Bill Would Reduce Welfare Benefits For Women Who Cannot Prove They Were Raped

reply to post by 200Plus

Not all women on welfare are rape victims.

This law affects both rape and non rape babies who parents are on welfare.

I see it leading to an increase in fathers being pursued for support

You can get child support and welfare at the same time.

or less women getting pregnant

People are going to magically stop having sex or getting pregnant by accident because of this law?

reply to post by FreshAirGirl

Then theirs the ones whom make a bussiness out of having babies and more babies to keep getting those welfare checks. I see it all the time around where I live. There are some girls that as soon as it gets close and the kids can enter school and they are expected to go get a life and a job get pregnant again.

If you read the OP you would see that this is a myth.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I think that it's what we were trying to get at. Now if something was to be done about the system as it is now, the first thing to do is to stop benefits to illegals: One it would save lots of money 2 it would discourage illegal immigration, however their babies are born here so technically they're citizens this law or whatever law they're making this excuse by, needs to be changed or reworded so that illegal's babies that are born here do not become citizens and are not able to get these benefits. This is one thing they could do. They could also put alot more money into educating young women about reckless behavior I don't know I must've done something right caus I have two teens and neither one has had a baby one is 18 male and one is 17 femal and working on my third teen she will be 13 next month but I could figure out what I did right and offer classes for health education teachers. lol. More education, less illegal carrot sticks and at least 90 percent of the system would be fixed. IMO.

reply to post by 3chainz


No the law applies to women that are on assistance that claim the child is the product of rape. Or did I read it wrong?

In the case of rape that is reported (or a person convicted I should say), a person can be made to reimburse the state for its funding of the child. In the case where the father is known, a person can be made to reimburse the state for funding the child. In the cases where women say "I was raped, but didn't report it" the state (tax payers) is left holding the bag. When a person is made to pay the state for the state funding the child that is a form of child support.

Perhaps if women know they can no longer say "rape, not reported" in order to keep state and/or federal funding, they may take the time to make better decisions. Hence less pregnant women with no means to support the child.

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

You see the contradicting statements there?

The whole point is that the GOP has no real reason to do this. The amount given per additional children is NOT MUCH. All non-rape babies are being punished, as well with the real rape babies with ashamed mothers.

Do they want children to go hungry? We are in a down economy, food pantries go empty very fast, etc.

If I were raped by man or woman I would report it in a heart beat.

You have no clue what you would do. A lot of people go into a state of mental shock and their life is ruined.

Society also tends to blame the women a lot. If you're a hot chick and you wear a short skirt you are somehow asking to get raped. Or the girl gets blamed because she drank too much and passed out....

There are a multitude of reasons why women wouldn't report the rape...

Would you a rape kit done with a doctor probing you

right after having one of your holes torn open?

edit on 30-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

The rape issue is a bit of lefty hysteria here. The idea of the bill is to discourage people from having more children than they can afford to take care of and is based on the principle of it not being right to have more children if you cannot take care of the ones you have. The rape thing? Probably because they knew that if they did not put in an exemption for rape or interest the same people that are complaining about this clause now would be complaining that it was unfair not to provide exepemptions for those who had children against their will. Any restriction for entitlements will put a legislator into a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation with some people because there are many people and activists out there that want zero restrictions or individual responsability where entitlements are concerned.

However You can still get food stamps and medicaid for the child if you don't want to go for the child support, in all states, too. The child can, but the parent can't. Which means the child would still be fed and have medical care and even I beleive cash assistance. The woman must only enter a CS order if she wants to collect as well...so only she would "go hungry" if she decided she didn't wish to pursue CS so, hmmm I don't know.

I am still thinking this is some kind of fix before they go and pull the abortion plug. FOrcing all women to have their children. But I could be wrong.

reply to post by 200Plus

No the law applies to women that are on assistance that claim the child is the product of rape. Or did I read it wrong?

All the non-rape and non-provable rape babies cannot get the extra 50$ a month or whatever it is, meaning they have the chance to go hungry for being born to a poor parent. The proven rape babies can get the extra assistance.

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by 200Plus

 

No the law applies to women that are on assistance that claim the child is the product of rape. Or did I read it wrong?

Yes. And all the non-rape babies cannot get the extra 50$ a month or whatever it is, meaning they have the chance to go hungry for being born to a poor parent.

So you have no issue with women having babies as a career path?

This is simply a line. Welfare will not be increased based on number of children. Children born as a result of documented rape will be exempt. Having more babies is the choice the mother AND father had in the majority of cases, or the mother made alone in the case of rape.

Please tell me why the state should pay for the decisions of the individual.

I also don't get the double standard here with the women being labelled and the men getting no shaming. It's just as much the male's fault as the young women too. They're trying to outlaw the day after pill, also except in cases of rape! This is an agenda my friends, disgracing women, forcing rape victims to relive their rape, and soon forcing all women to give birth to unwanted babies. I'll tell you in light of what PA's doing If it was me, I'd go dump the baby at the father's house as soon as out of hospital! They're just as much part of it as the women. If they were any kind of man they'd go out and work and stick by the females like a reponsible person, regardless if that woman was in her past a "baby machine" just to get welfare, there are still some real men out there aren't there?

reply to post by 200Plus

So you have no issue with women having babies as a career path?

You should go read the OP. It outlines the welfare queen career thing as a myth.

reply to post by 3chainz


I can read a dozen articles.

I know one family that has been on assistance for four generations. 22 people that have never had a job.

