Is paying women not to abort the solution?
by Carder
Since appealing to moral conscience doesn’t cut it, Bruening has a less novel idea: give poor mothers money to keep their children. Bruening calls it a “child allowance program.” I call it liberal policymaking disguised as a conservative solution to what Pope Francis decries as “throwaway culture.”
Bruening claims that regular monthly payments will give mothers the peace of mind to bear their children. A simulation run by the progressive think-tank Demos found that a $300-a-month direct payment would help “reduce child poverty by 42%.”
So giving people free money helps reduce poverty. Who knew?
~ Taylor Lewis finding fault with Elizabeth Stoker Bruening’s supposedly “conservative” plan to provide financial incentives for women to not seek abortions, American Thinker, July 20
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“So giving people free money helps reduce poverty. Who knew?”
Actually I think this is an important finding, because one of the major conservative criticisms of welfare is the argument that it DOESN’T reduce poverty. People worry that the recipients will waste the money on frivolous things, or choose to work less, or otherwise end up no better off. It’s good to see research that rebuts those concerns.
I’m a political moderate myself. I understand that we do not have unlimited money and that increasing taxes can have unintended consequences. But I also understand that it’s a question of priorities– there’s a ton of waste, especially in the military budget. If that money could be redirected, this would be a worthy thing to redirect it to.
It wouldn’t even have to “cost” anything. Just spread the Earned Income Credit out over 12 months, rather than on lump sum payment.
The Earned Income Credit pays for children, but it caps at two children. It does not assist poor working families with more than two children.
Meanwhile, the various state Food Stamp programs do pay mothers to keep their children, but the cash is too restricted to motive poor moms to keep their children. Sure, there is plenty of money to feed the child — but what a poor mom really wants is money for a car and gasoline, cigarettes and decorated fingernails. She will keep her child if it means that she can have small luxuries.
In the 90s, National Right to Life pushed back against Republicans for putting child caps in the Welfare Reform Act. Some Republicans tend to think that it’s the norm for poor, single mothers to intentionally have more children in order to get increased welfare benefits. That they see this as normative is ignorant and insulting to those who understand poverty and who live in poverty. Sure, it may happen, but it’s not the norm. Abortion becomes normative, however, if you put child caps on welfare.
While it may help a little, my general view is throwing money at a problem never solves the problem, it needs to follow the solution.
Hard to say. It’s worth considering, but I’m not aware of hard evidence that child allowance programs actually reduce the abortion rate. And there are countries that have abortion rates just as high as the U.S. (ie Sweden) despite having generous welfare programs including child benefit.
Is there ANYTHING in this world that should not be seen as and responded to as if it were a commodity?
No way! It smells of bribery & besides, throwing money w/ out addressing the underlying causes & issues of poverty doesn’t solve anything in the long run. Plus, it does the opposite of what we want (for humans to be recognized for their intrinsic worth) by putting a price tag on & further commoditizing children.
BTW I’m not against welfare or food stamps (& I have needed such benefits in the past despite being employed due to a lack of hours), & I actively advocate for welfare reform, but I just don’t think throwing money indiscriminately at a problem without addressing the underlying causes & issues will solve anything or provide long-term solutions.
Good gravy, I agree with everybody so far…
Del: Just spread the Earned Income Credit out over 12 months, rather than on lump sum payment.
I think that is a great solution!
Chris: While it may help a little, my general view is throwing money at a problem never solves the problem, it needs to follow the solution.
Totally agree, and I think that all posters thus far recognize that human nature rules out much of the efficacy of such an approach.
Also, this country has thrown money around like no other in history, and the “free lunch” economic deal always applies. Any system that pays out to individuals who don’t contribute is weakened and destabilized, and we are far down that road already.
Child poverty is a hard thing, but we are faced with very hard realities and choices. I have no solution, and the fact is that there is no solution.
