Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why Is California Penalizing Poor Women for Wanting to Be Parents? [View all]
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179242/why-california-penalizing-poor-women-wanting-be-parents
California is generally thought of as getting reproductive health policy right. In January, the state added abortion providers at a time when clinics elsewhere are fighting restrictions that would have them shut down. But when it comes to poor womens ability to choose whether and when to grow their families, California has some catching up to do. Since 2002, eight of twenty-four states with a maximum family grant, also knows as a family cap, have repealed the laws that created them, citing concerns that theyre not effective. Californiawith its progressive image and all three branches controlled by Democratsis a holdout.
The policy does what its name suggestscaps the number of people in a family who can receive cash benefits through CalWORKS, the states welfare program. If a mother already has a child when she applies for help, that child will be covered assuming her application is approved. But if she gives birth down the line, that baby is out of luck. The approximately $120 per month that child would have received if she had already existed at the time of the application is denied the family. (Thats right, just $120 a month. As Grace Meza-Betancourt, a 38-year-old mother whose family has been affected by the cap, put it when we spoke yesterday: What makes people think youre having babies just to get aid from the government?)
In the twenty years since this exclusion of additional children from CalWORKS was put in place, its had no impact on the states birth rate, according to a 2013 report from the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at Berkeley Law. Women receiving CalWORKS benefits generally have one or two children, which puts them in line with other families in the state.
State Senator Holly Mitchell is advancing the fight to repeal the policy. Today, the bill she authored, SB 899, gets its first vote of this years legislative session. Todays committee hearing is preparation for what some see as the real test. On May 1 the bill goes to the budget committee, where lawmakers will take a closer look at the price tag. If it passes, the state could expect up to a $220 million increase in CalWORKS grants in the first year after the cap is removed, according to a legislative analysis. Mitchell introduced a similar proposal last year, and that bills death was attributed to its projected costs.

210 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If you can't afford one child, it's highly irresponsible to have more children.
badtoworse
Apr 2014
#2
you're right- only the middle class plus should have children. the unfortunate poor should not.
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#35
Perhaps you should ask yourself why others have identified your nonsense as nonsense
Orrex
Apr 2014
#57
plenty of wealthy people have shitty lives too. let's force rich assholes to take BC shots also...
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#43
yes, impoverished women should shun men and be punished if "accidents" occur- awesome!
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#46
"progressive" it ain't. Thoughtful and compassionate is lacking here, big time.
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#53
Well, is it really an individual choice if the choice is a burden on the state?
alp227
Apr 2014
#189
Not angry at all, I'm laughing at this bullshit. Sorry if you read the tone wrong.
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#51
it's starting to sound that way- DUers comfortably judging poorer women for daring to get pregnant..
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#56
LOL, but we're just steps away from China's family planning with pregnant women being incarcerated
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#64
And I wanted a IUD or sterilization in my 20's and 30's but doctors refused me both- not trusting me
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#91
Well, what is the alternative way to take other than pure tongue in cheek not being recognized
TheKentuckian
Apr 2014
#149
it is a good question. you know what else sounds very r.w. like? demanding people take
leftyohiolib
Apr 2014
#18
Who is demanding people take 'personal responsibility' for their health care?
laundry_queen
Apr 2014
#28
It's highly irresponsible to set up a trust fund for a child who will screw the next generation.
rug
Apr 2014
#21
The issue is whether you were already receiving CalWORKS when you had additional children
badtoworse
Apr 2014
#106
You might have a point if the state had unlimited resources, but it doesn't.
badtoworse
Apr 2014
#136
States receive TANF money in the form of block grants from the federal government.
PotatoChip
Apr 2014
#143
The requirements seem reasonable, but we are still talking finite resources.
badtoworse
Apr 2014
#146
You can ask and educate all you want, some people will STILL have more kids than they can afford...
Hippo_Tron
Apr 2014
#179
That is the real question. Should people who cannot afford children continue to have them, or
lostincalifornia
Apr 2014
#151
what's more irresponsible, for the mom to have the child or the state to punish it?
