Sister Wives in NYTimes (Kody to challenge law?)

[pomology]

Bigamy is misogyny in action. He has four wives that he lords over, they have put aside their feelings of loneliness and jealousy so he can have as many wives as it takes to hold up his saggy ego. In my opinion (before I get jumped on) he's a big phony who really isn't so sweet to his wives. There are so few female bigamists as to not even be noticeable, so obviously it's men who feel that they are entitled to ask women to put aside their needs and the fact that they deserve to put #1 in a man's life. This douche will probably argue that he "loves" women. But the fact is that he's getting his jollies as well as a pile of money out of exploiting them and his children. The mistreatment of women is quite often hidden behind supposed "nice guys".

And considering he was "disgusted" by the idea of Meri with another husband, shows that for him polygamy is a one-sided game. It's okay for a man, but not for a woman in his opinion. And that's pretty misogynistic.

[Buzzard]

Ok, putting on attorney hat here...

Utah defines Bigamy as:

§ 76-7-101. Bigamy -- Defense

(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.

(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

Nevada defines bigamy as:

201.160. Bigamy: Definition; penalty.

1. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive.

2. If a married person marries any other person while the former husband or wife is alive, the person so offending is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

3. It is not necessary to prove either of the marriages by the register and certificate thereof, or other record evidence, but those marriages may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when the second marriage has taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after the second marriage constitutes the commission of the crime of bigamy.

4. This section does not extend:

(a) To a person whose husband or wife has been continually absent from that person for the space of 5 years before the second marriage, if he or she did not know the husband or wife to be living within that time.

(b) To a person who is, at the time of the second marriage, divorced by lawful authority from the bonds of the former marriage, or to a person where the former marriage has been by lawful authority declared void.

They moved to Nevada because the "cohabitation" portion is not present in the statute. They may still run afoul of the law, but it is not as cut and dry as it is in Nevada. I should note that the Nevada statute has been upheld in MANY cases. Most recently in State v. Holm, 2006 UT 31, 137 P.3d 726 where it was held that the state has a legitimate interest in criminalizing unlicensed marriages. This is a STRONG state's rights argument and in light of Lawrence v. Texas I just dont see this going anywhere.

Its publicity, pure and simple. The bottom line is that the statute is on the books to go after people who are truly harming women and children. They "investigated" the browns and that went nowhere. Simply leaving the state didnt make them safe as the action was committed within Nevada and Nevada can easily go get them if they chose to do so. They wont because all adults are consenting and the children seem to be safe. There was no need to flee their homes. They actually would have been better off staying to challenge the law...

Under Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) an action against county clerk for failure to issue a marriage license for a polygamous marriage, challenging the constitutionality of the criminal prohibition of polygamy, plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to show a credible threat of prosecution under this section and their claimed fear of prosecution was not traceable to the defendant, as the county clerk has no power to enforce this section.

The browns should march right up and apply for such a license, then allow the "investigation" to be opened by the authorities. They then would gain standing to challenge the law, which would then go nowhere.

Publicity Publicity Publicity... all there is to it. Thanks for bogging down our courts even more douchbag!

Lawyer hat off.

[Buzzard]

Adding, now that they have 3 houses its much more difficult to prove the "cohabitation" portion of the statute. Dumbass may not be as dumb as he seems.

[Feberin]

Niether do I. If someone, or a couple, can support their children from the money they get from disability, more power to them. However, having children should be the privilege of only those who can afford to care for them. If you cannot care for yourself or the children you currently have without financial assistance from welfare or foodstamps, etc- you cannot afford to have a(nother) child.

I agree! Right now my husband's job isn't stable so we're waiting to have a second child. And I still have a job and we have savings if he looses his job. Recently a friend on food stamps who has a son the same age as mine and is pregnant again said that she can't wait until after the baby to start trying for number 3. Must be nice to expand your family with no consideration about supporting those kids. I sometimes am just amazed a people's irresponsibility.

