Rand Paul Says Enough’s Enough, Single Mothers

OnYourOwn

During an appearance in front of the Chamber of Commerce of Kentucky last week, Senator Rand Paul promoted the idea of setting limits on government benefits for women who have too many children and actively shaming women who have children out of wedlock.

During a question-and-answer period following his remarks at a Commerce Lexington luncheon, Paul responded to a question about workforce development by including a warning about unwed young mothers doomed to poverty. [...]

“We need to be telling kids ‘don’t have kids until you’re married,’” Paul said. “It’s your best chance to get in the middle class is not to have kids. There’s all kinds of ways, and we can debate … but there are all kinds of ways to stop having kids.”

He continued: “You know, but we have to teach our kids that. But some of that’s sort of some tough love too. Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount.’ I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re not going to give her any more money. But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer. Some of that’s not coming from government. It needs to come from ministers and people in the community and parents and grandparents to convince our kids to do something different.”

You have no choice other than to have another child because we’ve eroded your access to abortion and family planning to the point that neither are practical but, you know, enough’s enough. I think you’ve received enough help with those children we’ve forced you to have. You’re on your own now. Maybe your children can sweep the floor of the cafeteria in exchange for lunch.

Rand Paul is against equal-pay legislation, against abortion, and against Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

He is against everything that would make it easier for single mothers to “stop having kids.” He’s also against things that would make it easier for single mothers to support themselves, such as receiving equal pay for equal work or higher minimum wage.

Where does that leave us? Rand Paul says there are “all kinds of ways” to stop having kids but, since he opposes most of them, I can only deduce that he believes women should simply keep their legs closed.

Paul says the Republican party “should sell this message.”

I’m all ears. I’d like to hear his ideas for family planning inside the Economic Feudal Freedom Zones.

(h/t ThinkProgress)

This entry was posted in Abortion, Rand Paul, War On Women and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • mdblanche

    “Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount.’”

    How libertarian of him.

  • muselet

    It would be better if women had access to contraception—and, yes, abortion—so unwanted pregnancies occurred much less frequently. Beyond that, however, “unwed young mothers” wouldn’t be “doomed to poverty” if society didn’t stigmatize them and make their already difficult lives even more of an obstacle course. So, naturally, Rand “I’m A Libertarian Except When It Comes To Ladybits” Paul proposes adding to the stigma and taking away financial resources because he’s all about freedom! and liberty!

    I don’t expect much from irregularly-accredited ophthalmologists, but this marks a new low for Rand Paul.

    –alopecia

    • j hentai

      kudos for “irregularly-accredited ophthalmologists”

  • Christopher Foxx

    I swear I’ve seen cartoons with that very same idea at least three dozen times.

    Which is a sad state of affairs.

  • Christopher Foxx

    He is against everything that would make it easier for single mothers to “stop having kids.”

    It’s very simple and very obvious. If Republicans really, truly wanted to stop abortions they wouldn’t be opposed to birth control. People don’t abort pregnancies they don’t have.

    • LibertyDwells

      Ahhh, another BS leftist talking point. Conservatives don’t oppose birth control. We oppose being forced by the government gun to fund assistance for your desires. Take care of your own actions or don’t take actions that put you at risk of consequences you don’t wish to deal with and stop whining that it’s someone else’s responsibility.

      • Christopher Foxx

        We oppose being forced by the government gun to fund assistance for your desires.

        So, by the same standard, I shouldn’t be forced to fund your desires, or the desires of anyone else but myself for that matter.

        So when I object to my tax dollars being spent on a bloated defense department, corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich, you’ll support me on those? I suspect you’d balk at that.

        I maintain what I originally said: If Republicans really wanted to stop abortions, they’d support birth control being available. If they really wanted to stop unwanted pregnancies, they’d be willing to help do so. They object to birth control, the clearly most effective means for accomplishing that goal of fewer unwanted pregnancies, they object to birth control because it allows others to have greater control over their own lives.

  • stacib23

    Rand Paul is an asshole, but the limits on how many children welfare would cover changed under Bill Clinton and the whole welfare reform deal. Aid to Families with Dependent Children would allot food stamps for that fifth kid, but no increase in the cash allotment no matter how many more children a woman had.