The most caring thing we can do is tell them, like the family, church and society use to do (before feminists and woman in general took it all over in the 50’s & 60’s) that the sins of impurity (all of them) send more souls to Eternal Hell Forever
than any other sins. See Fatima apparitions. Assuming anyone still believes in this anymore. Current update of Fatima is at
http://www.tldm.org/. If this offends women to bad; better to be offended now then destroyed after death.
Other wise we can continue to do what has been going on for along time, indulge women, coddle and support their right to liscense and blame the attending consequences on Men!
Don’t think God is going to tolerate this much longer!
Richard–I kinda agree with you but you can’t lay this at the feet of women. I know there are women who make choices and sleep with men who are undeserving but who are these men fathering all these babies of single mamas? Last I checked it takes two to tango. The problem of immorality (which I agree with you is the root of many of our society’s ills) can be laid at the feet of women AND men.
Yes, the problem is immorality and not just sexual immorality. It’s greed, selfishness etc. etc. etc. I have been a destitute single mom (had to flee from abusive husband). So what’s wrong with helping poverty stricken single mothers so that they won’t resort to abortion? I wish anti-abortion lobby had the mega rich patrons behind it as the pro-death side does. It would be good if every single abortion mill was replaced with a pregnancy support centre. but alas, our world is a mess.
Why don’t we pay women to put their babies up for adoption instead of abort. At least then the child will be raised by someone who really wanted them.
Richard: The most caring thing we can do is tell them, like the family, church and society use to do (before feminists and woman in general took it all over in the 50?s & 60?s) that the sins of impurity (all of them) send more souls to Eternal Hell Forever than any other sins.
Yeah, Richard, that’s gonna fix things…. ;)
The truth is that we cannot ensure that things will be “good” for everybody. This has been so throughout history and remains so. There are plenty of married, two-parent families where the kids are suffering.
My post was not intended to fix anything it’s all way beyond repair, it’s intended to inform about something that use to be
the norm, so all (particularly women since they influence men more than the reverse) might heed the Holy Fear of Divine justice and punishment which isn’t far away. A sample: took place at the end of WWII in Germany (notice who inflicted it)
http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/01/thomas-goodrichs-hellstorm/ God help us All!
Richard, agreed on the “way beyond repair.”
Different people are going to look at it in different ways.
I don’t totally dispute what you say, though I think that things were not quite “the norm” as much as you may be implying. We keep track of things more now than in the past, and I figure more was “below the radar” back in “the good old days.”
“but what a poor mom really wants is money for a car and gasoline, cigarettes and decorated fingernails. She will keep her child if it means that she can have small luxuries.”
Well there is some Christian compassion. Thats sarcasm if you cant tell.
Ever lived in the Pacific Northwest? A car is almost a necessity here, public transportation is nonexistent practically in most towns and how can you get and find work and get to work with no car?
And I am so glad you think all poor people want is luxuries so they can have pretty nails and smoke some cigs. Seriously man what is wrong with you? You’re Catholic for goodness sake. One thing I have always respected about genuine Catholics is how they treat the poor. I’m pretty appalled at your statements. Do not seem like true Christianity to me.
With your multiple degrees and colorful work history it seems to me you have been blessed in life to afford these things. You might want to try some compassion for those less fortunate who didnt get the start in life or the same abilities you have.
P.S. The brief time I got food stamps and TANF it went to healthy food and rent. I didnt smoke anything I didnt bum off some neighbor.Most parents want to do right by their kids. Even the dreaded poor.
I have a hard time agreeing that we pay people to not abort when we rightly don’t want abortion to be an option at all anyway. It’s like buying your kid a toy if he stops hitting his sister – he shouldn’t be hitting her in the first place. Or paying her an allowance to clean the bedroom that she alone messed up.
I think we need to send the message to parents that the child is the payment (the focus not remaining mostly on mom). Children are the reward. I think the majority of people, including parents, want to work for what they have and love their children. Help them but don’t enable them to become dependent. Crisis pregnancy centers don’t just give away everything; they require moms to earn the items.
“how can you get and find work and get to work with no car?”
