Are welfare recipients being encouraged to have abortions?

Dec. 5, 2002 | I am one of those people who believe that President Bush's war on terrorism constitutes, among other things, a very impressive distraction for Americans who might otherwise pay attention to scary federal policy changes. So successful is this adrenaline-packed diversion that we have missed not only significant political maneuvers, but also a flurry of environmental rollbacks that rush us, unceremoniously, down the path to extinction.

In at least one case, however, it isn't distraction as much as confusion that paralyzes us as a new policy is ushered in and another is quietly abolished. Specifically, I refer to the repeal, announced Tuesday, of the Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Rule, a measure that allows states to use unemployment benefits to pay workers who take unpaid leave to care for a new baby.

I tried to get my head around this one; but the sly contradictions and double double-crosses inherent in the announcement make it difficult. Basically, we have reached that point in the movie where the gullible patsy sits down, eyebrows knit, and says to the smirking psychopath: "Now let me get this straight ... " I will, in the role of spokesperson for gullible patsies nationwide, say it to President Bush (without implying, of course, that he is a smirking psychopath):

This administration, in relentless pursuit of a religion-based conservative agenda, has used every means possible to undermine a woman's constitutional right to abortion, ban sex education that acknowledges the existence of sex, and promote marriage. Bush has used federal health policy, high-ranking committee appointments, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for abstinence-only and marriage-promotion programs to accomplish these goals. And now, in a move advertised as a way to keep the jobless happy, the president has eliminated a way for struggling families with employed parents to have children without descending into poverty.

There is much to be confused about here. Does this mean that poor Americans ensconced in the welfare-to-work program, who are being offered government money to get married, are not supposed to have children? What if they get pregnant? Does it mean that by having children they forfeit their right to care for them for the first few months of their lives?

Sadly, the Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Rule has never been used by states to compensate workers who take family leave. Only California offers paid leave, and the compensation doesn't come from unemployment insurance reserves. But efforts to use the rule were under consideration in as many as 16 states when its repeal was announced, and its very existence fostered hope that the consideration of family values initiated by the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows unpaid leave for new parents, would be extended to struggling mothers and fathers. As humane as the offer of unpaid leave may be, it is still only viable for couples with financial reserves.

Given that state unemployment insurance reserves were not in fact being tapped to pay for family leave, it becomes a symbolic act to eliminate the rule. As to what is being symbolized -- it depends on whom you ask. According to Emily Stover DeRocco, assistant labor secretary for employment and training, getting rid of the rule "removes the impetus for individuals, be they members of the public or legislators, to encourage the use of the trust fund specifically for this purpose." In other words, the idea of states' rights has its appeal, but in reality, the states simply can't be trusted to do the right thing with unemployment insurance funding. And the public, apparently, becomes a looting horde of greedy prospective parents when it comes to money for the jobless.

For American business groups, the repeal is an early Christmas present, one more gesture that solidifies the warm bond between Bush and the United States Chamber of Commerce. Business folks hated the rule, believing it to be an unfair addition to their tax burden, and had fought it for three years. Here, of course, there is no room for confusion in interpreting the move: These dismal days, corporate desire trumps public need with pathetic consistency where federal funding is concerned.

Finally, there is symbolism in the repeal for American workers, and, in particular, working parents. The symbol, according to unions, family rights advocates, and women's and fathers' groups, is both familiar and profane: middle finger stiffly extended. And it is a strange and insulting message: We must protect funds for the unemployed by withdrawing the means for struggling working parents to stay in the workplace while raising a family. Best to lose your job and run a tab at the local clinic, it seems.

But where are the pro-lifers on this one? After all, it would not be hard to interpret this move as a pro-abortion policy. Pro-choice activists, as murderous as they are alleged to be by their opponents, are in favor of choice, not the economic strong-arming of individuals into not having children. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League has not yet proposed a national statute that would mandate financial hardship for those who do not choose to be childless. Strangely, pro-life Republicans have been silent on the move, and so have ardent defenders of states' rights.

This development, like so many in the past months, will likely slip under the radar, never to elicit the outrage, much less debate, of the Americans directly affected by it -- or anyone else. News stories about it were tiny; none suggested that the repeal of the Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Rule is another blow in a beating that may snuff out any chance of progressive, or even humane, measures to promote family, women's, parents', children's or workers' rights. Heck, it doesn't even do much for the "rights of the unborn," a debatable concept at the heart of some of Bush's new federal health policies.

For those who care -- for anyone who grew fond of the Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Rule and what it might have promised -- I hereby mark its passing. Born in June 2000, executed this week, it was a missed opportunity for compassion -- and family values -- to be enshrined in law. It was a lost chance for parents who struggled out of the welfare system to have families, bonding time, and income.

But I hesitate to suggest that the rule rest in peace. Instead, it is my fervent hope that it will be revived. And in this regard, I am not unlike George Bush, a man with fundamental religious tendencies. I believe in miracles.

Salon? Salon? Didn't that used to be an Internet e-zine?
Yes, I've got it now. It is a corporation which sucks liberal (read: foolish) money into a black whole where it is never heard from again. It is a stock that gives penny stocks a bad name. It is a roost for liberal chickens who don't have a place to come home to -- until the blood-letting ends and it closes.
Did I miss anything?

