GOP Bill Attacks Single Moms: No Birth Certificate Or Financial Aid Without The Father – And: Republicans Idealizing the Past
I am a Republican, but the older I get, the more I spot the Nuclear Family idolatry that goes on with a lot of other Republicans, and I find their views mystifying.
Yes, yes, I understand many Republicans claim to be “pro family values” and are concerned about the sky rocketing amount divorce, of out-of-wedlock births, and so on, but I don’t think I share their prescribed solutions for how to handle societal shifts in mores.
Not that I am fond of typical liberal solutions, which often includes things like increasing taxes on the middle class or business to fund all these programs that are to help single mothers.
Not that I’m completely sure what the solutions should be, but I don’t like either side’s knee-jerk reactions to things like this.
I don’t have any polls or data to back this up, but it seems to me a lot of women would probably prefer to be married to their baby daddy.
The problem is, a lot of marriage-minded women these days are unable to find a suitable, stable man to marry, yet they also want to have a kid, and they hear their biological clock ticking. So some of them may opt to have a kid outside of wedlock, because if they keep waiting for Mr. Right to show up, they may be in menopause by that time and therefore unable to have a baby.
I seriously doubt most women who have a baby outside of marriage have this attitude of, ‘Oh boy, my preference is to have a baby all alone with no husband to help with finances or child care.’ I I would assume that most women do want a husband to have a kid with but are unable to get one for whatever the reasons.
This is from a left wing site called “Raw Story”-
I quote from this article much farther bleow. I wanted to say a bit more about it here:
That aproach seems to penalize children who are born to such women. I thought that the GOP was supposed to stand for helping children? Many of them are anti-abortion, so they are supposed to be pro-baby, pro-children? How is adding additional penalties to a kid born to a single mother going to help the kid?
Would this bill not incentivize women to abort their baby, rather than deal with additional hurdles of raising a kid alone?
One thing I didn’t consider in all my years as a Republican is how, at times, romanticizing the past can be flawed (Republicans tend to pine for the “good old days”). Not that I support how liberals approach things, but I do think there are problems in how Republicans and right wingers in general idealize the past.
The fact is, American society is not going to return to the cherished Republican and Christian 1950s nuclear family fantasy where a man and woman marry by age 23, have two kids, the dad works 9 to 5, and the mom is a stay at home wife, and this couple never divorces.
I think it might make more sense to simply deal with life, people, and culture as it is right now, rather than punish people in 2016 for not living up to versions of life or moral standards from decades gone by that are not going to return.
Unlike liberals, though, I’m not going to sit here and say or think all change has been for the better. I think change should be dealt with realistically, but not always automatically accepted as being good or preferred, depending on the issue.
Anyway, I find these types of Republican measures against folks who don’t live up to the Ward and June Cleaver 1950s nuclear family fantasy to be rather cruel and heavy handed – and most likely ineffective.
I’m not so sure that slapping fines and penalties on to single mothers for being single mothers is going to necessarily reduce births out of wedlock, unless more and more of these single women who become pregnant opt for abortion, and many Republicans are generally opposed to abortion.
I did do a post on my blog some times ago quoting a news source as saying that Republicans have ditched family values as a strategy.
From Raw Story:
- by David Edwards
- A bill sponsored by Republican state lawmakers in Illinois would deny birth certificates to the children of single mothers who do not name a father.
- The Chicagoist (Link): first reported that the bill, HB6064, was filed earlier this month, and is sponsored by Republican state Representatives John D. Cavaletto and Keith Wheeler.
- The measure, which amends the state’s Vital Records Act, would prevent the child from receiving a birth certificate or financial assistance if the father was not identified.
- The bill states:
“Provides that if the unmarried mother cannot or refuses to name the child’s father, either a father must be conclusively established by DNA evidence or, within 30 days after birth, another family member who will financially provide for the child must be named, in court, on the birth certificate. Provides that absent DNA evidence or a family member’s name, a birth certificate will not be issued and the mother will be ineligible for financial aid from the State for support of the child.”
Ed Yohnka of the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union told the Chicagoist that the bill was troubling even though it was not expected to pass the Democratic supermajority in the state House.