I know a family that has been on assistance for three generations. 9 people that have never had jobs.

I have a thing about articles, I always prefer to go by my own experience.

Originally posted by ldyserenity

regardless if that woman was in her past a "baby machine" just to get welfare, there are still some real men out there aren't there?

It's a question of incentives.

If we weigh the pros and cons are there really any pros to staying with a "hook-up" and helping her raise a kid?

When I lived in the city these guys in the neighborhood would travel around and hit on any woman they saw. Literally any woman they saw. Didnt have to be attractive in the least.

Like it was some game just to rack up lays.

Some loser pulls up to an unfortunately ugly woman and shouts "hey, baby how about you get in?" and I shouted out "really, really, really does that crap work?" and lo and behold she gets in.

Both parties are behaving irresponsibly there. He's just sticking his prick wherever he can and she just got into some scumbags car on a whim.

Common occurrence in that city. It amazed me more people werent dropping from untreated syphilis.

So what incentive is there to stay with and raise that child?

Are there any incentives to actually avoid staying with that child?

Is it better to get married and raise a kid on a Burger King paycheck or is it better to stay single and get government assistance while still benefiting from the fathers Burger King check as long as he hangs around?

Should he leave is it worth more to garnish that Burger King check or should I just quit Burger King and file for assistance because I cant afford the child support?

Pros and cons.

What are the pros of staying with and raising that child?

reply to post by 200Plus


The only assistance you can stay on for a life time is food stamps. Nearly everything else has a time limit.....so you can say whatever you want. There are laws, and your anecdotal stories don't add up with them. The problem is that you won't read them and will continue to have your false misconceptions.

You have absolutely no clue how people get money. They may not have jobs but there are plenty of illegal ways to gain revenue.

reply to post by NavyDoc

The idea of the bill is to discourage people from having more children than they can afford to take care of and is based on the principle of it not being right to have more children if you cannot take care of the ones you have.

I get the point of the bill. If you read the OP you would understand what the thread is about.

reply to post by 3chainz

Now for the point of the thread....


1. Why do republican representatives keep harping on the rape topic, do they not realize it causes a public relations crisis? This law does nothing but hurt children born into poverty and women too ashamed to admit they were raped.

First and foremost: I am sorry if you or someone you know was ever been raped. My comment is in no way siding with Rpublicans or rapists. But this needs to be said:

3chainz is an Obama supporter. He does not and will not cover Democrat corruption stories. Why? I honestly have no idea, but to say that the problem is ONLY a Repulican-led issue, is MISLEADING.

Just ask 3chainz WHY he is voting for Obama. You should have a better understanding after the fact.

3chainz: I keep doing this to you because you still believe Obama is "the lesser of 2 evils" and is different from Romney. On top of that, you keep trying to blame "Republicans" for most, if not all problems we have in America. It's BOTH Republicans AND Democrats.

Stop trying to make people hate a specific party and start distributing the facts on BOTH sides.

Lima-1, out.

reply to post by Sissel

It isn't just enough to have to go through all of the above, and then have to relive it to get benefits on top of that, for a child you decide to keep?

What child?

Why do some people insist on calling unviable tissue masses children?

They should go right to Planned Parenthood and have a government subsidized abortion, same thing goes for the ones that aren't raped, if they don't want to lose benefits.

reply to post by 3chainz

particularly low-income women who may not have reliable access to affordable contraception

Condoms are free to anyone who asks for them.

reply to post by OperationIraqiFailure


I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm a leftist, Obama is right wing, most democrats are right wing. If I vote for anyone I'll vote for Jill Stein.

Could you stop coming in my thread and posting off topic incorrect information? Thx.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Condoms are one of the most unreliable methods of birth control out there.

Just to throw this in the mix. I work with youth in my area and its harder than you think to get contraception in some places. I live in a town between St Louis and East St Louis.. lot of poverty and inner city issues. Who ATSers call "urban youth". Anyway, a lot of the girls.. even though sexually active are terrified to go to the Dr alone for the mandatory pap before receiving PC pills or contraceptive shot. SO I help. Make appointment for them and accompany them, Problem is.. the hrs for the exams are ridiculous, waiting periods are insane, and the demand is overwhelming. WHen there is a 2 week wait on contraception.. we're talking young folks here.. sex WILL happen in the interim many times. Its not like you go demand a pill and they hand it over..
ANother thing Ive been told on more than one occasion is that the boys refuse a condom.. so the girls have to get on the pill or shot. SOme of them dont understand the way to take a bc pill correctly to guve you the best odds for contraception.. and I even had a baby on the pill.. its NOT 100%. A lot of the girls in one of my classes live with the boyfriends they barely know due to serious problems at home. Once they cant get funds from being a child in the home, they are not cared for and must get help in their own. You cant get help really with no children... not enough to live on anyway. Blah blah blah... some folks should really get out of the house once in a while and see things for yourself instead of preaching from your big white house on the hill. Its not really noble to preach from your pedestal.
This rape bill is only ludicrous as it is because some know it all wrote it who never ventured off of his hill nor have they seen the truth of the matter. There is a social disease among us.. as in our society is sick. Bad behavior is not only rewarded.. but bad choices are sometimes the ONLY choice someone is given.

Im anti abortion.. therefore I wont get an abortion. Im also a libertarian. You want to make choices and abort.. youre free to. This bill has nothing to do with abortion.. but it has everything to do with HUBRIS.
en.wikipedia.org...