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest UPI column, "Enrons Are Everywhere"

Click for latest book, "to Restore Trust in America"

Jay Leno has humorously asked on his show if we should really be encouraging such folks to be fruitful and multiply... (especially given our record high $6.3 trillion dollar national debt). As Charles Darwin said, anatomy is destiny.

Jennifer obviously thinks that people have a right to produce children they can't support, and to have the goobermint force OTHERS to pay while the non-supporters retain all the rights of parents.

Disgusting.

Notice how she starts with the assumption that anyone should be able to raise as many children as they want regardless of their financial wherewithal? My wife just gave birth to our first child, and we've been married for six years. Know why we waited? We couldn't afford to have children.

And that's as it should be. If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids. Maybe you should consider using birth control, or (gasp) abstinence! Just because President Bush doesn't support welfare for anyone who wants kids whenever it's convenient does NOT mean that he supports abortion. Maybe he supports personal responsibility and accountability.

Since Ms. Sweeney is so eager to discuss her constitutional rights, maybe someone should point out to her that the Constitution guarantees a right to the 'pursuit' of happiness - not happiness itself. If you get pregnant at 15 or while you're making $6/hr, your life's probably going to be pretty tough. And that's ok with me.

Ahh, the dissonance rises! The national exposure debates are about to open up, revealing the despotic democrat party's long-running defense of the infensible. The noise level will continue to rise as the democrat operatives and serial killing supporters seek to turn off the few attentive voters. partial birth abortion is the stinking albatross around the democrat collective necks. I look forward to fanning the breeze over the future weeks.

How is it that we live in the wealthiest country in the world--the wealthiest country the world has ever seen, in fact, and so many young married couples cannot afford to have children? How is it that our parents managed? My parents had five children in seven years and they somehow managed. They didn't even own a home or two cars when they started having children either. Imagine that.

One answer may be that the concentration of wealth has become increasingly concentrated within the wealthiest 1% of our population, and they've kept the USA from banning soft money campaign contributions that were implemented over half a decade ago even in countries like Mexico. The top 1%'s wealth abounds, but it's deceptive to think that most others share in such wealth just because their hording society's currency has boosted their own holdings. When saying that, I do NOT advocate anything even remotely resembling socialism. But paying down the $6.3 trillion dollar national debt, for example, seems like a higher priority than cow-towing to the exceedingly wealthy at every turn. They consider everyone else to be peasants and rabble for the most part, and covet our envy. It's their right to do so, but it's our right to democratically further our own political agendas too.

Food for thought...

There is an element of envy in our equation, however, that drives people to believe so many 'things' are a necessity now. Perhaps our dependence upon these 'things' that build the wealth for a few cause the many to chase phantom eaze?

Jennifer Foote Sweeney apparently is one of these twits (and boy am I glad I spelled that correctly) who thinks having three names makes her an (drum-roll please) "intellectual".

For some reason, I can just picture ol' Jenny-poo sitting around with her small circle of friends, spewing forth her dimwitted-drivel while falling madly in love with the sound of her own voice. Like most smug idiots do.

Oh, and by the way Jen...Here's a copy of the U. S. Constitution. I've read it again and again and still can't find that "Women's Right to Abortion" amendment. Maybe you can find it and get back to me....

P.S. How's Salon's stock doing these days????

Hold on a second. The question of whether I can afford something is relative - it depends on what standard of living I want to maintain. Our parents managed to survive while having boatloads of kids because they settled for less comfortable lives than most people today are willing to.

We did have a house and two cars before we had a kid - and our decision to wait to have a child is a big part of why we could afford all that stuff. So if you want kids early, have 'em. Just don't complain about your lack of material possessions, and don't you dare suggest that I owe you some of mine.

Our parents managed to survive while having boatloads of kids because they settled for less comfortable lives than most people today are willing to.

And it's funny how today we are such a happier, healthier lot of people, isn't it?

The poor will always be with us, HLPfiver. To infer that because one is poor, one is not deserving of children--some here even argue irresponsible if not contracepting--is reprehensible. What's more, it's completely muddleheaded. Encouraging the disadvantaged to marry and have children is probably the best hope we have of seeing them become responsible, self-sufficient citizens.

We ARE a healthier lot of people. You think we're in such bad shape because we pay more attention to our discomforts. But they were always there. The only reason those technological and medical breakthroughs haven't made us happier as a society is because of entitlement programs that have made most Americans think they deserve some kind of handout.

And I NEVER said the poor weren't deserving of children. Freedom is about choices; if you want children, you can have them. What I complained about was the implication that poor people's children are my responsibility.

"Encouraging the disadvantaged to marry and have children is probably the best hope we have of seeing them become responsible, self-sufficient citizens."

And I don't know where you get this: If you're arguing that married parents are better than unmarried parents, I agree. If you're arguing (as it seems you are) that the miracle of parenthood turns people into caring, responsible people, I must suggest that you're the one being muddleheaded.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.