Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rick Santorum To Single Mothers: Government Paternity Tests Or No Welfare

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
First it's laws defining single parents as child abusers and now this...


"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."
source (my bold)


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.

What about the MEN! My gawd what a chauvinistic pig!


"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."

Soooo they're going to what? Arrest 'possible' fathers? Detain them? FORCE THEM to take a DNA test? Hold back their pay until they comply?

REGARDLESS if this came about in 1994 - it's his way, his thought, his intention - and this kind of hard core BS just doesn't go away with time!

And you people are voting for him? If you do, you deserve what you get!

peace

 
***ADDED NOTE*** If this has already been posted I again urge ATS to repair the search engine feature
 
edit on 9-3-2012 by silo13 because: bbc



+15 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
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. 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. 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.

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)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Wow. Has this just become public knowledge? I've heard his other crazy statements, this is the first time i've seen the ones in your OP.

This guy is actually winning states in the primaries...and usually wins all the rural counties in each state. I can't believe that most people would agree with this stuff.

He's scum.


+10 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Ah yes, so Santorum is an elitist who has no idea what it is like to be poor so he hops on the train on how to criminalize the poor.

What is with the GOP war on women?

How is this guy even in the running?

The point of welfare is so the children are provided for.

So what he is saying is that he doesn't care about the welfare of children, he just wants to embarrass and criminalize single mothers

And he stereotypes and makes blanket statements.

This guy is a POS..

edit on 9-3-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)


+26 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
He wants dead beat dads to pay for their kids instead of the US government.

I'm actually thinking this is a good idea. I have no idea how he'd implement it.
But getting dead beat dads to pay for kids may stop them from mass procreating
tons of kids who will just end up on welfare, foodstamps and getting free lunches
at school ... all paid for by the tax payer.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Santorum is as radical as it gets, on the Christian side, and the bible belt eats this stuff up.

I agree fathers should be held responsible, but the way he layed it out sounded like he was blaming the mother.

He sounds more like a protestant preacher, I'm kind of surprised he's a catholic.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
So much emotional response here and not enough thinking. Other then not putting forward any penalty on the dead beat dads what is the problem? A war on woman? Please what about the issues single parent households put on the child? Forcing people to think before they affect their lives and that of the child is a good thing. If they add in something to go at the men who father multiple children and then do not take care of their responsibilities it would be a win. Remember we want adults to be productive members of society, not to feed off from it.


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Actually I know a gal who intentionally left the father name field blank and claimed not to know.
I think a dna test would be great, men are hauled into court and compelled to do this all of the time.
And if Mommy has given away so many scooter rides that she could not narrow it down to a handful, then let the cost fall to her.
Of course there is always the option of working.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
If anyone had watched the Maury show, they know it is much harder to find the paternal dad than you would think....




posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Isnt that sort of what they do anyways? Here in FL if your a single mother and you apply for benefits, you have to cooperate with the child support agency in order to recieve anything. Im sure it would be the same in other states too. Sounds like another jerk making assumptions about single mothers on welfare. Maybe in 94 that wasnt a requirement though, so him and others were trying to push for it to be enacted. Either way, I cant stand these guys who try to act like the poor are whats wrong with this country. Not cool...


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Let's look at this story in the proper historical context though.

In 1994

caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in

source

More people than ever in the history of the nation were on welfare before the reform act in 1996.
The govt, both parties, both houses and the Presidency were trying desperately to ease the burden on the existing system.

This was a bipartisan effort back then, Clinton in the WH and a conservative legislature.


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


As stated above, the effort was bipartisan, although many liberals were unhappy with Clinton's ultimate plan.

As Clinton said in his 1994 State of the Union address

If we value work, we cannot justify a system that makes welfare more attractive than work.


Santorum's plan was a plan tht was attempting to appease President Clintons's demand that Cngress enact drastic welfare reform, reducing the strain on the govt as welfare was at it highest rate historically, and to take away the attractiveness of the welfare program and put more people to work.

It may be drastic, but at least we can understand t in the historical context.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Republicans...the party of small government.



They'll get the government out of your lives...unless you are a women...and then the government is in your pants monitoring your vagina.


How are there still women who vote Republican???



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
It is so funny how these guys pretend to be for small government. It is funny how these guys pretend to be christians. Yet at every turn they do the oposite of what Christ would do. Seems pretty anti christ to me.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
Forcing people to think before they affect their lives and that of the child is a good thing.


People don't have babies, planning on going on welfare.


So those people who are on it because they lost jobs due to the economy, really should of known better.


Yea, those women who don't want to report the fathers because they don't want the abusive jagoff to find them, really should of thought better.

Funny, life doesn't contain absolutes.
edit on 9-3-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Naming the father has been the law in California since the late 1990s. This is nothing new. The state has a right to try and collect child support in order to reduce their burden, since the mother is coming and asking, basically, for the state to support her child.

Insantorum is just spouting off to appeal to the uber-right-wing voting bloc. Most of these fathers have jobs, so the father's name is turned over to the local District Attorney for child support collection.

Maybe this isn't the law in other states, but it should be. Many times, the father is working and actually living with the mother and child, so collecting welfare and claiming the father is not in the home is a common way for mothers to stay home with their kids and make money doing it.

It is sad but true. As a previous welfare worker, I have actually gone to homes in which it was obvious the father was living there (men's clothing in the closet and often on the floor, chewing tobacco canisters laying around when the mother says she doesn't smoke nor chew, pay stubs with the father's name on the table, etc.). If you're going to ask for money, fine, but don't lie about the father being absent.

Still hate Santorum, though, and wouldn't vote for him even if he guaranteed to come to my house, stand on his head and crap out 100 dollar bills.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
LOL Thank you Outkast, that was great! I know your being serious, but its too true... I dont understand it either, but they are out there.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


So they don't want to give women birth control, BUT

they want to force you to have babies you may not be able to take care of.

But then they don't want to provide welfare for people who now has a starving baby.

But oh we should have prayer back in school so we can learn what Christ would want, but none of them follow.






edit on 9-3-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Prick Santorum is nothing more than the American equivalent of the Taliban. What's he going to support next? Witch burnings? Branding women with the scarlet letter? I bet he supports the bombing of abortion clinics too.






top topics



 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join