I don't know if this topic will spark debate or not but I'll throw it out there. I get absolutely livid about this. Why isn't birth control mandatory for mothers who receive any type of welfare/aid to dependant children benefits? I think that if you have to get government assistence to raise the children that you already have then you should have to agree to not have any additional children and that a mandatory birth control should be required in order for you to receive your monthly check. Maybe some states do this already, I'd be curious to know. Any thoughts about this?

By Cybermommyx4 on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 02:07 pm:

Common sense would dictate that one shouldn't have additional children if one can't provide for them....HOWEVER, the birth control issue goes a lot deeper than that ( i.e. religious beliefs, health concerns w/birth control effects, etc.) and then there's the whole abortion issue/sub-issues (if you have mandatory BC, and they get pregnant anyway, then what? What if they develop a blood clot from taking BC pills and sue the government who *made* them take the pill/medication? ) We either want the government to dictate what we can/can't do with our bodies, or we don't - but we can't have it both ways! I myself don't understand how, in the same hospital, in the space of an hour, one 1/2 pound "fetus" can be aborted, and another 1/2 pound "preemie" gets hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on life support! In MHO, they are BOTH babies, but the government says it's only a baby *if* it is wanted. How messed up is that?! Also, there are a lot of people who have children and CAN afford them, that SHOULDN'T have children because they are bad parents. Can we make them take Birth Control, too? I understand your frustration with the welfare system, but I think it's a bigger can of worms than it appears on the surface...

By Tonya on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:34 am:

Well I can see where your question comes from but here is one I would like to see about. I work 40-50 hr a week so does Rich. But our incomes with our family size counting the 1 on the way qualifies us to get free formula then later cereal from a program called WIC. I say if I qualify for it and it is free I want it. As much as I, my parents and others I know put into taxes every year if the state wants to have a program like this and I can get it why not. Save me the money of having to pay for formula. It also offers food to the pregnant mom like milk, bread, cereal, peanut butter and a few other things until 6 months after the baby is born what it is is suppose to keep the mom in healthy food while pregnant and while recooping from pregnancy. I don't need the food so I will wait until January to sign up for this program right before the baby is born. You don't have to agree but I see nothing wrong with doing this. If I don't then 1 of the other mothers who are on welfare and keep having kids will do it at least I am working hard and not taking advantage of the system.

By Colette on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 11:35 am:

I think a huge overhall of the system needs to be put in place and it needs to get a lot stricter on who gets what. While there are many who need welfare there are many who do not, and people should strive to get off it instead of just cashing that check monthly and not making any effort at all to improve their quality of life.

By Palmbchprincess on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 02:07 pm:

I am also on WIC, as are most of the people I know with children around here. I agree that our welfare system is screwed up, and that we need stricter guidelines. But as was pointed out above, forcing someone to use BC would never fly. It would be touted a violation of civil rights, and if we COULD pass it, there is still no way to ensure a woman is using it. It's like the condoms in school thing We can pass them out all we want, but no one can insure the teens will be using them, and doing so properly. By handing out welfare checks to anyone who is just too lazy to work, we are creating generation after generation of couch potatoes. I think one of the most important things we need to change in welfare is the work requirements, and put a limit on how long you can collect. If you get on welfare and do not have a job, you have this long to get one. If you do have a job, but don't make enough to support your family, you have this long to find a way to support yourself. Time is up, checks stop.

By Tonya on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 02:11 pm:

I was just told my someone yesterday that Michigan has a Welfare law that once your youngest child is in school you lose your check that you must get a job. I think that is why there are so many loser people having kid after kid because they want the checks to keep coming. I agree no way can you make someone use BC but you can make a law that limits your kids if you are on welfare. Like if you get help and after starting your help have more kids you are finished if you cannot aford the ones we are paying for then you are not to have anymore and if you do then we will not help you.

By Palmbchprincess on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 02:19 pm:

Not a bad idea Tonya! I think it should also say something like after X number of kids, you do not see an increase in you check. That would encourage them to stop having baby after baby.

By Kaye on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 03:38 pm:

But what about the loop hole cases? For example workers at enron took home between 75k-100k a year, they are all out of work, the market is flooded, very few jobs to be had. So they work anywhere they can find jobs. But they already had 3-4 kids, aren't they the ones that welfare is really meant to help? But if we say we only give welfare for 1 child, certain amount of money, whatever, they can't make it.

By Ginnyk on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 12:43 am:

Many states already have welfare rules that after a certain number of children you get no additional money for additional children, though you do get more food stamps, and health care coverage for the additional child. Which often means that all of the children in the family suffer because there are more children but no additional money. And, under the present welfare rules, after 5 years of cash welfare, all cash payments end - period. In addition, in most states there are rigidly enforced requirements that even before the 5 years of assistance ends, the parent(s) must be in either jobs or training for jobs for somewhere between 20 and 30 hours a week. Under the present rules, there is no such thing as someone continuing to have children and sitting on a couch and cashing checks - 5 years and out is the absolute rule.

Even for me (lefty liberal) this is a dilemma. I do think it is irresponsible for a woman to have children she cannot take care of financially, but I also know that there are a lot of reasons this happens, many of them having to do with behavior and learning and other things that have nothing to do with a mindset of if I have more children I'll have more money.
The problem is, we keep thinking of the mother getting the money (which is what happens) but the money is intended for the care and welfare of the children. And somehow we have convinced ourselves that after 5 years, something will happen and these children will be taken care of even after the welfare check stops. Which, imo, is just plain stupid thinking. I think in a few more years we are going to see a whole lot of starving children and mothers in this country (and have some already), and I wonder what will be done about that.
No one would be asking whether we should "do something" about people who keep having children if the family is not on welfare. So the issue is tax dollars (i.e., "my dollars") paying for someone else's children. But, if no additional money is provided, it is the children who suffer, not the "irresponsible" parent. Is that what we want?

My opinion - we don't believe what we say (by we, I mean our U.S. society as a whole). We say that education is important, and "no child left behind", but we allot more tax dollars for law enforcement and prisons in our state and federal budgets than we do for schools and pre-schools. It is so much cheaper to keep a child in school than in prison, just in terms of the per person costs to our systems, but we don't do that. I know, lots of people say throwing money at the schools won't help, but giving more money to education could reduce class sizes, which every study I know of says helps. I know in Pennsylvania there are long waiting lists for children who are eligible for Head Start and Get Set, for budgetary reasons - even though we know these programs really help the children in poor families be better prepared for school and to do better in school overall.
We say children are important, but we allow thousands of children to live in poverty - I mean, going to bed hungry, not having appropriate clothes for school, living in unsafe housing or in homeless shelter poverty. Partly because these children are demonstrably less important than, say, highways, according to our state budgets. And partly because we, as a society, cannot separate our disapproval of how the parent behaves from the negative impacts on the child.

We say everyone should have proper medical care, but most states don't put enough money in their budgets to allow all eligible children to enter the health insurance program which is partially federally supported - I know in Pennsylvania there are several thousand eligible children on the waiting list, for budgetary reasons.

Do I have a solution? No. But gee, I do wish we would put our money where our mouth is, at least when it comes to children.

Should people be forced to use birth control? Well, that would mean either the shot or the embedded bc drug or sterilization - there is no other way to enforce birth control. The Supreme Court decided, long ago, that state forced sterilization is absolutely unconstitutional. And I would guess that if it hasn't already come up, the Supreme Court (even today's court) would rule that forcing medical treatment for bc on women would be unconstitutional. And I agree that it would be wrong. And if you rule out the physically invsive forms of bc, how could such a rule be enforced?

Let's face it - what we are talking about is money. Not having "our money" spent on the children of parents we think are irresponsible. But in the end, it is not only these children who suffer, but our society as a whole. And the financial cost alone to our society of having thousands of children who are malnourished, undereducated, and likely to turn to criminal behavior as a means of survival is a whole lot higher than the cost of building and supporting systems which have a real likelihood of changing behavior in the long term. (But sadly, our governmental thinking seems to run mostly in the short run - the next election - and our politicians talk about and promote popular ideas rather than do any serious talking about what might really build long term solutions.)

By Bubbels on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 07:31 am:

In Louisiana welfare has been a serious drain on our state's finances for ages. We had one of the highest welfare roles in the country. However, in 1996, Louisiana put into effect the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Under this new law, welfare recipients are limited to 24 months of benefits within any 60-month period. It emphasizes education, preparation and getting a job rather than getting a government check. It puts work first, but also includes provisions to ensure children are protected in the process. For instance, children who are not properly cared for will be removed from the home and placed into a more healthy environment. The new welfare program provides mandatory pre-employment services such as job readiness and training, vocational education and unpaid work experience programs if recipients wish to collect welfare. They can no longer just sit at home and receive checks. They need to be out there, actively training, preparing for employment and doing unpaid community work if they wish to receive the checks. It also provides post-employment supportive services, including free child care, health benefits and transportation to work for low income families. Also, in the city of New Orleans alone, the vast majority of schools in the city were being slated to close due to nonattendance. Almost all of these schools were located in low income neighborhoods. Therefore, to encourage school attendance, children who now miss 15 days of school in any six-month period without good cause will be put on probation. Their welfare benefits will be withheld if they miss more than three days a month thereafter. It's a shame that the government has to force parents to be parents, but I would imagine that alot of them are now taking an interest in whether their children are attending school.