[starfish]

I don't like these polygamous communities/cults for many reasons. I think it's reprehensible that the old guys drive out the young men/teenage boys (they cast them out for made-up reasons) so that the old geezers get to marry the young women. The young guys end up on the streets.

Polygamy may seem like harmless fun, but I think it's destructive within the context of the cult lifestyle.

I'd like to see just one presidential candidate talk about polygamist cults alongside gay marriage. If you are going to be against gay marriage, it seems like you should have polygamy in your sights as well. They will never do it, b/c it angers the Mormon political action groups. Just my two cents worth.

[tehfanglyfish]

I must say that I'd much rather my tax dollars go to support every last one of the supposed "welfare queens" out there than pay to prop the military industrial complex or the greed-driven banking industry. And if we're going to drug test people who receive welfare, I think it's only fair that all other people whose financial standing is government supported should also be tested. For example, elected officials should have to regularly submit to random pee-tests, as well as anyone who receives farm subsidies, government grants, tax credits, etc. Our society sings the praises of individuals who make their money by exploiting others for economic gain (think sweatshops, layoffs, outsourcing, etc.), but if a poor woman wants to have a damn baby, it seems that she's worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Osama bin Ladin combined.

As for the suggestion for long term birth control, what do those of you who support this propose we do for women whose bodies can't handle the hormones? I suppose we could just sterilize them without their consent. Oh wait, we tried that in the twentieth century. Now states like North Carolina are dealing with the consequences of their eugenics programs.

Yes, there are a lot of poor people who do irresponsible things. But the economic system that we live in is designed to create poor people. Everyone can't be at the top (or even in the middle) and the system still function. Without cheap labor, either at home or abroad, consumer goods and services would cost a lot more. Someone has to wash your dishes when you eat out, scan your groceries, haul off your garbage, and clean the assorted public toilets you piss in each day. Life is short and death is forever, so I really can't begrudge someone who is on assistance (whether they're trying to find work, are unable to work, or just don't want to work) but still chooses to have a family. This isn't something that I would choose to do, but whatever. For some people, family is all that they've got. It's the only thing that gives them a source of pride and security, or makes life worth living.

Anyway, we all get welfare of some sort, whether we like to admit it or not. (And if you don't want to receive it, then don't call the police, stay off the roads, avoid the public libraries, don't send your kids to teh ebul government schools, or eat inexpensive foods full of government-subsidized corn.)

Being poor is not a crime, no matter how much the priests of capitalism might say otherwise. (And for the record, I work three jobs and have no kids. I'm fully willing to admit, though, that my quality of life is 1000x better because local, state, and federal governments spend more money on services that I need/enjoy than I could ever pay in taxes.)

Edit for typo - there are probably others. I shouldn't type angry.

[Guest Anonymous]

tehfanglyfish got it all right.

I have to add though, the forced long term birth control is the most horrifying thing I have read in this thread. I don't see how it is all that different than outlawing abortion. Enough with trying to control my uterus.

[daharyn]

I must say that I'd much rather my tax dollars go to support every last one of the supposed "welfare queens" out there than pay to prop the military industrial complex or the greed-driven banking industry. And if we're going to drug test people who receive welfare, I think it's only fair that all other people whose financial standing is government supported should also be tested. For example, elected officials should have to regularly submit to random pee-tests, as well as anyone who receives farm subsidies, government grants, tax credits, etc. Our society sings the praises of individuals who make their money by exploiting others for economic gain (think sweatshops, layoffs, outsourcing, etc.), but if a poor woman wants to have a damn baby, it seems that she's worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Osama bin Ladin combined.

tehfanglyfish speaks for me, too! Forcing birth control on people because of their poverty isn't actually going to eradicate poverty. Nor will it reduce the so-called "drain" on the state's resources. The "welfare state" is what will lift people out of poverty long-term. It's a GOOD thing. Government is supposed to be a safety net. Why the heck else do we need it?!

(I am looking for work abroad, with plans to immigrate. Because while I am self-reliant and can take care of myself, I want to live in a place that's decided it's important to help the less fortunate.)

