Well we finally have a study linking child support enforcement to a lowering of single mother birth rates.
“Researchers at the University of Washington and Columbia University said Friday that child support laws' power to reduce single parenthood is an unintended consequence of a policy designed to help children and cut public welfare costs.”
Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."
The really GOOD NEWS is that this clearly demonstrates that women do NOT have children to get child support; as the states that collect the MOST child support have demonstrated a 20% DROP in single motherhood. So if women were having kids to collect support you would see just the opposite happen with a 20% increase in single mothers to match the child support collected.
So another urban myth shot down.
This could be more BAD NEWS for those who hate mothers and like to spread lies about us.
AND MORE BAD NEWS:
Additional research will now be required to ascertain if actual population NUMBERS in any particular community are being impacted OR if this study's results just means more mothers getting married now, so no drop in overall population for any community has occurred. Although somehow I suspect this drop in numbers of single mothers is mainly translating into lower population within the African-American community.
AND one must always suspect any public policy where this is the ultimate outcome.
Thus the search for truth continues.
Study Ties State Laws, Unwed Child Births
By REBECCA COOK, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jun 18, 2005, 1:52 PM ET SEATTLE - Tough child support laws may dissuade men from becoming unwed fathers, as states with the most stringent laws and strict enforcement have up to 20 percent fewer out-of-wedlock births, a new study shows.
Researchers at the University of Washington and Columbia University said Friday that child support laws' power to reduce single parenthood is an unintended consequence of a policy designed to help children and cut public welfare costs.
"Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."
The percentage of unmarried births in the United States has increased from 10 percent in the 1960s to about a third of all births today. Because children of single parents run a higher risk of poverty, academic failure and other problems, lawmakers are always seeking policies that will discourage unwed births — usually focusing on the mothers.
Researchers said their study recognizes the father's responsibility. "Decisions about sexual intercourse and marriage involve two people," said study co-author Irwin Garfinkel, a Columbia University professor and one of the nation's top experts on child support. The study, which has not yet been published, looked at a nationwide sample of 5,195 women of childbearing age using data from 1980-1993.
It didn't show whether tougher child support laws prevented pregnancies or encouraged marriage. Plotnick said the data limited the researchers to observing a strong correlation between tough child support enforcement and fewer out-of-wedlock births. Whether that's caused by fewer unmarried people getting pregnant or more couples marrying when the woman is expecting, he could not say. But he said the findings warrant further study.
"It's been very hard to find conventional programs that reduce unwed childbearing that work," Plotnick said Friday. "If you found a program cutting nonmarried births by 20 percent, you'd be happy."
Researchers noted wide disparities in child support policies. For example, in 2002 — the most recent year for which data were available — only one state, New Jersey, collected at least 80 percent of owed child support.
According to Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, 31 states collected 41 percent to 60 percent of child support orders. The District of Columbia collected less than 20 percent of all child support owed.
4 comments:
Yes I understand that correlation is not causation, not always
anyway.
Yet sometimes it is.
I think we need to look a little deeper into the issue BEFORE we decide that there is no correlation between rise in collection of child
support and 20% drop in single mothers.
As this is a pretty big drop.
I mean men have always wanted
casual sex, even in very puritanical societies with harsh punishments for both men and women for acting upon this. So to me this is a given that nothing will impact this; including being forced to pay child support if having a child from said casual encounters.
I mean if imprisoning men or even killing them hasn't stopped them
hankering and chasing after casual sex, I seriously doubt if asking them to pay child support will.
The pivotal people here are the women. What is stopping
them??? That's the question??? I guarantee you that they
are still having casual sex with men, but I bet they are just using
better birth control.
Thus the question is really what is it about stricter enforcement of
child support collection that is driving these potential single mothers to take more care when having casual sex....and I bet if we honestly researched it, that it's related to legal issues like
custody.
Anyway, I was more interested in what you said regarding feminism
going 'back to a more moral sexual stance between men and women'?
Or something like that? Where have you read or hear anything
related to this??? Or what leads you to believe it???
"Of course, lots of men are driven by hormones to either ignore the risks or try to hedge them. The sexual revolution has given them access to a lot of sexually available women, but they must now deal with the pitfalls. This ties into the male BC pill or contraceptive which would be far more revolutionary than abortion rights since men wouldn't be bluffing: They really wouldn't want to have children from casual sex."
Exactly...
Then let's see how far our population numbers drop before the government steps into this too. As let's face it, if women waited for men to be ready to have kids we would have probably gone extinct somewhere around the time of the Romans.
Actually the Roman DID go extinct, they were overrun by the Germanic tribes...
Probably a large portion of our population is related to those 'whooopies' where women finally just get tired of waiting and take matters into their own hands.
Well that was a depressing post not even counting the NYMAMA wise crack.
Listening to you, everyone in western civilization might as well just collectively join hands and jump off the nearest bridge.
It's depressing because you are telling me that western civilization is going to be overrun by barbarians who are going to take over our nations in a generation or two.
This will not happen via invasion but through sheer inertia; as we die out from having too few kids.
With the fall of communism, came new hope for people as basically the 'heroes' of the Cold War won a major victory and democracy, capitalism, all sorts of freedoms were now available to people.
There was hope in other words of a better world for most of the people in those countries...
Now however you appear to be telling me that religious fundamentalists, either Pat Robertson or Osama bin Laudin will be in charge of western civilization in the future...
So some of the same guys who were barbaric enough to drive three planes into the World Trade Center killing thousands of innocent people and who regularly chop off each others heads and hands for relatively minor offenses are now in line as the heirs apparent to centuries of our blood, sweat and work that went into building this great civilization...
I'd sooner return this place to the Indians before I let those assholes have it...
"I'm curious, NYMOM, what is your view of the 'perfect' or at least workable society? What do you see society, if all things go well, progressing towards? How much equality is enough? How much is too much?"
The 'perfect' society would be equality in all outcomes when people can and do make the equal contribution...
In essence, equal opportunity with no guarantee of equal result according to some quota...
For instance, if you go to medical school and fulfil all the requirements you become a doctor.
It would NOT be people having equal rights/results to something that they have contributed little or nothing of their own to...such as being allowed extra points on a test so you could pass and become a doctor in order to have enough women in medicine.
Same thing regarding children.
Thus, women should ALWAYS be the custodian of their children, as they unequivocally make the larger investment in their existence. It's a natural law and right that should be automatic and is the case in MOST other societies with the exception of Western societies where our men have obviously made themselves mentally ill with jealousy over women's role as the givers of life.
IF a mother wishes to voluntarily assign that right to others, such as when a young girl gives her child up to adoption or voluntarily gives up custody, or is found abusive or negligent, that's one thing. But for a court, some group of unknown individuals to be given the right to decide someone else is more suited to have custody of her child then a child's mother is monstrous. That should be a human rights violation. I don't think we should even recognize the rights of courts to do this...
It's an abomination really and will be seen as such when people look back on this period in our history where millions of mothers have lost custody of their children..
An unnatural event, evil really aided and abetted by both MRAs and gender neutral feminist who encourage it. Thus I could NEVER really be involved in anything that included any of you within it such as a group or something...as MRAs and gender neutral feminists support of this puts them hand in glove in petpetuating a great evil against mothers and their children.
Sorry there is no nice way to say this.
Post a Comment