This welfare reform is working. It is placing the responsibility for family support back where it should be, on the shoulders of the healthy, capable adults in the family. It is providing incentives for children to go to school, stay in school and receive an education, so they won't have to be the next generation of welfare families. It has reduced the welfare case load in Louisiana by an extraordinary 70%, from approximately 263,000 to 80,000. With free education, job training, employment placement services, transportation to work and child care, there is now simply no excuse for having to remain on welfare for longer than two years.

By Shelly on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 01:53 pm:

Wow Bubbels, it sounds like LA. is really trying to make some major changes and succeeding! Believe me, I don't want to see children suffer and I know ultimately they are the ones who lose, it was just one of those things where you get your paycheck and see the taxes taken out and just start to fume. It's not limited to welfare only, obviously there is a lot of government waste out there. Who knows where to begin. I would love to have more children but I have to be realistic about the costs involved because I don't qualify for help. My medical insurance skyrockets if I have maternity coverage and when you look at private daycare costs at a place you can trust, wow!!! And I'm not in a position to not work, I'm the primary breadwinner. So again just some temporary sour apples that I wanted to get off my chest! Good discussion everyone. As far as breaking the mentality people have about having more kids to keep the benefits coming or even just not thinking through the consequenses of irresponsible sex, I do think something drastic needs to happen to stop that thinking. Whether that means not increasing benefits further and removing children if you can't provide I don't know but it will only continue to be a bigger drain on the economy if changes aren't made. And I certainly differentiate between working people who lost their jobs and those who just leech off the system.

By Melissa on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 05:35 pm:

It's not that I don't think welfare needs changes I do. However If we start regulating peoples fertility that opens a lot of cans of worms, if we start with mandatory B.C. for welfare moms then what if that seemed to work so well they decide to do mandatory b.c for teens and then mandatory b.c if maybe you aren't educated enough or have a high enough IQ? Who decides? It great to make stuff mandatory when it's not you but who's to say things like that can't get out of hand?

By Pamt on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 09:49 am:

Well, I think that our welfare system needs a MAJOR overhaul. Bubbels, I didn't know that about LA's welfare changes. Finally, our state is a little bit "cutting-edge" on something instead of ranking #50 all of the time :P LOL I do think that nationally job training and/or education, community service, frequent check-ins to monitor progress through the program, and a set number of years you can receive welfare should all be part of the requirements in order to receive benefits. I just got back from a mission trip to Nicaragua, where they have no type of welfare or public assistance program. That's not a good idea either! In the town we were in, unemployment was about 80% and many of the families lived in one room houses with dirt floors and corrugated tin roofs held onto the flimsy frame of the house by large rocks placed on top. Utter poverty! I have no idea how they got food or clothes.

As for the b/c issue, when we start telling people how many children they can have then we have a serious invasion of civil rights and come dangerously close to the govt-monitored child planning of China....and we know what kinds of problems have come from that! Furthermore, no b/c has a 100% guarantee. Not even sterilization. It is all a big mess and I think most of us have more questions than answers, unfortunately.

By Mommyathome on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 10:46 pm:

I also agree that the welfare system needs an overhaul.

I think that there are honest, hard-working families out there that qualify for assistance and really benefit from it. That is fine IMO.

It's the families that have a perfectly healthy parents that sit around and do nothing while they collect welfare everymonth that really gets to me. We have a family down the street that is a perfect example of this. There are actually 2 families living in the same house. 2 dads, 2 moms and 5 or 6 kids. None of the adults work. They are all on welfare. They get food stamps and medicaid and all the free goodies while they sit at home smoking and drinking. It drives me crazy.

I'm not sure how things could be changed. It's kind of all based on the honesty factor. You tell them how much you make, and they compensate.

One more thing that irritates me....In our state (Utah) they switched to a food stamp card rather than paper food stamps. I use to work at a grocery store before I was married. There is a cash side of the card and a food stamp side of the card. Only food can be bought on the food side obviously, but on the cash side, you can purchase ANYTHING you want. We had parents come through the check out line all the time and pay for their groceries with the foodstamp side, then follow that with 2 cartons of cigarrettes (sp) and pay for that with the cash side of the card. Hello...that cash is coming out of my pocket. Common sense should tell the government that that plan isn't working.

Also, the state said that they changed from paper food stamps to a card (looks like a credit card) so that people that used them would be less embarrased. Others would think that they were using a credit/debit card. That makes sense....or not! Maybe if they are a little embarrased, they would be quicker to try and better themselves and get off of welfare. I think it's just way to convenient.

***Just an end note...I know that sometimes food stamps/welfare/wic/etc. is a last resort and I have nothing against people that use these things when it's necessary. It's the ones that abuse the system, that take it when it's not necessary or when there is another way around it that bothers me. If you are doing all that you can on your end, then by all means, accept the help available.