Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 18:47:16 EDT
From: Carl Reimann <ST02400@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.kids,alt.kids-talk,alt.parents-teens,misc.education
Subject: Re: Minors right of access to contraceptives?

I enjoyed your summary of the key arguments on both sides of the issue
of making contraceptives available to teenagers. I shall brief you on
a related, currently-breaking topic in Wisconsin. Some years ago, the
White House decided that states should be more inventive in their poli
cies regarding welfare systems, which vary from state to state. Wisconsin
is one of perhaps ten states which have decided to try new approaches to
reducing welfare dependency. Wisconsin has decided that in the case of
childbirth to a welfare mother, marriage shall be economically rewarded, and
the birth of a second child shall see a smaller increase in welfare payments
than the birth of the first child saw. Most controversially, the birth of
a third child shall be met by no extra payments.

The arguments against this plan are somewhat comples. First of all, it is ar
gued that reducing payments upon the birth of a third child will in effect
punish children for their parents' behavior. Second, it is argued that the
behavior of welfare mothers is not significantly different from that of other
recipients of state aid, such as young widows who receive social security. In
fact, it is pointed out that despite the lack of difference in behavior the
young widows actually receive much more assistance. Third, it is argued that
welfare is only one percent of federal spending and zero point one percent of
national GNP, and that such a trivial amount should not be fussed over. Fourth,
it is argued that reducing teen pregnancy should really be dealt with by en
forcing statutory rape laws, not by punishing poor women whose behavior is no
different from that of other women. This latter point about poor women is in
fact a fifth reason  for rejecting Wisconsin's policy.


Proponents argue that welfare tends to run in the family, lasting generations,
and that children suffer enormously in the program. Therefore, it is argued,
states must experiment with ways to reduce dependency on welfare.The Wisconsin
plan also incorporates help for the fathers who marry the mothers, in addition
to the increased monthly sum they both receive for marriage. It is argued that
this program will stimulate family values as well as reducing welfare depen
dency.

One further argument made for why the Wisconsin program is badly oriented is
that it assumes that it is important for poor women to begin to participate
in the work force, and abandon their dependency on welfare. Those who make
this final argument point out that women are already in the work force, the
unpaid work force, and that even if they join the paid work force they will
certainly follow the statistical tendency of being the poorest paid workers
and thus the Wisconsin plan WILL NOT HELP THEM ESCAPE POVERTY. Thus, they ask,
what is the purpose of the Wisconsin plan?

This final argument is in my opinion the most interesting, but it misses a
point. It is true that women are in the work force when they raise their
children, and that therefore it is fallacious to assume that they must
"join" a work force. But, the work force they live within, i.e., that paid
by the state, which increases their (welfare) payments with each child, does
not enforce discipline of any sort (despite their claim that it is not easy
to have and raise children) whereas working for money at a paid job where
one produces not children per se but rather output of some other sort tends to
reduce the number of children a woman will have. This can be seen in the case
of developing countries, where population growth tends to decrease with
industrialization, which assumes that more people are working to produce some-
thing other than children.Therefore it is likely that encouraging women to
work in a capacity other than that of child-bearer (particularly when they
lack the wherewithal to care for those children, which is unlikely to be the
case in example of the young widow, who is more likely to be emotionally fit
to care for children) will discourage welfare dependency, and in turn will
encourage young women to finish school, become responsible adults, and reduce
child suffering in one fell swoop.