This reminded me of entry-level job applications that state they require previous work experience. How can one have previous work experience if no one will hire you? Or courts that reassure you that they will help you get away from your batterer only to later require you to take parenting classes with him or it will be held against you.
“but what a poor mom really wants is money for a car and gasoline, cigarettes and decorated fingernails. She will keep her child if it means that she can have small luxuries.”
What? I’m having a hard time believing you are for real but if you are, that statement is pretty darn scary. How many poor, pregnant women have you interviewed?
I have known people who “abuse the system.”
But like Lisa said above, “Sure, it may happen, but it’s not the norm.”
“but what a poor mom really wants is money for a car and gasoline, cigarettes and decorated fingernails. She will keep her child if it means that she can have small luxuries.”
Jack: Well there is some Christian compassion. Thats sarcasm if you cant tell.
Jack, it was overly general, and you are right that sometimes a car is a necessity.
When we are talking about direct payments of money to people, the subject is going to come up, though. It’s no secret how drugs and booze affect some families. The question of where the money will actually go is a valid one.
In my own family, there have been people who would spend their last $3 (it was a while ago) on a pack of cigarettes. The kids were in rags and starving, but those cigarettes were gonna be had.
This is the solution for all!https://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Stories-Of-Mary/stories-of-mary-14-forced-to-confess.html#.U72SbPldXEB?utm_source=E.MAC06381&utm_medium=email&utm_content=E.MAC06381&utm_campaign=E.MAC06381&email=rpraymondjr@yahoo.com&fname=Richard&lname=Raymond&treat=Mr.
If it takes far more money than we’ve already spent on SNAP, Early Childhood Education, Head Start, etc. to save one innocent life . . . what’s the issue? Despite all the handwringing economists bewailing the national debt, deficit or both . . . no nation has the capacity we enjoy, even in the midst of a prolonged recession, to generate the kind of income to get by and remain the most powerful nation for a vast majority of good reasons. No other nation on the planet: So why are we holding back. When it comes to saving a single innocent human life; there’s no room for bean-counting.
“particularly women since they influence men more than the reverse”
Not buying what you’re selling.
Women may influence men in different ways than vice-versa but men still influence women.
I believe women influence men more when they flaunt their sexuality than vice-versa but it’s also a pretty well known fact that if dad is beating on mom, mom is more likely to beat on the children. Oh and the children are more likely to hurt others or allow others to hurt them.
And how often does any male get away these days or in the past
with physical abuse of a female. Try it and find out or read this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/more-equal-than-others-bias-in-intimate-partner-and-sexual-violence-victims-advocacy/
Don’t underestimate women’s power or overestimate your own.
Lifelong consequences.
“And how often does any male get away these days or in the past with physical abuse of a female.”
You’re asking the wrong gal that question, Richard.
Not interested in having a conversation with you or checking out your links. Thanks anyway.
“When we are talking about direct payments of money to people, the subject is going to come up, though. It’s no secret how drugs and booze affect some families. The question of where the money will actually go is a valid one”
Uh huh. Hey, how much of the bail outs and stimulus money went to executive salaries and was wasted? Why is it the poor who get smacked in these situations.
“And how often does any male get away these days or in the past with physical abuse of a female. Try it and find out”
A Voice for Men is a misogynist s***hole.
Anyway. Women get away with violence against men all yhe time. My wife did. But men get away with it to, all the time. Our country is doing a horrible job at curbing domestice violence on both sides. I do think male victims are all but ignored and are mocked all the time in a way that women arent, but that is a rant for another time.
Oh and when they drug tested welfare recipients in Florida 96% passed.
No one needs to tell me about what a problem drugs and alcohol are. I am a recovering heroin addict and work with addict teens. But that’s not where welfare money is generally going to poor pregnant mothers.
Women instigate more domestic violence than men, but the men tend to inflict much more serious injuries.
True that Navi, men account for 1/3 of domestic violence murder victims, and women account for 2/3rds. The difference in injuries and deaths is a matter of relative size, I think. My wife could punch me all she wanted but not seriously hurt me (though she did when she used weapons), if I had ever responded violently I could have seriously hurt her.
