Well, it's not surprising that the Corbett administration wants to further cut the social safety net by reducing Medicaid reimbursements to providers for maternity and postpartum care ("State Cuts Maternity Payments for Women on Welfare," June 4). But that's not what angers me. What sets me off is that those receiving assistance are getting any maternity benefits at all.
Where is it written that those on the dole have a right to bring more mouths into the system? Why should taxpayers be obligated, at any level, to subsidize a woman's fertility in the absence of that woman's ability to support that new life?
All I can say (which may well incite the religious/right-wing/pro-lifers to riot) is that if a woman is destitute enough to qualify for welfare, she should not be permitted to deliver a child. A woman who is provided medical benefits should be required, as a condition of that support, to participate in a reliable method of birth control, and any pregnancy conceived while on welfare should be terminated.
I know this is not a popular position, but I don't see where having children you can't support is a birthright, and the state could save a substantial amount of money if costs now spent on maternity would instead be spent on birth control, which itself also reduces welfare costs by reducing head counts.
If you want a child, get the means (by marriage, work or something other than public funding). And to those religious/right-wing/pro-lifers who insist she be allowed to have a child, feel free to pay for this yourselves. In other words, put up or shut up.
First Published June 9, 2012 12:00 AM