[slh12280]

Kody has his patriarchal views. When he was on a date with Meri, she asked him what he would think of her being with other men and he was outraged at the idea. He did say that he believed his daughters should stay at home until marriage.

[jaelh]

tehfanglyfish - +3

Esp this bit:

Yes, there are a lot of poor people who do irresponsible things. But the economic system that we live in is designed to create poor people. Everyone can't be at the top (or even in the middle) and the system still function. Without cheap labor, either at home or abroad, consumer goods and services would cost a lot more. Someone has to wash your dishes when you eat out, scan your groceries, haul off your garbage, and clean the assorted public toilets you piss in each day. Life is short and death is forever, so I really can't begrudge someone who is on assistance (whether they're trying to find work, are unable to work, or just don't want to work) but still chooses to have a family.

I think it's important to note that welfare recipients =/= highly dysfunctional. There are some highly dysfunctional welfare recipients, but there are many, many people who'd make wonderful parents who need economic support.

And in the end, an economically deprived childhood does not mean a childhood without love; without joy; without opportunities to learn, to grow, to be happy. One can come up poor and end up a much more stable, kind, honest human being than a rich kid raised without love. And if paying Mama (or the father) so she's at home with baby helps get there, how can that be a bad thing?! Is it better that she's sent out to work for minimum wage and the child misses out?

If poverty is the only obstacle, and society can afford to assist you - why is that problematic to use that assistance?

DamnPrecious- sounds like Mary and those sharing the apartment block are behaving entirely rationally. Would you voluntarily up your rent, or take on work if you were getting 20% of the benefit of working the hours? (ie once benefits were removed). The system is problematic in that it doesn't create $ incentives to work, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't get support. I'm not so sure that its entirely a moral question.

[valsa]

tehfanglyfish got it all right.

I have to add though, the forced long term birth control is the most horrifying thing I have read in this thread. I don't see how it is all that different than outlawing abortion. Enough with trying to control my uterus.

It's not "forced birth control", it's "public assistance with strings attached", which comes with the territory. There are certain hoops you have to jump through to qualify for public assistance. While I'm not in favor of requiring long-term birth control, I wouldn't have a problem with requiring either birth control be used or, if that's against someone's beliefs or health (for instance, I can't use the pill), then at least have them sign some sort of contract stating that they understand having a child while on assistance is against the rules (resulting in either benefits that don't increase or loss of benefits or something)

If you're getting money from the government, it does require some hoop-jumping. Don't like it? I'm pretty sure no one is going to put a gun to your head and force you to take the money.

[valsa]

For some people, family is all that they've got. It's the only thing that gives them a source of pride and security, or makes life worth living.

Sorry to say it but- tough shit. No one has the right to a child and no one should have the right to make someone else foot the bill for raising their child. It that were acceptable, the government would fully cover the cost of fertility treatments and newborn adoption for infertile couples.

[jaelh]

Sorry to say it but- tough shit. No one has the right to a child and no one should have the right to make someone else foot the bill for raising their child. It that were acceptable, the government would fully cover the cost of fertility treatments and newborn adoption for infertile couples.

Sure... and that same child shouldn't ever have to pay tax to cover your medicare in old age.

Children can grow up to *become* net contributors. Money expended on their childhood increases the rate at which they are likely to contribute - a better education, better food, adequate health care.. All of these things are investments in the tax base of the next generation.

Don't spend it early on, create dysfunctional adults, result: higher overall cost to society.

[Purple]

tehfanglyfish - +3

Esp this bit:

I think it's important to note that welfare recipients =/= highly dysfunctional. There are some highly dysfunctional welfare recipients, but there are many, many people who'd make wonderful parents who need economic support.

And in the end, an economically deprived childhood does not mean a childhood without love; without joy; without opportunities to learn, to grow, to be happy. One can come up poor and end up a much more stable, kind, honest human being than a rich kid raised without love. And if paying Mama (or the father) so she's at home with baby helps get there, how can that be a bad thing?! Is it better that she's sent out to work for minimum wage and the child misses out?

