Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSenator Floats Idea To Penalize Low-Income Women Who Have Children
At a luncheon for the Chamber of Commerce in Lexington, KY, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) floated the idea of capping government benefits for women who have children out of wedlock, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports.
While he said that preventing unplanned pregnancies should be in the hands of communities and families, he added, Maybe we have to say enoughs enough, you shouldnt be having kids after a certain amount. He went on to say, I dont know how you do all that because then its tough to tell a woman with four kids that shes got a fifth kid were not going to give her any more money. But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer.
The idea of withholding benefits from women who have more than a certain number of children is actually current policy in many states. While most programs through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, or welfare) give families more money if they have more children, 16 states cap the assistance and dont give any extra money for new children if someone in the household is already receiving aid.
These policies were initially adopted in an attempt to dissuade low-income women from having more children out of wedlock. But the results havent panned out. A 2001 Government Accountability Office report on whether or not they change birth rates couldnt conclude whether there was any impact. In California, for example, where the state has been considering a repeal of its family cap policy, most women who receive welfare from the state have a similar number of children as those who dont. What the policies do end up doing, however, is pushing people further into poverty. That can have serious health risks, with one study finding that some limits on benefits lead to a higher death rate.
The caps also get assumptions wrong about the people who rely on public programs. Overall, those who use public assistance have the same average family size as those who dont. Theres little evidence that low-income women on welfare are having far more children than those who arent enrolled.
While he said that preventing unplanned pregnancies should be in the hands of communities and families, he added, Maybe we have to say enoughs enough, you shouldnt be having kids after a certain amount. He went on to say, I dont know how you do all that because then its tough to tell a woman with four kids that shes got a fifth kid were not going to give her any more money. But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer.
The idea of withholding benefits from women who have more than a certain number of children is actually current policy in many states. While most programs through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, or welfare) give families more money if they have more children, 16 states cap the assistance and dont give any extra money for new children if someone in the household is already receiving aid.
These policies were initially adopted in an attempt to dissuade low-income women from having more children out of wedlock. But the results havent panned out. A 2001 Government Accountability Office report on whether or not they change birth rates couldnt conclude whether there was any impact. In California, for example, where the state has been considering a repeal of its family cap policy, most women who receive welfare from the state have a similar number of children as those who dont. What the policies do end up doing, however, is pushing people further into poverty. That can have serious health risks, with one study finding that some limits on benefits lead to a higher death rate.
The caps also get assumptions wrong about the people who rely on public programs. Overall, those who use public assistance have the same average family size as those who dont. Theres little evidence that low-income women on welfare are having far more children than those who arent enrolled.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/29/3220881/rand-paul-welfare-cap-children/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 632 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Senator Floats Idea To Penalize Low-Income Women Who Have Children (Original Post)
one_voice
Jan 2014
OP
Turbineguy
(37,295 posts)1. Great idea!
We so desperately need more poor and poorer people.
But then again, there may be method to their madness. A poor Mother raises her children to become criminals. Criminals end up in jail. You friends build and operate jails. This plan smells of profits!
thecrow
(5,519 posts)2. This is particularly cruel
when they also take away her rights to contraceptives and abortion.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)4. Don't you know in Republican Land fornication is a sin...
Why don't they just make a law against fornication and be done with it?
MissMillie
(38,533 posts)3. Because good Christians
always let babies starve.