's already on it decides to have more children. Yes, the government claims to be concerned only with the well-being of the children, but the cycle of dependency has to be broken somewhere along the line.

At the same, the 15-year-old girl I knew shouldn't have the privilege of maintaining her "independence" by making herself a non-contributing member of society just by having a baby and getting the government to pay for her. Plus, she shouldn't be able to increase her income by having even more children while having never worked a day in her life.

As for the woman claiming she was raped to qualify for welfare, I can just imagine the lengths people will go to "prove" it, especially if she wasn't raped, but wound up pregnant.

Although pregnancy was not involved, does anyone remember Tawana Brawley?

 

[I Heart Cena]

They shouldn't get freebies at all. If ya can't feed em, don't breed em.

The welfare system has to go. If you need to steal to survive, welcome to overcrowded jail.

 

[HBsam31]

Personal responsibility seems to be pretty non existent. It astounds me the women that think it would be cute and fun to have a baby. These people go out and have kids either not understanding or just plain ignoring the fact that it is very hard, and also very expensive. My wife is in the medical field and I am a chef. We do ok, and since we have had a child things have been extremely tight. No one is beating on our door to give us help. We have insurance for the child, and said insurance fights tooth and nail to not pay a bill any chance they can get. My wife is constantly on the phone correcting these problems. My point here is we have tried to do everything the responsible way and there is still quite a few roadblocks. I work six or seven days a week trying to keep things good here and she does the same. Oh and by the way we are both 32 and waited until we had a decent savings account to even have one child. There just isn't an excuse anymore for these people to be having 4 or 5 kids that don't even work. I live in an area where I see it all the time. Parents swiping the access card and then getting into their 60,000 dollar vehicle to drive home. WTF is that? I don't want to rant, but this bill is something that should absolutely happen. It's time to stop giving money to people that refuse to stop having kids. I know accidents can happen, but come on these aren't accidents most of the time. They have more kids directly because they are going to receive more money. To me this type of behavior is insane, and by any means should be corrected.