Government run health care

[pomtzu]

[QUOTE=Marigold2;2198068]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=#0000ff]As for 1/3 of all births being on welfare, well that is just a fact. I can't change it. I just stated the truth, it might not be pretty but it's true.




Source???? Or is this just another fact you pulled from nowhere, like some of the other "facts" you noted about Welfare???

[lizbud]

So its okay for you to get personal but not cataholic?

Touche.

I shouldn't post when I am tired & have little patience, besides LH expressed
my opinion much better that I.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Translation:

Cut federal spending, keep your hands out of my pocket.....

But, when the cuts get to your particular piece of pork....

Wait! Where'd my paycheck go?!

I would translate it a little different.

I'll take government money as long as it is "laundered" and I can pretend it didn't come from the government (except when it is okay that it comes from the government - like unemployment...)

[RICHARD]

I stereotype every day.

Left hand, right hand.......both on the keyboard.


I can also mono type too.

One hand/finger.

[Marigold2]

I believe in was several years ago in Time Magazine, It was so shocking, I had no idea. I will research it and let you know, Until then try to keep then venom out of your voice.[QUOTE=pomtzu;2198193]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=#0000ff]As for 1/3 of all births being on welfare, well that is just a fact. I can't change it. I just stated the truth, it might not be pretty but it's true.




Source???? Or is this just another fact you pulled from nowhere, like some of the other "facts" you noted about Welfare???

[caseysmom]

[QUOTE=Marigold2;2198231]I believe in was several years ago in Time Magazine, It was so shocking, I had no idea. I will research it and let you know, Until then try to keep then venom out of your voice.



That sounds pretty solid.

[Marigold2]

The article is in Time magazine. It is 8 pages, too long to copy but it is Called Welfare Reform The Vicious Cycle and you can find it on their website.
And I stand corrected as I read the article over quickley, the quote was 1/3 of all babies are born to unwed mothers. I hope people read the article and then we can have a honest and no name calling discussion.

[Marigold2]

Here is part of page 3
It is hard to argue with the evidence they cite. Nearly a third of American children are born out of wedlock, and those children are four times as likely as the others to be poor. Unwed mothers average nearly 8 years on welfare, in ^ contrast to 4.8 years overall. "From the President on down, there has been an amazing shift in attitude," says Douglas Besharov, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Today everyone recognizes that dealing with births out of wedlock is the central issue of welfare reform, so much so that the President's draft plan makes dealing with illegitimacy the No. 1 priority

[Marigold2]

More from page three

There is a long-term price of illegitimacy as well, one that resonates at a time when the fear of crime, particularly the crimes committed by a generation of young, pitiless men and boys, has become a national obsession. When people ask where all these 16-year-old predators are coming from, one answer is chilling: from 14-year-old mothers. More than half the juvenile offenders serving prison time were raised by only one parent. If present birthrates continue over the next 10 to 15 years, the number of young people trapped in poverty and tempted by the streets will increase dramatically. Says John DiIulio, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University: "You have a ticking crime bomb."
The second point of consensus is that historically the welfare system has rewarded everything it ought to prevent and punished everything it ought to promote. "The Federal Government has created a monster," says Ann Clark, a welfare case manager in Colorado Springs, Colorado. "I'm dealing with third- generation recipients. Welfare has become their way of life. It scares them to death to try to get off it." The idea is not that the government get into the business of deciding who should have children; rather it is to get the government out of such decisions, by removing all the perverse rewards and punishments embedded in the system.
Across the country, welfare case workers argue that most recipients want to work. "The problem is not work ethics," argues law professor Julie Nice of the University of Denver. "It is the lack of jobs." But those who do manage to find work can instantly lose their health coverage, food stamps, public housing and child care. Marriage too comes with a penalty. Mary Ann Mendez, a mother of three in Harlingen, Texas, received only Medicaid benefits when she was living with her common-law husband, who worked periodically. When he left her, however, her broken home was showered with benefits: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), more food stamps, gas money to get to and from school, and free day care. "It doesn't seem like they want families to stay | together," she says.
But when it comes to correcting all the other damaging incentives of the welfare system, the arguments break out. The hottest topic at the moment is the family cap. Already in New Jersey, Arkansas and Georgia, families receive no increase for children born while on the dole, and Clinton's plan would allow other states to follow suit. Since the average increase of about $67 is much less than the cost of raising another child, welfare mothers didn't really have much economic incentive to have more kids. But this above all is a symbolic issue, a chance for the government to send a message about how it plans to treat parents who have children they cannot afford.

