source (my bold)
"What we say is that in order for Mom to be able to go on welfare if she has a child out of wedlock, you have to tell us who the father is," Santorum said at an event in Carlisle, Pa., on April 1, 1994. "If you don't tell us who the father is, you're not eligible for any welfare benefits, none, not even medical care. You tell us who the father is or you don't receive benefits."
Santorum argued that his proposal could persuade single women to slow their sex lives, which, in turn, would lead to less out-of-wedlock parenting. "If Mom knows that she isn't gonna receive welfare if she doesn't tell us who Dad is, y'know maybe she'll be a little more careful, maybe," he said.
"Or maybe she gives us a list, say 'Well it could be one of five,'" Santorum went on. "I mean, y'know, I don't know what she's gonna do, but at some point we're gonna see her cooperate."
"We say to Mom that you tell us the wrong name, and we'll bring that guy in and we'll do a blood test and that's not Dad, you lose your welfare benefits,” he said at another event that same day in New Bloomfield. “You lose your welfare benefits ... Not till you tell us another name, but till we find out who Dad is, we establish it."
Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by silo13
I usually do not agree with Rick Santorum, but here i actually do, to a point. Fathers should also have to take their responsibility and at least admit to being the father, at which point no further tests should be required.
So you want the government to spend money and invade people's lives just so you can "know" something?
This could be done by sending out a paper for them to sign admitting to being the father after the admission of the woman is established. This way no arrests or DNA tests would be required. Only if they dispute to being the father, will the DNA test be required, of course this will be a special kind of DNA test where no info is stored or saved for other purposes, the secuirity would have to be very high here.
So you want to spend even MORE money to "know" who the father is.
Once the result is verified(positive or negative) everything would be destroyed and the father would either be established or cleared of suspicion. A fine might also be put on the woman, payable to the "father" if she makes the mistake of naming the wrong guy, causing them to be even more reluctant to have unresponsible relations.
So you just want all this just to make single mothers pay? When all you have to do is just let the mother apply and let sleeping dogs lie.
But instead, you want to shell out big bugs and create all sorts of red tape because you want to criminalize single, poor mothers. Because you think they owe you something because they need assistance.
This is a truley a disgusting perception.
I believe this is needed, as having children is a matter requiring more conviction and afterthought than is currently sometimes the case.edit on 9-3-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)
Spoken like someone who has no actual vision of the real world. And has a pre-conceived stereotype in your mind.
So you want to attack women who are trying to find any means necessary to provide for their children?
and if the child isn't by choice?
caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in
In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president promising to "end welfare as we know it," and in 1994 a Republican Congress was elected that was determined to change the existing system
If we value work, we cannot justify a system that makes welfare more attractive than work.
Originally posted by hangedman13
Forcing people to think before they affect their lives and that of the child is a good thing.