Ravan said……
I don't understand why having a nurse visit first time mothers is bad. I don't understand why educating young mothers on childhood development and nutrition is bad. I don't even understand why educating women on how to gap pregnancies so that they have kids when they want them, instead of constantly or at the whim of their boyfriends, is bad. This just gives them the information that middle class women already have, due to better education, information access and family support. Are you saying that poor women don't deserve the knowledge? FYI, there are poor white women out there too.
Access to birth control, and knowledge of how to use it, is not a requirement to do so. Look at the Catholics, or the Quiverfull weirdos.
Michelle said……
Perhaps the added difficulties associated with rearing children in poverty merit this investment. If anything, waiting to have this discussion until a woman has already had a child in poverty may be too little, too late: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html
Lonnie said……
The two previous posters are completely misrepresenting the law's provisions. There's nothing wrong with pre- or post-natal care. There is something DEADLY wrong with government monitoring, controlling, and intervening in women's reproductive choices. And there is something inherently sexist about telling women when they can and can't have babies. Rather than attacking and punishing women for having children, our government should be ending the wars and occupations and stop bailing out Wall Street and the health insurance industry and fully fund a single payer health care system and public education and creating jobs.
Michelle said……
I made no comment about the law, which does not appear on this page and which I did not read. That said, the characterization of the law, provided on this web site, does not offer facts to support its assertions - it does not even quote the language of the bill that it finds offensive. In addition, the site's comment fails to address the well-documented and often-made assertion that being raised in poverty often hurts children, and having children in poverty often hurts women. As I understand what has been posted on this site, the proposed legislation would require only that a woman agree to receive reproductive health education information in exchange for receiving public funding for privately made reproductive choices. Any woman who chooses to turn down public funding is not required to give the government information about her personal choices, or listen to the government-provided information about the health benefits of waiting to have a second child. No funding = no exchange of information.
Maria said……
Lonnie is right that there would be "something deadly wrong with government monitoring, controlling, and intervening in women's reproductive choices".
Thankfully health reform legislation surrounding home-visitation has NOTHING to do with these insidious and deplorable violations of human rights. Contrary to Lonnie's remarks, these provisions provide voluntarily accessed support around pregnancy and parenting young children that positively impact the lives of people who are part of the program.
I hope the authors of this site will refrain from printing inaccurate and harmful misnomers about legislative provisions that support (rather than suppress) families facing adversity in American society.
Carole said……
I am so disappointed in Stop Family Violence for doing this.
It's really clear that the authors read the language in the bill and did absolutely no research beyond that. The legislation simply funds existing social service programs that works with young, new moms by helping them problem-solve, find resources, and have a someone to turn to for help where they need it. It DOES NOT MANDATE participation in exchange for financial support or health care. It DOES NOT MONITOR women's reproductive activities, and it does not in any way, shape or form penalize women for having children. It simply a well-intentioned social service that sends a nurse to help those new, young moms who want and request help. It's entirely VOLUNTARY. Home visiting programs are about helping women with infants and young kids who lack a support system and who WANT help. Perhaps the outcomes of that are the program are more spacing between children and fewer of the women participating receiving welfare in the end. But there is no reason to object to that if there is nothing coercive about it and that the larger intent is to give help where it is needed.
I am glad you see it as your responsibility to monitor health care reform for programs that hurt women (especially women of color and women in poverty) and that you take a broad view of reproductive rights beyond abortion rights, but you really, really messed up here. I am really bothered that you have sent me an email asking me to call congress about this program when you have done little research about it. I happen to be familiar with these programs this time- how do I know you aren't asking me to call about other things that are being misconstrued? You have a responsibility to thoroughly research before you activate. You could be derailing a good program based on knee-jerk reactions to language in a bill.
Carole said……
This is the VERY program the legislation will fund. Not exactly the nightmare fertility control program portrayed above.... (subscription required to read the whole article)
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact_boo
Betty Reid Mandell said……
When my first baby was born, I had a rooming-in arrangement where the baby was with me all the time, and a nurse helped me learn how to care for the baby. I really appreciated that, and wished I could take the nurse home with me. Having a nurse come to your home to help you out after your first birth could be very helpful, provided it is a voluntary program and is available to every mother in the country (a universal program). I think New Zealand had such a program. However, I would have been outraged if the nurse suggested that I shouldn't have any more children. Coerced fertility control of poor women is very different than help that is given when you want it.
Catherine said……
The posters are making the assumption that people are poor because they are ignorant. The myriad number of appointments, documentations and interventions that the poor already undergo to receive food stamps and other assistance is onerous. For instance, I have several students who have appointment times during their college classes for food stamp that they are not allowed to reschedule, thus missing a college class, part of what will lead them out of poverty. There are already social agencies that could provide this information, there is no need to spend our money having the medical professionals also do it. Plus, what lessons do the fathers need? Technically, they are also the recipients of this funding, support they would otherwise be responsible for. Totally sexist, presumptive, overreaching.
Hi said……
"Any woman who chooses to turn down public funding is not required to give the government information about her personal choices, or listen to the government-provided information about the health benefits of waiting to have a second child. No funding = no exchange of information"
Well said, Michelle
Michelle said……
Time magazine has an article on the benefits of (and need for) this program: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1881950,00.html