Pennsylvania Republicans Are Politically Braindead

This seems like a good piece of legislation to introduce this close to the election, doesn’t it?

In determining the amount of assistance payments to a recipient family of benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program, the department shall revise the schedule of benefits to be paid to the recipient family by eliminating the increment in benefits under the program for which that family would otherwise be eligible as a result of the birth of a child conceived during the period in which the family is eligible for benefits under the TANF Program. [...]

Elimination of benefits under subsection (d) shall not apply to any child conceived as a result of rape or incest if the department: (1) receives a non-notarized, signed statement from the pregnant woman stating that she was a victim of rape or incest, as the case may be, and that she reported the crime, including the identity of the offender, if known, to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction or, in the case of incest where a pregnant minor is the victim, to the county child protective service agency and stating the name of the law enforcement agency or child protective service agency to which the report was made and the date such report was made.

In other words, Pennsylvania Republicans want to eliminate increased welfare benefits for women who have more than one child while still on the program with an exception for rape and incest, but, only if you can prove that you were the victim of rape of incest.

It’s far harder to prove that you were a victim than it should be. In fact, a majority of sexual assaults go unreported and even more go without being prosecuted. This bill would place the burden of proof on women in need at their most vulnerable moment.

Both outcomes of the bill are morally reprehensible, but the latter condition is utterly unnecessary and mean-spirited. And, might I add, we’re only 12 days away from an election where the future of women’s rights may be determined. This bill was introduced in the Pennsylvania House last week.

I interpret recent events as saying Republicans want to force you to carry rape babies to term and then leave you with the bill. Nor do they want to assist you with the other offspring they encourage you to have.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Epic Fail and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • muselet

    Hell yeah! Let’s punish women who get pregnant and then punish the ones who were raped even more! That’s some sound public policy right there!

    I’ll bet all six State Representatives who introduced this bill (including one D, incidentally) think of themselves as decent human beings.

    They’re not.

    –alopecia

  • Ned F

    And then we’ll defund or get rid of Planned Parenthood so these welfare mothers can’t get contraception. That’ll learn ‘em.

  • D_C_Wilson

    I guess someone decided it was time to dust off the “Welfare queen who keeps having more babies to collect more money” stereotype again.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      They’ve been banging that drum loud and clear since 2008 and it’s gotten worse (with all the other dog whistles) as we approached the election.

  • atlavely
    • muselet

      Overall, good news. However, there’s also this:

      “The [bill’s] language was not at all what I requested,” said Republican Representative RoseMarie Swanger in a voicemail message to The Daily Beast. “After all the concerned contacts I got, I’m pulling that and working on something better next year.”

      I can hardly wait. Maybe next year she’ll actually, y’know, read the bloody bill before she introduces it.

      The term “oxygen thief” comes to mind.

      –alopecia

      • atlavely

        Yeah. I should have emphasized “this.”

        Actually, based on her statements, she thought she was doing rape victims a favor, so the bill will likely reappear pretty much unchanged, once the climate’s different.

  • mrbrink

    Up next: Republicans redefine Roofies as, “date-night enhancers.”

  • http://profiles.google.com/jadopine Jim Oliver

    Why would it be a bad idea? There are no consequences anymore.

    Nate Silver says that the odds are three to one that Obama will be reelected, but the MSM says it is a dead heat. And if Nate Silver is right, no one in the MSM will lose a job. Even though they are EGREGIOUSLY wrong, one might say CRIMINALLY wrong. Because the horse race keeps the advertising going, it sells the papers, it gets the hits on the website.

    So, mission accomplished. And no, not the stated mission of reporting news, the secret mission of raking in the dough for Momma Corp.