Would there be more babies placed for adoption if...?

there was no financial/social assistance programs through the government? I'm curious as to the opinions on this one. If a mother couldn't financially afford to provide for her baby's needs due to no assistance available would there be more babies placed for adoption?

I find the government interesting with this, as several years ago, I was lying in a hospital from a terrible injury, and my husband was half way through school. My job was relatively new and therefore I had no EI from it. We lived off savings for a few months until funds ran out. The government would absolutley give us NO assistance what-so-ever despite the fact that we had a 18 month old son. They said that they would only help us if my husband quit school, and couldn't find a job. (We had never applied for assistance before either)
Yet, if I were a single girl who accidently got pregnant and wanted to keep my baby, the government would offer assistance- no problem.
Additional Details
Don't get me wrong- I absolutley think that the government should help out single Moms, I just think that it's interesting that it's harder to get child assistance if you are married and in a temporary tight spot than if you are single and need long term support

Ghost Writer Rides Again

It's how the government works. They figure since you can afford to send your hubby to school, there is no need for assistance. If public assistance was taken away, I fore-see more women obtaining an abortion before carrying to term and relinquishing for adoption.

When I found out I was pregnant with my daughter, we made $150 more than the max requirement to get medicaid. We had no insurance because it was too pricey. I enrolled with private health insurance, lying about the pregnancy until I was almost five months along. It was the only way to get covered since they still considered pregnancy a "pre-existing condition". But I paid almost $200 a month, and they barely covered the total expenses of her birth. Out of a $13,000 bill, they only covered $6000. I asked the claims clerk if I should just bend over and take it because it was supposed to cover 80% of costs. She told me that the ceasarian was not covered and some of the drugs given were not covered. I still refuse to pay it because there was nothing in any of the paperwork sent that said emergency ceasarians were not covered.....money grubbing a$$holes. This is why I think we should have socialized health care. For those of us who can not afford private insurace or insurance thru employers, but we make too much for medicaid.

Latanian

The real problem is that the government will NOT help those that are willing to help themselves. I lived in public housing and went to college full-time I had a 3.8 GPA and.With two children and a disabled husband they told me that I would have to work full time to get assistance. So I got a job at a general store. I had to drop out of school. So instead of assisting my family for 4 years while I finished school and got a reliable job with good pay they would rather support us until my kids are grown while I work for minimum wage because I have no education. However I would find away to raise my children weather I had help or not. I don't care what I have to do. My babies will be safe, fed and loved.

Rainia W

I think there would be a lot more abortion.... in fact, I think the main reason there IS abortion is because moms don't get enough help, whether it be financial or time off of work or other things.

Not so sure about adoption though, but I think there would be more babies, but definately more older children up for adoption if there was less social assistance.

Victoria B

I'm only 13 so tell me to shut up if you think what i say is stupid.
BUt i am adopted and i was put in a foster home because my mum was single and had no money and was scared she wouldnt be able to look after me. I love her and still do even though i amwith another family. She wasnt the best mum but she did try to keep me with her and if she had financial support i proably would still be living with her. So YES i do think more kids not just babies would be in care if no one had financial support.

Silverbyheart

I think it's a screwed up situation. Our government has flaws and the only way to fix those flaws to write someone who can help you like a your state.

Elizabeth

Why are you injecting an adoption question into the need for universal health insurance coverage?

tasha

This is something that has bothered me. I was a full time student, working and living on my own. My hours were cut at work and I was getting behind on rent. I asked for temporary assistance from the government. They denied me because I had no children. But if I was to spit out some kids then they would help. Why not assist someone who is NOT abusing the system instead of encouraging them to not work or go to school and sit at home and have babies.

sam22254

I don't know if there would be more adoptions or not. But I know that at least in Texas, adoption agencies fund most of the judges,senators and government offices.

littleJaina

The canada and U.S. have very different social services structures, but I think the problem with ALL social services is that they can never be truly accessed fairly.

Here's a good one... when I was with my ex, we found out our marriage license had been rejected (very long story - before this I'd never realized such a thing was POSSIBLE). Anyway, that meant that his daughter would NOT qualify to be on my health insurance through my job. She would have, if she'd been living with me and my ex wasn't, but since he WAS living with me, but we weren't (legally) married... she didn't.

Mind you, at that point in time we were paying out the butt for her health insurance (which wasn't really ALL that good to begin with) for a child who had cancer and needed a ton of doctors etc. My ex was "working from home" as a contractor which was very unsteady income, since we coudln't put his daughter in daycare because she was "medically fragile". So we thought - ok, this is what SSI and Medicaid were maid for, right?

Um, wrong! When we applied for them, we were told that because I was living in the same household and me and her father shared a child (actually, I was pregnant at the time) that my income would count against her being able to get medicaid - even though I wasn't legally allowed to put her on my insurance plan. But it gets better....

I tried to call in and talk to them about it, but guess what, they wouldn't talk to ME. You know why? Because I wasn't TECHNICALLY her mother or step-mother. I was "mother enough" to have my income counted against her medicaid, but not mother enough for them to explain to me WHY the application got rejected. It was enough to make you pull your hair out.

The same thing goes into alot of the "wellfare" programs we have here. To qualify for most of them, your income has to be so low that you basically can't work... it's counter productive. If you DO start working at a somewhat on the way to self sustaining job, then the amount of extra money you are making is often dwarfed by the amount of government assistance you are losing (if you count up medicaid, housing assistance, child care assistance, and food stamps). It's just insane!

So, to answer your question, the US doesn't have the "if you're married you can't get help" rule... it just has the "the harder you try the more we'll penalize you" rule...

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: