What are your thoughts on a VASTLY expanded Social Net for mothers that provides them the resources to raise a child, special educational and vocational opportunities to do away having to choose a career or a child, and other incentives (including incentives for adoptive parents) that remove all the extraneous considerations other than do I want to spend the next nine months gestating this child or not?
I feel like Conservatives lost this thread with the demonization of "Welfare Queens" in the '70s and '80s, and it seems like a VERY obvious baton for the Pro-Life movement to pick up and run with.
The welfare system did (does?) encourage poor mothers to have more kids by more unmarried men. It was a terrible policy. Clinton’s reform helped but was focused on working not family. I’d be in favor of a policy that helps the unwed mother but doesn’t encourage her to remain unwed and keep producing kids. We need something that encourages family. Family leave and family safety nets are great. Not saying shotgun weddings but let people think before they sleep around.
It indeed is a conflicting policy position that needs be resolved: if you're gonna force girls/women to continue with unwanted pregnancies, then you gotta pay for it.
When does medical coverage start - 6 weeks or conception? Something else?
When do child support payments start?
When does citizenship start for the unborn, and if in-utero then that means the undocumented mother can't be deported - right?
Who's paying for the delivery and medical care - especially when a NICU stay is involved?
From what I know of conservative policy positions, the answer is the individual and not the State/taxpayers.
I don’t consider the “conservative position” that government should not pay for indigent pregnancy or neo-natal care. It is a function of government under “general welfare” to ensure all members of the population have access to healthcare. The 2+2=5 logic of pro-aborts is the mother has bo duty to anything except her own desires. Healthcare for the unborn is a government imperative along with healthcare for the born, which is also a duty for the parents. But if they cannot fulfill it, then the government should.
Before this casts me as an Obamacare supporter let me focus on duty. First duty is for citizens to take care of themselves and their family. If they cannot then government has a duty also. But creating perverse incentives against duty is madness and leads to serfdom.
"When does citizenship start for the unborn, and if in-utero then that means the undocumented mother can't be deported - right?"
The conservative position would be that birthright citizenship is a misreading of the constitution. Children of illegals are no more citizens than are children of tourists or foreign diplomats.
My position is that there is no birthright to citizenship. I'm familiar with the history and I know that unless legislation to end the practice is enacted, no serious challenge can be brought before the court.
"When does medical coverage start - 6 weeks or conception? Something else?"
"Who's paying for the delivery and medical care - especially when a NICU stay is involved?"
Medicaid pays for more than 40% of all USA births.
"When do child support payments start?"
If the father can be determined, he should be required to pay some amount of child support immediately. If the father is unknown or a deadbeat, taxpayers foot the bill beyond what the mother can afford. No getting around it. We do not let people starve.
What are your thoughts on a VASTLY expanded Social Net for mothers that provides them the resources to raise a child, special educational and vocational opportunities to do away having to choose a career or a child, and other incentives (including incentives for adoptive parents) that remove all the extraneous considerations other than do I want to spend the next nine months gestating this child or not?
I feel like Conservatives lost this thread with the demonization of "Welfare Queens" in the '70s and '80s, and it seems like a VERY obvious baton for the Pro-Life movement to pick up and run with.
The welfare system did (does?) encourage poor mothers to have more kids by more unmarried men. It was a terrible policy. Clinton’s reform helped but was focused on working not family. I’d be in favor of a policy that helps the unwed mother but doesn’t encourage her to remain unwed and keep producing kids. We need something that encourages family. Family leave and family safety nets are great. Not saying shotgun weddings but let people think before they sleep around.
It indeed is a conflicting policy position that needs be resolved: if you're gonna force girls/women to continue with unwanted pregnancies, then you gotta pay for it.
When does medical coverage start - 6 weeks or conception? Something else?
When do child support payments start?
When does citizenship start for the unborn, and if in-utero then that means the undocumented mother can't be deported - right?
Who's paying for the delivery and medical care - especially when a NICU stay is involved?
From what I know of conservative policy positions, the answer is the individual and not the State/taxpayers.
I don’t consider the “conservative position” that government should not pay for indigent pregnancy or neo-natal care. It is a function of government under “general welfare” to ensure all members of the population have access to healthcare. The 2+2=5 logic of pro-aborts is the mother has bo duty to anything except her own desires. Healthcare for the unborn is a government imperative along with healthcare for the born, which is also a duty for the parents. But if they cannot fulfill it, then the government should.
Before this casts me as an Obamacare supporter let me focus on duty. First duty is for citizens to take care of themselves and their family. If they cannot then government has a duty also. But creating perverse incentives against duty is madness and leads to serfdom.
"When does citizenship start for the unborn, and if in-utero then that means the undocumented mother can't be deported - right?"
The conservative position would be that birthright citizenship is a misreading of the constitution. Children of illegals are no more citizens than are children of tourists or foreign diplomats.
Federal case history regarding the 14th amendment says you're wrong about that.
So again: what's the answer to the above?
My position is that there is no birthright to citizenship. I'm familiar with the history and I know that unless legislation to end the practice is enacted, no serious challenge can be brought before the court.
I meant the other questions.
The fundamental question is when do you have the right to be born. The rest of it falls in place after that.
"When does medical coverage start - 6 weeks or conception? Something else?"
"Who's paying for the delivery and medical care - especially when a NICU stay is involved?"
Medicaid pays for more than 40% of all USA births.
"When do child support payments start?"
If the father can be determined, he should be required to pay some amount of child support immediately. If the father is unknown or a deadbeat, taxpayers foot the bill beyond what the mother can afford. No getting around it. We do not let people starve.