    • Churchlady320

      But cash help is limited to TWO.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    Paul says the Republican party “should sell this message”

    Yes, by all means, sell this message Republicans. Sell it in time for the 2014 midterms, just like you did the 2012 elections. I’m sure the results would be the same. Which is more votes for Democrats.

  • Lady Willpower

    “There’s all kinds of ways to stop having kids.”

    Translation:

    “Stop being such whores, ladies. It’s all your fault.”

  • Churchlady320

    Uhhh – there is one ‘welfare” program, and that is Temporary Aid to Needy Families that the GOP got rammed through in 1994 to begin in 1996. It already LIMITS subsidies for children to TWO KIDS, no more. Never mind if you’re single or married – there is NOT ANY MONEY for more than two kids even if you had them in wedded bliss before needing help. And Rand Baby – this is YOUR party’s measure. How come you don’t KNOW that?

    • muselet

      Because he’s a dimwit who’s pandering to the other dimwits in his party, perhaps?

      –alopecia

  • mrbrink

    Economic genocide just doesn’t sell like it used to. Goddamn political correctness!

    Rand Paul’s the type person who would have made ‘boo-hoo-get-a-job’ gestures along the Trail of Tears.

    It seems like every time I see a wingnut-led family they’ve always got dozens of kids in tow. They’re the happiest breeder motherfuckers on the planet, sucking the wealth right out of the mouths of the poor always looking to bury the bodies of their silent witnesses in the fine print of their folksy remake of the Final Solution. I think they’re now calling it the Freedom Solution because it sounds less offensive when you say it in sane company.

    When people start talking about population control I tend to think they’re either psychotic, or just not thinking things through, probably because controlling the population is an inherited idea from some crazy uncle. You don’t have to go too far to find someone who agrees that people shouldn’t be able to have as many kids as they want, most especially if they can’t “afford” them. Yeah, obviously you want to reduce teen pregnancy and children out of “wedlock,” whatever the fuck that means. But for what? So there’s not another mouth to feed at the ‘welfare’ office stealing food rations from the rich?

    Sure, I get it, who would want another physical example of the failure of the free market around to remind them that their ideological oops-baby is now a full-grown serial killer leaving boogers for calling cards at every crime scene? Why are 22% of all children living in families below the poverty line in the greatest, wealthiest nation in history? Because there’s not enough to go around? Lies. You kick poor kids off the rolls, they’re still going to be there, living in families living under the free market’s tyranny of poverty wages, but now they’re starving and homeless because Rand Paul thinks the mere existence of your dirty little poor-babies sullies his mad hatter birthright worldview.

    There’s plenty of wealth in this world to provide for everyone, with room for billions more. There’s a lot of empty space in North America. Rather than trying to tie the tubes poverty, maybe we should think about how we produce food and harness energy, or build housing and learning institutions to promote an economy around helping to save lives and sustain them rather than one that is merciless and dim-witted from the top down. There’s a lot of wasted space and resources in this country, Rand Paul is Baby Huey America running around with a shitty diaper on his head smothering women and children with tough love and death hugs. It looks a lot less fucked up because he’s so adorable.

    Masters Of War comes to mind.

    You’ve thrown the worst fear
    That can ever be hurled
    Fear to bring children
    Into the world
    For threatening my baby
    Unborn and unnamed
    You ain’t worth the blood
    That runs in your veins.

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

      Holy crap, Mr. Brink, you can write like a mothafucka! Love this so much.

  • Badgerite

    No War on Women there.

  • LibertyDwells

    It’s amazing the things leftists will believe and parrot. Here’s the reality: If you can’t manage even the minimum amount of control required to not have MULTIPLE children then don’t cry that it’s everyone else’s responsibility to pay your way. And spare the abortion fallacy. It’s not required nor an aspect of responsibility and the left itself regularly says it should never be a method of birth control anyway.

    It’s the sort of illogic, inconsistency, hypocrisy, absurdity and presumption shown in this article that is quickly rendering the left irrelevant despite the demographics that should be supporting you.

    Hmm, with that in mind…by all means, keep talking.