Here are some links to help Paul:

http://www.guttmacher.org - Peer reviewed research on family planning and reproductive issues in the U.S. and world-wide. Some numbers for the US: "Each year, approximately 7 million women receive contraceptive services from the network of publicly funded family planning clinics, representing 41% of all women in need of subsidized services." And since you're so worried about your pocketbook, here is an interesting finding: "Every tax dollar spent for contraceptive services saves an average of $3 in Medicaid costs for pregnancy-related health care and for medical care of newborns alone."

Maybe I'm missing your point. I don't disagree with you about reproductive healthcare for the poor. But you said, "Did you ever stop to think that the reason the children are ill-cared for is that they aren't wanted? That given a choice, the women would have been on birth control or had an abortion?" According to the statistics you provided, 41% of the women in need of contraceptive services receive it. My question is this: What about the other 59%? If 100% of women enrolled in subsidized healthcare (i.e. Medicaid) are eligible for family planning services, why do only 41% receive it?

Here is a FAQ on abusive relationships. The link will answer your question about why all those silly people don't just leave their abusers. Foot in mouth, Paul, chew vigorously.

You really need to take a deep breath and ease up on the hyperbole. First off, I wish you would quit attributing statements to me that I haven't made. You have an uncanny knack of rewording my statements by inserting derogatory comments about women and implying that I was the one that called them that. I did not call anyone that is in an abusive relationship "silly." You added that yourself. And please point out to me where I suggested that someone in an abusive relationship should "just leave their abuser." I never said that. As another example, in a previous post, your statement was:

"Some other things to think about regarding "Why don't those lazy sluts just get a job?!"

Once again, I never called anyone a "lazy slut." That was your interpolation. You are employing a fallacious appeal to emotion argument in your statements. You don't seem to want to discuss this matter without denigrating me with your personal attacks.

http://www.guttmacher.org - Peer reviewed research on family planning and reproductive issues in the U.S. and world-wide. Some numbers for the US: "Each year, approximately 7 million women receive contraceptive services from the network of publicly funded family planning clinics, representing 41% of all women in need of subsidized services." And since you're so worried about your pocketbook, here is an interesting finding: "Every tax dollar spent for contraceptive services saves an average of $3 in Medicaid costs for pregnancy-related health care and for medical care of newborns alone."

finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com - Atheism is intrinsically related to feminism, so it should be an easy read. Go forth and prevent future toolishness!

Here is a FAQ on abusive relationships. The link will answer your question about why all those silly people don't just leave their abusers. Foot in mouth, Paul, chew vigorously.

Sure, in life there are choices. But we don't control every aspect of our lives - and since the universe isn't like a movie, people don't always deserve what they get or get what they deserve. But that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to even the odds. After all, we're social animals and we need each other.

This is a commonly held misconception. My friend is a sociologist who specializes in poverty, and this is what he has to say: "Federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program– which, by the way, is the real name for "welfare"– has a "family cap" limitation whereby having more children does not increase the family's grant amount. While many people think this is justice, it also means that when a child is born, each child must eat proportionally less, have proportionally fewer clothes, etc. (Food stamp allowances don't increase with more children either). But, despite this reality, there's still a widespread notion that people have babies to increase the amount they receive. Oh, and you can't have children to stay on welfare longer. There's a federal time-limit (2 years consecutively and/or 5 years over a lifetime)."

The TANF program, while it was a major reform bill, has not done much (at least here in California) to eliminate reliance on welfare. There are so many loopholes in the California version of the welfare reform program (CalWorks) that a majority of welfare recipients continue to receive benefits long after the federally-mandated time limits have expired. And even when welfare recipients do not comply with the time limits, the harshest penalty is that the parent/s are removed from the program. But the children still receive money on a monthly basis. And since the children are still considered minors, guess who cashes the checks and determines how the money is spent? Even when the parent/s are removed from the CalWorks program, they are still able to receive food stamps, free healthcare, and rent subsidies. And since the welfare reform from 1996 gives states a lot more leeway in how money is spent, the state penalties for lack of compliance trumps the federal time-limit rules.

I also have to take issue with the statement you made:

Entomologista said:

Some other things to think about regarding "Why don't those lazy sluts just get a job?!"

I don't know where this came from! I never called anybody a "lazy slut." Those are your sentiments, and yours alone. Can anyone say "strawman"?

One thing we also need to realize is that in most cases, we're talking about women. These women face a variety of barriers as they try to improve their lives. Who will take care of their children while they work or look for a job? Child care is extremely expensive, so one of the things the government could do is provide free childcare to all working mothers.

How is it that no one asks the question, "Why are these women (and men) having children when they can't afford them?"

Many of these women have problems with domestic violence. How can you work if you're always recovering from beatings?

Not to sound too cold, but why are they getting themselves into these situations in the first place?

Where will you work if you don't have a car? There aren't very many jobs people with low levels of educational attainment can have, and there aren't many jobs at all in poor neighborhoods. Maybe they don't have a regular place to live - nobody will hire you if you don't clean up for the interview or don't have a phone number to be contacted at. There are also race, class, and language barriers. If you no habla ingles, you're unlikely to get much of a job. Studies have also shown that people with black-sounding names or people with addresses from known poor/public housing neighborhoods are less likely to get called back after an interview.