If poverty is the only obstacle, and society can afford to assist you - why is that problematic to use that assistance?

DamnPrecious- sounds like Mary and those sharing the apartment block are behaving entirely rationally. Would you voluntarily up your rent, or take on work if you were getting 20% of the benefit of working the hours? (ie once benefits were removed). The system is problematic in that it doesn't create $ incentives to work, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't get support. I'm not so sure that its entirely a moral question.

I don't see how paying someone to stay home with a baby they can't afford is going to help them get out of poverty. I get that they'd rather be home with the baby than working - most people who have jobs would, all else being equal, rather do something else all day. However, I don't buy into the fundie BS that 'day care is evil and will scar your child for life', and frankly, I'm amazed to read it on a board like this.

It's rare to see good parenting come out of that group, for the very simple reason that those who have the patience, responsibility, self-discipline and other character traits necessary for being a good parent are unlikely to do something so self-evidently irresponsible and selfish. Of all the people I personally know who've purposely had a child while on government assistance, literally all of them are bad parents - their self-centeredness and inability to plan their way out of a paper bag affects not just their finances, but every aspect of their parenting. There may be exceptions to this, but they are just that: exceptions, not the norm.

Mary and her friends may be behaving rationally, from a completely amoral standpoint, but the fact that they see no problem with choosing to effectively leach off the rest of society speaks volumes about their sense of right and wrong, and suggests that they aren't exactly Parent of the Year material. If I don't have the right to control their bodies by forcing them to not have children, why do they have the right to control my money by forcing me to pay for their chosen life of leisure?

Not all children grow up to become net contributors, and even if they all did, that wouldn't change the fact that the cost of raising them should be borne by their parents whenever possible. If someone wants to do the SAHM thing, that's her prerogative, but it's also her responsibility to find a husband who is able and willing to foot the bill for it. If that doesn't work out, then it's her responsibility as an able-bodied adult to step up and pay for her own kid.

[valsa]

Sure... and that same child shouldn't ever have to pay tax to cover your medicare in old age.

Children can grow up to *become* net contributors. Money expended on their childhood increases the rate at which they are likely to contribute - a better education, better food, adequate health care.. All of these things are investments in the tax base of the next generation.

Don't spend it early on, create dysfunctional adults, result: higher overall cost to society.

None of that has anything to do with the fact people shouldn't have kids they can't afford. If they didn't, public money wouldn't have to be spent just to provide them and their children with the minimum standard of living to survive- it could be spent to create more of those net contributors. Right now, things like food stamps don't keep kids healthy, they just keep them alive. Imagine, if everyone didn't have kids unless they could afford to feed them and put a roof over their head, the money the government spends right now just buying basic groceries and places to live for people could instead be spent on providing healthy food, nutrition education, and making homes and neighborhoods better and safer.

If you want to spend to create better kids, start by providing an incentive for not having children when you're already in a hole. That way, kids won't be born with strikes already against them.

[demgirl]

I am with tehfanglyfish... but here's what I want to know. For those of you who would cut off welfare benefits to the mother if she had another child, how would you guarantee that the child had enough food, shelter and other needs met? Because kids who grow up impoverished, homeless, and hungry tend to have outcomes as adults that cost society far more than a monthly check for $400.00. You take away welfare, you're not just punishing the mother, you are also punishing the child.

On a different note, I find the willingness to attribute negative personal characteristics to people on welfare based off of anecdotal evidence highly disturbing. Seriously, being on welfare = being bad parent? Stereotyping alive and well, I see.

Finally, "welfare queens". There are few stereotypical ways of describing a group I find as disgusting as this one. Way to degrade every person who ever had to ask for help from the state to feed, clothe and house their children. It's like, okay, we'll give you the money so you don't starve, but as part of the deal, we get to degrade you, mock you, comment on all aspects of your life and make you feel ashamed of needing help.

