The US town that pays every pregnant woman $1,500: 'We're not OK with our babies being born into poverty'

[Jilly_in_VA]

When Angela Sintery first learned about Rx Kids, a program for new mothers in her home town of Flint, Michigan, she thought someone must be trying to scam her.

“I had some teacher friends that kept sending me links saying: ‘You need to apply for this. It’s a brand-new program. We think you qualify,’” Sintery said. But it seemed too good to be true.

The program promised $1,500 for all expectant mothers during pregnancy and $500 per month for the first year of their infant’s life. All Sintery had to do was upload a copy of her ultrasound and ID. Pregnant with her second child 19 years after she’d had her first, Sintery needed all new baby supplies. And as a preschool teacher, she’d be grateful for any help she could get paying for all of it.

It wasn’t too good to be true. Researchers at Michigan State University had just launched the United States’s first community-wide, unconditional cash transfer program for new families, and Sintery – who gave birth to her daughter Jolene Love in May 2024 – qualified.

“It took so much stress away,” said Sintery. “I used that money to buy my car seat, to buy her bassinet and her crib.” She was also able to take the first 14 weeks of her daughter’s life off from work, and afford diapers and wipes in the months to come. The extra money helped Sintery “step back and enjoy my pregnancy”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/15/rx-kids-flint-michigan-pregnancy

What a fantastic idea!

[Diamond_Dog]

1. Yes, it's a great idea.

You’ll never get the Republican faction on board 100%, though.

Who was it, some Repuke lawmaker who said, in regard to monetary subsidies for low-income folks, “They’ll just use it to buy drugs”?

[OLDMDDEM]

2. Fantastic idea.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. All places that provide Basic Income and housing have better health outcomes and lower government costs. . . . nt

[Totally Tunsie]

4. OK - I "get" that $7,500 is a nice bonus if one is an expectant mom.

And - yes - it's a nice program.

HOWEVER, does anyone really believe that $7,500 is going to save a baby from poverty? Pediatrician Mona Hanna is being quite short-sighted if she thinks that once the formula is ingested, the diapers are discarded, and the crib is outgrown, the poverty has been solved. You don't "prescribe away poverty” with $7,500. It helps, but it solves nothing IMO.

[Jilly_in_VA]

5. Son't be such a Debbie Downer

It's a START, FFS!

[Totally Tunsie]

6. It's a start for the first year, and then they're right back where they started

unless there are other many programs to continue to lift them from then on. What about daycare expenses? What about school lunches and clothing? What about transportation?

It's a "start", but it doesn't "prescribe away poverty".

Not being a "Debbie Downer"...just realistic and practical.

[Jilly_in_VA]

7. You don't know that

And you need to look at the other comments, including the ones about the other countries where this isw done. And yes you are.

[Torchlight]

9. I don't think Dr. Hanna expects this to solve poverty, only assist with post-natal care

And it seems to be doing it rather well.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. .

HOWEVER, does anyone really believe that $7,500 is going to save a baby from poverty?

Poverty isn't an income level or certain physical markers. It's a constant grind of low-level demands that at some point you simply can't meet and then get swamped under. Adding a person to a household is hugely destabilizing, and easing the disruption has ripple effects even after the payments end. In one analysis, they found that no low-income families who participated in this program were evicted after childbirth. That's enormous.

Pediatrician Mona Hanna is being quite short-sighted if she thinks that once the formula is ingested, the diapers are discarded, and the crib is outgrown, the poverty has been solved. You don't "prescribe away poverty” with $7,500. It helps, but it solves nothing IMO.

The goal isn't to "solve" poverty. It's to ease the disruption that happens to every family after childbirth -- lost wages, childcare costs, physical demands. Because this country insists on patchwork aid for people in need rather than universal services, we do what we can. This is a large and helpful patch in the work.

[Jilly_in_VA]

11. Which was my point

and the point of the article. It doesn't SOLVE anything, it just eases the grind of that first year a bit. Uganda is doing the same thing and has found it helps new moms a great deal. The democratic socialist nations of western Europe do similar (especially Finland) with extended maternity (and paternity) leaves,
eased time off for parents of young children who are sick, etc. Not us, oh no! Just "tough it out", Americans!

[JCMach1]

8. If the right truly wants more babies in this country...