Again, there is no accounting for personal responsibility. How bout this? Don't have children unless you can afford them. Don't have sex with a man who abuses you. Use birth control if you do. You make it sound as if people on welfare are unable to obtain birth control. That's absolute bullshit.

Finally, I have to ask. Do you think women are stupid, Paul S.? Do you think that pregnancy and childbirth are such a walk in the park that we flighty females just do it on a whim? Did you ever stop to think that the reason the children are ill-cared for is that they aren't wanted?

Give me a break. So children are ill-cared for because they aren't wanted, but the mothers continue to have them? I never suggested that pregnancey and childbirth are a walk in the park. But yes, I do believe that some females "do it on a whim." How else do you account for the children born out of wedlock? These aren't stable relationships these women are in. They apparently cannot rely on the men they have sex with to provide them with anything, so you tell me, why do they do it?

You can thank the religious folks for those dirty, hungry children. By ensuring that low income women have little or no access to reproductive health care, they've ensured a constant population of urchins.

While I do agree that abstinence-only sex education is a ridiculous folly, it is just not true that low income women have little or no access to reproductive health care.

I'm not one of those people who thinks that sex is something only rich people should get to do, and I don't think that abstinence is a reality-based birth control method.

Who said anything about sex being only a rich people-only activity? If that was the case, then there would be rich families with a lot of children. But that's not the case. The wealthier people are, the less children there are per family. Sex is something everyone should enjoy, but there are obvious repurcussions when the proper precautions are not taken.

Now, if one has shelter, food, education and healthcare, where does the need to work come from?

I don't think anyone's suggested that we should provide food and shelter to the able-bodied indefinitely and ask nothing in return. As I've said in the past, we should make access to public benefits contingent on the recipient's willingness to work at whatever job can be found for them.

Poor girl, she needs to prostitute herself to pay off her $100 cell phone bill. Perhaps if she don't have a source of income, she shouldn't have gotten a cell-phone.

It's interesting you should say that, because Entomologista's comment nowhere referred to a cell phone. You do know that land lines cost money too, right?

And don't come telling me that women are such frail creatures who can't say no. If he tries to rape you even once, you go to the police, have the jerk arrested.

You know, I wish it were that easy to get rapists prosecuted. I really do. Unfortunately, rape is still a crime that carries a tremendous social stigma for the victim, and the real world doesn't always work as in your simplistic advice.

First of all, the majority of rapists are not strangers, but friends or relatives of the victim. That can put her under strong social pressure to keep quiet, lest she be ostracized or even assaulted by members of the community. Even if a rape victim comes forward and finds a DA willing to prosecute, at trial and in the media she can expect to have her name dragged through the mud by defense lawyers who will argue that she was "asking for it", that she incited the rape by dressing or acting provocatively, or that she's mentally unstable and simply made the story up. If it's admitted by all parties that sex did happen, the inevitable defense is that it was consensual (and, if wounds are present, that she liked rough sex), and then what's to keep the trial from turning into a he-said/she-said dispute? (Read this editorial to get an idea of what women who complain of rape usually go through.)

Faced with obstacles like these, there are many rape victims who make the choice not to report what happened, and it's hard to fault them. It would be nice if we lived in a truly egalitarian society, but a lot of old prejudices still persist, and blaming the victim isn't going to help.

They always have a choice. People without cars can choose to live and work in a place with public transportation.

Do explain. Let's say you have no car and live in an area with poor public transportation. What are you saying you'd do? Just pick up and move to somewhere else? How? You don't have a car, remember? What if you have a job that gives you no paid time off, as millions of Americans do? When are you supposed to look for a new job, potentially in a distant city, no less? How are you supposed to arrive and establish yourself until you can find employment there, if you work at a job that doesn't pay enough for you to save up?

It's wishful thinking to say that everyone can simply choose to improve their circumstances, if they really want to. That would be nice, but it's not the way our society works at all. The reality is that many people, through no fault of their own, are stuck in circumstances that offer no realistic hope for change or advancement without outside help.

then by all means we should provide food and shelter as well

Food stamps? Subsidized housing? It's possible for the government to provide some basics or ease in taking care of the basics without having to provide everything.

Now, if one has shelter, food, education and healthcare, where does the need to work come from?

It comes from people always wanting more than the basics; I know I do, and since you have a computer I assume you do too. Clothing, better food, better housing, nicer electronics, drugs, money to go out, status, hobbies; you name it, people will want to work for it.

People without cars can choose to live and work in a place with public transportation.

Sure, provided they have the money to move to that place with public transportation (presumably renting an apartment - which a working phone might help with setting up), getting a job when they get there (They'd need to have it set up beforehand too. If you can't afford some of the basics you also can't afford to move to a place and hope you find a job when you get there), leave behind everyone they know; you know, all that stuff it's so easy for [poor] people to do. Of course, it's hard to make plans to/and move without the proper funds to do it, especially if you can't even pay off a phone bill or take care of kids (or have a car to drive, which also might help in moving). Likewise, if they get injured and don't have proper health care they're shit out of luck, and if you're looking for help in private sector for these things, I wouldn't hold my breath either.