Finally, it's all well and good to say that people shouldn't have children they can't afford -- but how do you prevent it without forced birth control and sterilizations? Is that really a path we want to walk down? Plus, having kids while you are financially stable is no guarantee that the parents will be financially stable down the road. How much money should you have to have saved before you have children? How many liquitable assets? Who makes that decision?

[valsa]

Demgirl, you'll notice I posted earlier that there's no real way to enforce any of this.

Personally, I would like to see benefits freeze for people who are already on assistance, who have another child. As someone mentioned before, it's kinda stupid to give people more money for having another child they cannot afford. That's about as far as I'd be willing to have it go (other than having drug testing being legal, because that's a pet peeve of mine)

Also, I personally think it's dumb for people to try and pull the whole "how much should you have to have saved?" line. Thus far, no one I've seen here has bashed people for going on assistance or falling on hard times. All of our discussion has been limited to people who dig themselves in deeper and have a child while already on assistance. I also don't see why it's such a crime to think people should at least have to means to feed, clothe, and shelter a child before starting to have one. That's not calling someone's bank account or asset status into question- it's makiing sure they can keep a kid alive.

[jaelh]

It's rare to see good parenting come out of that group, for the very simple reason that those who have the patience, responsibility, self-discipline and other character traits necessary for being a good parent are unlikely to do something so self-evidently irresponsible and selfish.

Given the financal straights the US is in - you're telling me any person that has a child while on welfare lacks patience, responsibility, self discipline and other necessary character traits for parenthood?

Really?

You're talking about particular *sub-group* of those on welfare, not welfare receipents generally.

[3 is enough]

It's not "forced birth control", it's "public assistance with strings attached", which comes with the territory. There are certain hoops you have to jump through to qualify for public assistance. While I'm not in favor of requiring long-term birth control, I wouldn't have a problem with requiring either birth control be used or, if that's against someone's beliefs or health (for instance, I can't use the pill), then at least have them sign some sort of contract stating that they understand having a child while on assistance is against the rules (resulting in either benefits that don't increase or loss of benefits or something)

Yes, requiring people to go on birth control in order to get assistance IS extreme, and I can understand how the thought of it could be horrific. However, at the very least, there should be no increase in benefits. Conversely, there could be some sort of bonus payment- a lump sum, once a year, if there are no additional children. That might discourage recipients from having extra kids that strain the system, while avoiding the moral dilemma of requiring birth control.

[Rosa]

Are we going to make middle-class people who get government benefits take the depo, too? End the child tax exemption and the earned income credit, end mortgage interest deductions, end the student loan programs? No makin' babies til you pay off your loans!

How about students at public colleges who have babies, do we take away the part of the college subsidy that covers their education? They're living on the government teat after all. Soldiers, government contractors, public employees? They'd be cheaper if not for those leech families they're supporting. For that matter, we're paying the insurance on those few members of Congress young enough to have kids at home, lets stop them from makin' babies. I don't want my tax dollars going to any little Weiner babies if he sucks up enough to his wife that she takes him back.

[jaelh]

Demgirl, you'll notice I posted earlier that there's no real way to enforce any of this.

Personally, I would like to see benefits freeze for people who are already on assistance, who have another child. As someone mentioned before, it's kinda stupid to give people more money for having another child they cannot afford. That's about as far as I'd be willing to have it go (other than having drug testing being legal, because that's a pet peeve of mine)

Also, I personally think it's dumb for people to try and pull the whole "how much should you have to have saved?" line. Thus far, no one I've seen here has bashed people for going on assistance or falling on hard times. All of our discussion has been limited to people who dig themselves in deeper and have a child while already on assistance. I also don't see why it's such a crime to think people should at least have to means to feed, clothe, and shelter a child before starting to have one. That's not calling someone's bank account or asset status into question- it's makiing sure they can keep a kid alive.

If someone was all of a sudden find themselves unemployed, on welfare and Not likely to get another job any time soon in your rural community/the current economic climate... When would be a *better* time to have a child? When they get a job and aren't at home, with the time to raise the child?