• « PREV PAGE
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

[caseysmom]

So your "facts" are incorrect.

The article is from 1994.

[pomtzu]

So your "facts" are incorrect.

The article is from 1994.

Thank you!!!

So not only was the fact stated incorrectly - since "unwed" does not mean "on welfare", but the article is 15 years old.

So glad to see that you're keeping up with the times, Marigold.

[caseysmom]

I can think of at least one pettalker that wouldn't appreciate single mothers being lumped in a bucket with welfare mothers.

[Marigold2]

Voluntary Relinquishment for Adoption
Numbers and Trends
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published: 2005
Email Order (Free) Print (PDF 195 KB) Share
Rate This 4.8/5, 4 Reviews





Voluntary placement of children for adoption is relatively rare in the United States. This paper examines some of the more recent statistics and trends regarding the relinquishment of children by birth mothers.
How Many Women Place Their Children For Adoption?

The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is the only national source of data on voluntary relinquishment for adoption. According to the 1995 NSFG, 1 less than 1 percent of children born to never-married women were placed for adoption from 1989 to 1995 (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999).

• The percentage is higher for White never-married women (1.7 percent) than for Black never-married women (near 0 percent).
• Relinquishment by married and formerly married women is rarer still, and percentages are not available.

About 1.4 million children were born to unmarried women in 2003, comprising 34.6 percent of total births (Hamilton, Martin, & Sutton, 2004). If the relinquishment rate measured by NSFG in 1995 for never-married women were applied to all unmarried women who gave birth in 2003, this would mean that fewer than 14,000 children were voluntarily relinquished in 2003.
Who Are the Women Who Place Their Children?

Other than the NSFG data on mother's race, information about who relinquishes a child for adoption is limited, in part because relinquishment is rare and the numbers are so small.
Most research focuses on unmarried teens who relinquish a child. In addition to being disproportionately White, those who relinquish tend to have higher education and income levels, higher future career and educational aspirations, and a strong preference for adoption expressed by the teen's mother and/or the birth father (Miller & Coyl, 2000).

• Namerow, Kalmuss, and Cushman (1993) studied 592 unmarried pregnant women age 21 or younger. The sample was selected from maternity residences, clinics, and teen pregnancy programs or adoption agencies. Postbirth interviews with 527 of the teens showed that those who had personal experience with adoption or had spent time at a maternity residence were more likely to relinquish. The choice to relinquish was also heavily influenced by the preference of the teens' mothers and boyfriends.
• A study of 162 pregnant teens residing in a maternity home found that birth fathers' preference for adoption was the most powerful predictor of the mothers' consistency in their decision to relinquish (Dworkin, Harding, & Schreiber, 1993).

[Marigold2]

The article continues.
One study at a residential facility for pregnant teens found that a disproportionate number of those who relinquished were from upper-middle-class families, living in the suburbs or small cities, and from intact families with highly educated parents (Moore & Davidson, 2002). The 178 teens studied were heavily influenced in their decisions to relinquish by peers and siblings and by having personal experience with adoption (knowing someone who was adopted or being adopted themselves).
What Are Some Trends in Placing Children for Adoption?

