I’m a mom. I have three kids which happen to be one more than originally planned. But sometimes life throws you surprises. And mine turned out to be a terrific surprise with a contagious smile and an obsession with the BBC’s Top Gear.
Going from two kids to three was a huge change for us, much bigger than going from one to two. Not only do you have to switch from a man to man defense to a zone (fellow basketball fans will get that joke) but things are more expensive. And not just a little more expensive, disproportionately more expensive: practically everything from hotel rooms to cars are really built for a family of four.
Fortunately, we have created a life that allows us to provide for our children despite the increased costs. I understand that is something to be thankful for, especially in this economy. My husband and I both work. We haven’t been laid off. We haven’t had to take a cut in pay. We haven’t had to go on disability. We haven’t had to worry about losing our home or our car. We haven’t had to rely on public assistance.
I can’t imagine what any of that is like.
I especially can’t imagine what any of that is like as a mom.
And in my state, it’s about to become more unimaginable. A bill is pending in the Pennsylvania legislature which would limit the amount of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) offered to low-income women based on the number of children they conceive while covered under the program.
TANF is what we think of as welfare: it provides cash assistance to qualified families on a temporary basis, up to a maximum of five years (some states limit that time frame even more). While TANF is a federal program, states set their own eligibility requirements. The funding for the program comes from Washington: all of us collectively support this program.
The bill aimed at lowering those TANF benefits is H.B. No. 2718 and it was introduced by Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R) just last week. It currently sits in committee.
According to the Women’s Law Project, less than 2% of Pennsylvania residents receive TANF. Most of those families who do receive TANF are given a monthly benefit of $403 for a family of three. A quick click of the calculator would reveal that to be less than $5,000 per year. For a family of three. Yet, the Representatives seek to cut funding even more if a woman gives birth while on public assistance.
There is an exception: a woman may ask to be excused from the rule if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and if the mother can provide proof that she reported her sexual assault and her abuser’s identity to the police (or to the county child protective service agency if she’s a minor). The woman has to request the exception by signing a sworn statement and the statement must be verified by the respective authorities. These requirements were included in the bill despite the fact that more than half of all sexual assaults are not reported to the authorities out of fear of retaliation, worries that they will not be believed or shame (or all of the above).
There’s no exception for religious reasons. No exception for accidental pregnancies (remember that no birth control is 100% effective). No exception if you happened to get pregnant and lose your job or worse, become widowed.
Just rape or incest – and only if you can prove it.
I get that, as taxpayers, we want to police our dollars. We want to make sure they’re used properly. And we don’t want to see them wasted or abused. And I support efforts to responsibly account for the expenditure of federal dollars.
But how far are we willing to go? For a country that claims to want less government interference – and not more – in our lives, what is the message that we should take from this bill? That it’s okay to scrutinize the private lives of women if they receive federal assistance? Where do we draw that line? In Pennsylvania, we know where our Representatives want to draw it: right through our bedrooms.