Valsa - why not stop people without the emotional capactiy to teach their child to love from parenting? What about those that are working so hard they don't have time to invest in their child? Or those without the social skills to adequately raise a functional child? These are all at least as significant a deficit as income, surely...

But $ is an easy target. Yet of all the things that make a good parent, money is not that high on the list. If we can assist people, but for money, would be exemplary parents - why on earth would anyone object to doing so? If you're going to be out of the workforce for 5 years with a young child, why not have another immediately? It makes more structural sense than delaying - two children at school in 6 years makes it easier to get a job than being out of the workforce 10 years...

Lastly on the "keeping alive" point - seriously? You exaggerate. You've seen the astronomical poverty that people around the world live in, and remain alive? You're talking about a certain standard of living, not life and death.

[Purple]

I am with tehfanglyfish... but here's what I want to know. For those of you who would cut off welfare benefits to the mother if she had another child, how would you guarantee that the child had enough food, shelter and other needs met? Because kids who grow up impoverished, homeless, and hungry tend to have outcomes as adults that cost society far more than a monthly check for $400.00. You take away welfare, you're not just punishing the mother, you are also punishing the child.

You're right. That's why linking welfare eligibility to the use of birth control is the most sensible policy.

On a different note, I find the willingness to attribute negative personal characteristics to people on welfare based off of anecdotal evidence highly disturbing. Seriously, being on welfare = being bad parent? Stereotyping alive and well, I see.

Babies are not a necessity for survival. Therefore, it's not reasonable to say "I want a baby, and society owes it to me to pay for it." The same is true regarding nice houses, new cars, vacations, dinners at nice restaurants, and any number of other things. I didn't say all parents on welfare are bad parents - I said that people on welfare who purposely have a child they can't feed are bad parents. Anyone who thinks it's perfectly fine to take money from other people (which leaves less in the system for those truly in need) so that they can have something they want but don't need (be it a baby, a new car, or a vacation) is a horrible human being who is beneath contempt.

Finally, "welfare queens". There are few stereotypical ways of describing a group I find as disgusting as this one. Way to degrade every person who ever had to ask for help from the state to feed, clothe and house their children. It's like, okay, we'll give you the money so you don't starve, but as part of the deal, we get to degrade you, mock you, comment on all aspects of your life and make you feel ashamed of needing help.

No one's degrading anyone other than those who purposely have children they know they can't support. Can you give me one good reason why anyone would purposely have a baby while on welfare, other than "Because I want a baby"? You can't, because there isn't one. As Valsa already put it - tough shit. You can't always get what you want. Those who think they're entitled to everything they want at taxpayers' expense deserve to be degraded. I haven't seen anyone say anything negative about those who don't have that mentality.

Finally, it's all well and good to say that people shouldn't have children they can't afford -- but how do you prevent it without forced birth control and sterilizations? Is that really a path we want to walk down? Plus, having kids while you are financially stable is no guarantee that the parents will be financially stable down the road. How much money should you have to have saved before you have children? How many liquitable assets? Who makes that decision?

Like I said, linking birth control to welfare eligibility would solve a large part of the problem. It always amuses me that liberals have the biggest problem with this - they're the ones who claim to care so much about the poor, but if they truly cared about women on welfare, they'd want to enable them to actually do something with their lives, rather than effectively paying them to be baby factories.

Regarding finances, the only determination the government has the jurisdiction to make is whether or not someone is currently on welfare or similar benefits. While it's true that a financially stable family can't know for sure that their situation will remain the same, a family on welfare knows perfectly well that they can't currently support a new baby. The two are not equivalent.

[valsa]

If someone was all of a sudden find themselves unemployed, on welfare and Not likely to get another job any time soon in your rural community/the current economic climate... When would be a *better* time to have a child? When they get a job and aren't at home, with the time to raise the child?

Valsa - why not stop people without the emotional capactiy to teach their child to love from parenting? What about those that are working so hard they don't have time to invest in their child? Or those without the social skills to adequately raise a functional child? These are all at least as significant a deficit as income, surely...