Two trends stand out, as shown in Figure 1:

• A decrease in the percentage of children relinquished by never-married women
• A decrease in the difference between White and Black women in placement rates

RaceBefore 19731973-19811982-19881989-1995All Women8.7%4.1%2%0.9%Black1.5%0.2%1.1%near 0White19.3%7.5%3.2%1.7%
D
Since the mid-1970s, relinquishments have declined from nearly 9 percent to under 1 percent of births to never-married women. Among never-married women, relinquishment by Black women has remained very low-declining from 1.5 percent to nearly 0 percent, while relinquishment by White women has declined sharply-from nearly 20 percent to less than 2 percent.
Researchers offer various explanations for the dramatic decline in relinquishment. Some suggest that the increased social acceptance of single parenthood has led more unmarried women to keep their children (Miller & Coyl, 2000; Mosher & Bachrach, 1996). Also, a higher proportion of unmarried mothers are in their 20s rather than their teens, so the personal and financial stresses may not be as great as in the past (Freundlich, 1998). Several researchers agree that it is likely that relinquishment rates will not increase in the next several years (Miller & Coyl, 2000; Freundlich, 1998).
Chandra et al. (1999) hypothesize that informal adoptions are becoming more common. They suggest that transfer of custody from the birth mother to another person may be occurring increasingly in a variety of informal manners instead of through formal, permanent relinquishment of all parental rights and responsibilities. These authors cite Henshaw (1998) in suggesting that the decline in abortion rates shows that the decline in relinquishment is not a result of increasing selection of abortion over relinquishment.
The role of birth fathers in relinquishment decisions is unclear. Freundlich (1998) suggests that any increase in their role may be offset by other factors, such as court rulings that birth fathers have little right to veto relinquishment if they have not taken an active prenatal role and an active role immediately after the birth.
Future Research

The study of relinquishment is hampered by a number of limitations. Fisher (2003) notes several of these:

• The relatively small number who relinquish makes generalizations based on samples difficult.
• Many studies use biased samples of women who have self-selected by volunteering to report.
• Very little of the literature addresses the behavior and rights of fathers.

As the percentage of women who place their children has dropped, the opportunity to study this population has decreased, and it is increasingly difficult to generalize from the small numbers of individuals studied. Future research may concentrate on the characteristics of this group and the factors that influence their decision to place their children for adoption.
References

Chandra, A., Abma, J., Maza, P., & Bachrach, C. (1999). Adoption, adoption seeking, and relinquishment for adoption in the United States. Advance Data (No. 306) from Vital and Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad306.pdf
Dworkin, R. J., Harding, J. T., & Schreiber, N. B. (1993). Parenting or placing: Decision-making by pregnant teens. Youth & Society, 25, 75-92.
Fisher, A. P. (2003). Still "Not quite as good as having your own"? Toward a sociology of adoption. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 335-61.
Freundlich, M. (1998). Supply and demand: the forces shaping the future of infant adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 2(1), p. 13-46.
Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A.., & Sutton, P. D. (2004). Births: Preliminary data for 2003, National Vital Statistics Reports, 53(9). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved February 25, 2004, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_09.pdf
Henshaw, S. K. (1998). Abortion incidence and services in the United States, 1995-96. Family Planning Perspectives 30(6), 263-270, 287.
Miller, B. C., & Coyl, D. D. (2000). Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing in relation to infant adoption in the United States. Adoption Quarterly, 4, 3-25.
Moore, N. B., & Davidson, J. K. (2002). A profile of adoption placers: Perceptions of pregnant teens during the decision-making process. Adoption Quarterly, 6(2), 29-41.
Mosher, W. D. & Bachrach, C. A. (1996). Understanding U.S. fertility: Continuity and change in the National Survey of Family Growth, 1988-1995. Family Planning Perspectives, 28(1). Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2800496.html
Namerow, P. B., Kalmuss, D. S., & Cushman, L. F. (1993). The determinants of young women's pregnancy-resolution choices. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 193-215.
1The most recent NSFG includes data from a 1995 survey with a nationally representative sample of over 10,000 women. Data from 2002 (Cycle 6) have not yet been analyzed.back

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.

Email Order (Free) Print (PDF 195 KB) Share

[caseysmom]

Thanks that clears everything up.