USA - Wisconsin Bill shaming single mothers

[AussieScott]

Wisconsin Bill Claims Single Moms Cause Child Abuse by Not Being Married

In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.

Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by "requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect."

The bill would require educational and public awareness campaigns held by the board to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children, and to underscore "the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect."

Saying that people "make fun of old-fashioned families," Grothman -- who has never been married and has no children -- criticized social workers for not agreeing that children should only be raised by two married biological parents, and told a state Senate committee that he hopes the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention board, of which he's a member, could "publicize something that's politically incorrect but has to be said in our society."

"Whether that leads to more people paying attention and having children after they're married or whether that leads to some others making a choice for adoptions," he said.

A third of all parents in Wisconsin are single. Given that single mothers far outnumber single fathers in the state and in the rest of the country, and given the emphasis on fathers being part of the solution rather than part of the problem, many people feel that the bill is tantamount to an attack on single moms.

At Tuesday's meeting of the state Senate Committee on Public Health, Human Services, and Revenue, lawmakers and members of the public spoke out against the proposal.

"This bill is going to do nothing to help children avoid abuse. It's going to do nothing to help families," Democratic state Representative Chris Taylor said at the meeting. "What this bill does is call out and chastise women who have babies who are unmarried."

Grothman has advanced and supported other policies "that make it harder to access prevention-based health services so that they can prevent pregnancy, so that they're not in a situations here they have an unintended or unwanted pregnancy," Taylor added.

Grothman is also the sponsor of Wisconsin State Bill 202, which would repeal the state's Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Last year he claimed in an essay that the "Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government."

In "How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families," he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.

His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. "It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools," he wrote. "It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/wis...011200419.html

The Bill

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/201...roposals/sb507

Interesting a Traditionalist Conservative fighting back. Where are the rest of the Conservatives, Conservative think tanks or Conservative academics, to chicken to stand up to the Liberals, or are the majority of Conservatives just Liberals in sheep costume?

[Supreme American]

Actually it's true. Studies have shown that kids are for the worse without both parents in the home. Black criminal pathology is believed to be contributed to by the lack of fathers in the home.

Of course this will be called racist because we know where most of this is going on.

What I find most amusing about the liberal sociology crowd is their apparent lack of awareness of the simple fact that they cannot say on the one hand that a home missing a father is damaging boys, but by the way, a couple bull dykes adopting a kid is perfectly psychologically healthy.. Nuh uh.

[SilverKnight]

Without a father at home there are low chances that men and even women will grow up to be productive anyhow.

[Mary]

They should make a bill encouraging men to stay with their families instead. Maybe put a special tax on single or divorced men which can help pay for these women and their children.

[Occident]

They should make a bill encouraging men to stay with their families instead. Maybe put a special tax on single or divorced men which can help pay for these women and their children.

I take it you have never heard of child support then?

Bills like that, far from encouraging men to stay put, encourage women to go it alone.

[Mary]

I take it you have never heard of child support then?

Bills like that, far from encouraging men to stay put, encourage women to go it alone.

Child support and alimony doesn't cover the social costs of single motherhood.

How do you mean exactly?

[Occident]

Child support and alimony doesn't cover the social costs of single motherhood.

How do you mean exactly?

Okay, I took your meaning to be that money should be taken from the fathers to be given the mothers who are raising the children, as we already do in most western countries.

Are you in fact suggesting that all single men be required to pay a a unique tax to handle what you call the social costs?

If so, I am definately against it. I am not responsible for the behaviour of some fatherless negro. I will have a responsibility for my own children, and however we approach this issue we should bear in mind this straight forward one-to-one responsibility.

My meaning in saying the existing approach encourages women to leave was that Child Support makes single motherhood a far more economically viable option.

[Mary]

Okay, I took your meaning to be that money should be taken from the fathers to be given the mothers who are raising the children, as we already do in most western countries.

Are you in fact suggesting that all single men be required to pay a a unique tax to handle what you call the social costs?

If so, I am definately against it. I am not responsible for the behaviour of some fatherless negro. I will have a responsibility for my own children, and however we approach this issue we should bear in mind this straight forward one-to-one responsibility.

My meaning in saying the existing approach encourages women to leave was that Child Support makes single motherhood a far more economically viable option.

I think that child support should remain in some form. Though obviously not as high as it is now.

Yes, I think that divorced men should pay a tax to finance the cost of single mothers. This will encourage men to stay with their families. Don't want to pay for a Negro? Don't divorce your wife.

While there is an individual responsibility of each man to his children. There's also a collective responsibility of all men to all women. At least within the race/tribe. White men cannot leave White women to fend for themselves, especially if those women have children, with the excuse the it's someone else's responsibility. Imposing a solidarity tax would encourage men to police each other.

I agree that most women can probably increase their standard of living by abusing child support, alimony and social services. But women also need the security and guidance of a man. Women don't leave because of money, they're already getting support from the man anyway. They leave because the pimp hand is weak and women don't want to live with that.

See this example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgMLROTqJ0

Compare to this whiner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nir-Xjj7PII

[Tony]

I find it hypocritical the whole philosophy behind the bill.
First because it penalizes only single moms and not single dads and second because it's the actual society made of loosened relationships and promiscuity, that produced the destruction of the classical family.
And you don't change a society throu those ridicolous bills.

[Great Dane]

it penalizes only single moms and not single dads

That is because most welfare benefits paid out to single parents go to the mothers.

and second because it's the actual society made of loosened relationships and promiscuity, that produced the destruction of the classical family.

The welfare system rewards that kind of behavior. Unwed mothers get welfare benefits. Drug addicts get disability and welfare benefits. Liberals believe in rewarding bad behavior and taxing good behavior. The welfare entitlement class is a loyal constituency of liberal democrats.