But $ is an easy target. Yet of all the things that make a good parent, money is not that high on the list. If we can assist people, but for money, would be exemplary parents - why on earth would anyone object to doing so? If you're going to be out of the workforce for 5 years with a young child, why not have another immediately? It makes more structural sense than delaying - two children at school in 6 years makes it easier to get a job than being out of the workforce 10 years...

Lastly on the "keeping alive" point - seriously? You exaggerate. You've seen the astronomical poverty that people around the world live in, and remain alive? You're talking about a certain standard of living, not life and death.

Last time I checked, people weren't getting social skills and time from the government. Also, even if someone were going to be an exemplary parent- they're not entitled to a kid, nor are they entitled to be paid by the government to stay home with a child (especially not for five years)

And yes, I'm talking about staying alive. Last time I checked, food costs money and it's also required for living. As is, in most climates, housing and utilities. If you think that's an exaggeration, try talking to some of the kids in this country who were put into foster care for neglect. I'm sure they think food and shelter are kind of a big deal.

[bicyclecat]

I am with tehfanglyfish... but here's what I want to know. For those of you who would cut off welfare benefits to the mother if she had another child, how would you guarantee that the child had enough food, shelter and other needs met? Because kids who grow up impoverished, homeless, and hungry tend to have outcomes as adults that cost society far more than a monthly check for $400.00. You take away welfare, you're not just punishing the mother, you are also punishing the child.

On a different note, I find the willingness to attribute negative personal characteristics to people on welfare based off of anecdotal evidence highly disturbing. Seriously, being on welfare = being bad parent? Stereotyping alive and well, I see.

Finally, "welfare queens". There are few stereotypical ways of describing a group I find as disgusting as this one. Way to degrade every person who ever had to ask for help from the state to feed, clothe and house their children. It's like, okay, we'll give you the money so you don't starve, but as part of the deal, we get to degrade you, mock you, comment on all aspects of your life and make you feel ashamed of needing help.

Finally, it's all well and good to say that people shouldn't have children they can't afford -- but how do you prevent it without forced birth control and sterilizations? Is that really a path we want to walk down? Plus, having kids while you are financially stable is no guarantee that the parents will be financially stable down the road. How much money should you have to have saved before you have children? How many liquitable assets? Who makes that decision?

See, this is the hard part. There's no real way to enforce this, without either forced birth control or hurting the children that are the most in need of help. It's a catch 22, with no real solution. While I'm completely in favor of having a system to assist people when times are tough, I acknowledge sadly that there are people abusing this system. Most people don't want to be on welfare, but some have chosen it as their permanent occupation and I have a problem with that.

Currently, there are a great deal of single men and women who are in desperate need of help and are unable to get the resources they need, because they're reserved for families with children. As a person with no children, I only qualify for a small amount of food stamps, with no access to TANF or medicaid. While I agree with supporting children first, we don't need to be creating more children that need help and further reduce benefits to those who haven't procreated.

When I personally fell on hard times, after being laid off from a contracting position and didn't have access to unemployment benefits, there wasn't much help for me, because I didn't have children and the system is already horribly strained. I was EXTREMELY lucky that I was able to pull myself out of it quickly, but a lot of people don't have that good fortune. They need help too.

I do believe that government assistance needs to have some strings attached and maybe there does need to be some responsibility enforced. While I'd be completely sympathetic to a woman who has an accidental pregnancy while on assistance, I'm not sympathetic to a woman who tries to get pregnant repeatedly, knowing that she'll be able to count on an increase in assistance. Yes, I've known a woman who did just that. Her excuse for her 5th and final child was that she wanted a nicer apartment. I couldn't make this up if I tried.

There comes a point where enough is enough and the enabling needs to stop.

[valsa]

Also, because I believe in full disclosure- I'm a full-time student who gets food stamps. You'll notice how I am practicing what I preach by not getting pregnant while on assistance.