Comments on: On being black and pregnant in America http://thecurvature.com/2007/10/23/on-being-black-and-pregnant-in-america/ Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:47:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Redstar http://thecurvature.com/2007/10/23/on-being-black-and-pregnant-in-america/#comment-1780 Redstar Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:49:14 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/2007/10/23/on-being-black-and-pregnant-in-america/#comment-1780 I'm reading <em>Flat Broke with Children</em> right now, by Sociologist/Women Studies feminist professor Sharon Hays. I'd love to get a blog book club going about this book. You should check it out; it's highly relevant to this issue you're discussing here. It focuses on the 1996 welfare reform legislation (PWORA), the benefits now known as TANF. In the legislation, there is this thing known as the "family cap," under which women who become pregnant while on welfare are denied benefits for that new child. It's unconstitutional and written right into the legislation. The book lays out clearly the cultural conflicts we have in this country re: women, motherhood, work v. family balance/resposibility, etc. The major irony to me is that though there are about 35M people at any given time living in poverty, there are only about 1M or so on "the rolls" by now. Yet, we make these mothers and children our obsession, acting as if they're some enormous drain on the system deserving of punishment for their irresponsibility. As for TANF recipients, I think that the recipients are disproportionately women and children of color, following on their disproportionately high rates of poverty that you mention above. I’m reading Flat Broke with Children right now, by Sociologist/Women Studies feminist professor Sharon Hays. I’d love to get a blog book club going about this book. You should check it out; it’s highly relevant to this issue you’re discussing here.

It focuses on the 1996 welfare reform legislation (PWORA), the benefits now known as TANF. In the legislation, there is this thing known as the “family cap,” under which women who become pregnant while on welfare are denied benefits for that new child. It’s unconstitutional and written right into the legislation.

The book lays out clearly the cultural conflicts we have in this country re: women, motherhood, work v. family balance/resposibility, etc.

The major irony to me is that though there are about 35M people at any given time living in poverty, there are only about 1M or so on “the rolls” by now. Yet, we make these mothers and children our obsession, acting as if they’re some enormous drain on the system deserving of punishment for their irresponsibility.

As for TANF recipients, I think that the recipients are disproportionately women and children of color, following on their disproportionately high rates of poverty that you mention above.

]]> By: Nicole Black http://thecurvature.com/2007/10/23/on-being-black-and-pregnant-in-america/#comment-1778 Nicole Black Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:25:54 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/2007/10/23/on-being-black-and-pregnant-in-america/#comment-1778 I absolutely think that the ruling was unconstitutional, as indicated in my article where I state: *** In mid-August I wrote about this case (“No pregnancy for you,” Aug. 13) and at the conclusion of my article, I wondered: “Will the court conclude that the right to procreate without interference from the state is a constitutional guarantee, or simply a guideline that can be altered with the stroke of a pen? “Will the court’s decision take us one step closer to making governmental regulation of procreation as perceived by Margaret Atwood in the novel ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ a reality? I certainly hope not.” ... America is a melting pot of cultures, religions and beliefs. Absent a consensus as to which ideals are “correct,” I simply don’t see how governmental interference with an individual’s ability to procreate would be constitutionally permissible. This was a constitutional issue ripe for judicial determination. It’s unfortunate the Fourth Department declined to address it. ***** I absolutely think that the ruling was unconstitutional, as indicated in my article where I state:

***

In mid-August I wrote about this case (“No pregnancy for you,” Aug. 13) and at the conclusion of my article, I wondered: “Will the court conclude that the right to procreate without interference from the state is a constitutional guarantee, or simply a guideline that can be altered with the stroke of a pen?

“Will the court’s decision take us one step closer to making governmental regulation of procreation as perceived by Margaret Atwood in the novel ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ a reality? I certainly hope not.” …

America is a melting pot of cultures, religions and beliefs. Absent a consensus as to which ideals are “correct,” I simply don’t see how governmental interference with an individual’s ability to procreate would be constitutionally permissible.

This was a constitutional issue ripe for judicial determination. It’s unfortunate the Fourth Department declined to address it.

*****

]]>