Jack: Hey, how much of the bail outs and stimulus money went to executive salaries and was wasted? Why is it the poor who get smacked in these situations.
An enormous amount, Jack, and that is a good point.
Some would argue that it’s a necessary evil, but I see it as uniformly bad – people were spinning the financial roulette wheel, people that should not have been placing such bets – thank you, Senator Phil Gramm – and if they make a killing, which some did, then okay. If not, then the American taxpayer bails them out; covers their losses.
This is happening this very instant – the Federal Reserve Board is buying bad debts from several big banks and paying them full value – 100 cents on the Dollar – when the true value is almost nothing. “Too big to fail,” they say.
We are talking billions, even trillions of Dollars…
—–
With direct payments to the poor, few people would say they are uniformly bad. I think the concern is that the money may not go to the intended purpose, and that there is no efficient way to police that.
Jack: My wife could punch me all she wanted but not seriously hurt me (though she did when she used weapons), if I had ever responded violently I could have seriously hurt her.
So what’s the solution? Both of you use weapons, i.e. “mutually-assured destruction”? : P
When we meet St. Peter, would any of us prefer telling him we admired Inspector Javert over the kinder and more compassionate Jean Valjean from Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables”? … especially if that support for the Javerts of our time contributed to keeping the abortion racket alive by saying the welfare of our nation’s one percent of extremely wealthy was more important than doing what we can to meet the more pressing needs of so many young and scared poor mothers, not to mention their children. Forgive my reliance on a corny crutch through the use of the ending song of Les Miserables, [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dFIz5ZG4DQ ] but I prefer to think the overwhelming majority of Americans, regardless of their ideological leanings would rather here these words and notes sung by the pregnant Fantine [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p6OH7FoWoQ ] than to live with the regrets caused by our continued reliance upon the cruel neocon dictates of austerity budgeting concepts which only benefit the very well off.
“So what’s the solution? Both of you use weapons, i.e. “mutually-assured destruction”? : P”
I don’t find that particularly funny Doug. My ex made my life hell and by the end it was out of control to the point I was honestly afraid she would get pissed enough to grab one of my guns and kill me. I bought a gun safe where I only had the combo. I don’t mean to sound like a “pansy”, but abusive women can seriously emotionally and physically damage their victims.
Would you make a joke like that about a female victim sharing an abusive experience about a male abuser?
The solution is to get enough documentation of injuries and witnesses (neighbors generally know what’s up if it’s an apartment complex), to the point the judge cannot ignore it and the cops as much as they laugh and make fun of you can’t ignore it, and hope like hell that you can at least limit the time your ex gets with your kids. I did my best and got full custody, she gets them Wednesday night and Saturday. Best I could do.
And never hit an abusive woman back or try and restrain her, it’s way more likely you go to jail then she does, then you’re completely screwed.
Jack: Would you make a joke like that about a female victim sharing an abusive experience about a male abuser?
Good point, Jack. No, you know – probably not, or at least there’s less chance of it. That’s because it’s personal and specific to that female, and I don’t mean it to be personal; rather, I was going for a silly/ridiculous humor, because of course “upping the ante” in the fight would not be any sane ‘solution,’ and because the “MAD doctine” isn’t really about two people, more like two nations using weapons of mass destruction on each other a la the US and Russia.
Jack, in no way are you a “pansy” – you’ve demonstrated considerable strength and fortitude in your own life and right here on this message board.
I realize I referred to your specific situation, and that there is no way you can’t take it personally. I’m sorry, man. I should not have done that.
Male/female abuse isnt all that rare, really. Just somewhat less dangerous. I accept your apology and I am sorry, just sensitive about it because a lot of people make jokes about it and it was a horrible situation.
It looks like we’ve taken a detour from helping pregnant women financially to discussing spousal abuse. To be fair, tho, maybe I missed something or two in this thread. Englighten me.
Ohhhhhh, ugghhhhh, did I actually write “englighten” ????
I’m enlightened now. LOLs, On me. Friday, right?