CreekDog
Apr 2014
#157
I've already posted my views about this. It's not my problem if you're too lazy to read them.
badtoworse
Apr 2014
#161
I'm not blaming anyone. My point goes to California's policy being reasonable.
badtoworse
Apr 2014
#172
It's right there. "Because "Motherhood" is only saintly when the rich and privileged enact it".
AverageJoe90
Apr 2014
#176
"It's all over this thread, and has been from the very beginning." I'm not so convinced of that.
AverageJoe90
Apr 2014
#178
Please provide links for these criteria suggested by pediatricians and social workers
Coventina
Apr 2014
#183
It was more of a general thing(maybe it wasn't worded all that well, and I apologize).
AverageJoe90
Apr 2014
#185
You really think people born in the ghetto need to leave it before they can reproduce? WOW.
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#92
Purposely having children you cannot afford to provide for is an irresponsible action.
Throd
Apr 2014
#96
It's not an act LOL. You judge the poor as irresponsible for having babies- ergo you feel a better
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#102
I'm speaking as someone who WAS poor. Having a child at that time would have been a bad decision.
Throd
Apr 2014
#103
.... and I am sure that no misfortune or tragedy could ever take away your ability to provide
etherealtruth
Apr 2014
#95
If my circumstances change for the worse, I sure won't elect to have any more children.
Throd
Apr 2014
#98
Agreed! As someone who has been through the IVF process I can tell you or anyone
Coventina
Apr 2014
#42
Hey look, a thread full of poor shaming and right wing talking points.
ForgoTheConsequence
Apr 2014
#36
rght wingers would have no , none ,nada, zilcho, zero, dollars going to anyone
leftyohiolib
Apr 2014
#77
I think the key to the issue people are having with this is in the title
The Straight Story
Apr 2014
#38
8 children while on welfare (aka TANF) would be impossible due to time limits.
PotatoChip
Apr 2014
#122
It's not difficult here to be in a situation where adequate child care can't be found.
DebJ
Apr 2014
#141
That would certainly be more cost efficient than paying for a crack baby as well.
DebJ
Apr 2014
#115
Again look at the UK, does everyone just sit on their ass and collects a check there?
Hippo_Tron
Apr 2014
#116
That's interesting. I never saw that revision and I've been a newshound for some years now.
DebJ
Apr 2014
#126
Such useful "stories" you pass on, smearing the poor by likening them to addicts!
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#133
I'm sure you are doing wonderful work, but repeating RW memes is an odd way of supporting the poor..
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#150
I was citing a particular case, not repeating an everyone is like this so we should kill it theme.
DebJ
Apr 2014
#155
I think it was the "crack baby" comment tossed out, that made it sound so weird and RW.
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#159
"but no child should be punished simply for being born poor." I think that most people here on DU.
AverageJoe90
Apr 2014
#84
What do they do about families who have children and THEN become poor or when there is a
jwirr
Apr 2014
#81
I have seen this in neighborhoods impacted with high poverty also but the neighborhoods I saw
jwirr
Apr 2014
#140
Reaganite seems dead on to me. Your solution to raising children in poverty is less resources for
TheKentuckian
Apr 2014
#132
"Send them and their chillin to the work farm. Make sure they don't have no more"
TheKentuckian
Apr 2014
#190
Purposefully having another child while on welfare (aka TANF) would be a horrible 'investment'.
PotatoChip
Apr 2014
#127
I think that supports my point, societal meltdown and such instances are untreated side effects.
TheKentuckian
Apr 2014
#191
Massive props to everyone who had the patience to counter the right-wing bullshit on this thread
Cal Carpenter
Apr 2014
#201
On behalf of righties every, where Thanks Holly for helping the cause of making
Vietnameravet
Apr 2014
#203
Using an anti-government slogan when you are campaigning FOR government assistance...
redgreenandblue
Apr 2014
#205