Not to mention the added benefit of less crime (less cost to the state in trials, lawyers, and incarciration, along with fewer victims of crimes; another plus)

One important step, as I mentioned previously, is to commit to creating a social safety net that ensures universal access to basic goods like health care and education.

I have to disagree with this. If we have to provide education and health care, then by all means we should provide food and shelter as well. And not just any shelter, but a livable one, otherwise the people won't use it. Now, if one has shelter, food, education and healthcare, where does the need to work come from? Work is something you would do because of ambition, or because you like it. In such a society, who would ever be doing the unwanted jobs, such as being a janitor, cleaning other people's toilets? Perhaps Robotics can solve this for us, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

You also haven't considered that these women may have no choice in the matter - how do you make a man who outweighs you by 100 lbs stop, or wear a condom? Maybe if you say no or ask for a condom you get a beating and then he rapes you anyway. Maybe you need $100 really badly so your phone doesn't get shut off. Maybe sex is one of the few pleasures available.

Poor girl, she needs to prostitute herself to pay off her $100 cell phone bill. Perhaps if she don't have a source of income, she shouldn't have gotten a cell-phone. And don't come telling me that women are such frail creatures who can't say no. If he tries to rape you even once, you go to the police, have the jerk arrested. Don't make women into objects without will, please. They always have a choice. People without cars can choose to live and work in a place with public transportation.

Child care is extremely expensive, so one of the things the government could do is provide free childcare to all working mothers

That is something I strongly support.

And in any case, what about the legitimate recipients? Your comment painted a much more realistic picture of why people need these programs. Must we punish the truly needy for the sake of a few bad apples? Isn't it far more important to make sure that the people who genuinely need assistance can get it, even if a few free-riders manage to sneak their way in?

they will be paid more money commensurate to the amount of children they have.

This is a commonly held misconception. My friend is a sociologist who specializes in poverty, and this is what he has to say: "Federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program-- which, by the way, is the real name for "welfare"-- has a "family cap" limitation whereby having more children does not increase the family's grant amount. While many people think this is justice, it also means that when a child is born, each child must eat proportionally less, have proportionally fewer clothes, etc. (Food stamp allowances don't increase with more children either). But, despite this reality, there's still a widespread notion that people have babies to increase the amount they receive. Oh, and you can't have children to stay on welfare longer. There's a federal time-limit (2 years consecutively and/or 5 years over a lifetime)."

Some other things to think about regarding "Why don't those lazy sluts just get a job?!":

One thing we also need to realize is that in most cases, we're talking about women. These women face a variety of barriers as they try to improve their lives. Who will take care of their children while they work or look for a job? Child care is extremely expensive, so one of the things the government could do is provide free childcare to all working mothers. Low income areas tend to be very dirty, and the residents don't have access to decent food or health care. A simple thing like redoing the zoning laws to allow for grocery stores to be within walking distance of poor neighborhoods would go a long way to improving people's lives. Many of these women have problems with domestic violence. How can you work if you're always recovering from beatings? Where will you work if you don't have a car? There aren't very many jobs people with low levels of educational attainment can have, and there aren't many jobs at all in poor neighborhoods. Maybe they don't have a regular place to live - nobody will hire you if you don't clean up for the interview or don't have a phone number to be contacted at. There are also race, class, and language barriers. If you no habla ingles, you're unlikely to get much of a job. Studies have also shown that people with black-sounding names or people with addresses from known poor/public housing neighborhoods are less likely to get called back after an interview.

Finally, I have to ask. Do you think women are stupid, Paul S.? Do you think that pregnancy and childbirth are such a walk in the park that we flighty females just do it on a whim? Did you ever stop to think that the reason the children are ill-cared for is that they aren't wanted? That given a choice, the women would have been on birth control or had an abortion? And don't even say the word "adoption" unless you've personally adopted a non-white child - most families who adopt are white and want white babies (with no disabilities). You can thank the religious folks for those dirty, hungry children. By ensuring that low income women have little or no access to reproductive health care, they've ensured a constant population of urchins. You also haven't considered that these women may have no choice in the matter - how do you make a man who outweighs you by 100 lbs stop, or wear a condom? Maybe if you say no or ask for a condom you get a beating and then he rapes you anyway. Maybe you need $100 really badly so your phone doesn't get shut off. Maybe sex is one of the few pleasures available. I'm not one of those people who thinks that sex is something only rich people should get to do, and I don't think that abstinence is a reality-based birth control method. The people who were really good at not fucking were not our ancestors.

[Fixed - sorry about that. I share your enmity toward software that thinks it can outsmart me. —Ebonmuse]

http://www.7x11.nl/images/eijkelboom_schilderswijk06.jpg

http://www.haagwonen.nl/info.asp?ID=148

Yes, I know they are rather boring photos of very ordinary decent-but-boring houses. The point is that this district, near the centre of The Hague, is the poorest district in the Netherlands.