and now today's republican nut job.
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 ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount.”‘He went on to say, “I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re 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 don’t give any extra money for new children if someone in the household is already receiving aid.
well the hardhearted republicans come up with another oldie to add to their armory in their war against women that does not exist. now they are tryng to dictate to women that if you engage in what ever kind of sex they are calling it today better put a ring on it or you are short.
These policies were initially adopted in an attempt to dissuade low-income women from having more children out of wedlock. But the results haven't panned out. A 2001 Government Accountability Office report on whether or not they change birth rates couldn't conclude whether there was any impact.In California, for example, where the state has beenconsidering a repeal of its family cap policy, most women who receive welfare from the state have a similar number of children as those who don't. 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.
are they saying that these women are not worth assistance if not married and if so do they give it if married or force that into becoming what they are railing against, that sounds more right wing rail against it, before it comes support it as person hood, after birth screw 'em you are now on your own no more gov't help, but so far you've had a baby, sure that really brightens their day. republican plans are a biatch than you die. look who leads the pack the one that told you how much his party cares and that you are winning their war against you.
