Abstract

PIP: Criticism was directed to Maryland Governor William Donald Shaefer's proposal to put family caps on welfare payments to recipients. The idea was to stop automatic increases in welfare payments if a recipient has an additional child. The objection was that 77%, or the bulk of welfare recipients, have only one or two children, and there is little, if any, evidence that welfare caps influence childbearing. The consequences of such reform would be the penalization of children. The political reality is that symbolism has become more important than facts. Putting a cap on welfare may make people feel better about welfare, and may show fairness to working people who don't get raises when their family size increases, but there are other implications. The messages to welfare recipients to stop having children, but not providing the means to do so, is hypocritical. Medicaid abortions were restricted in 1978 by politicians, but provision for better access to contraceptives was never promoted or achieved. Circumstances limit opportunities. The quality of care in public health clinics is abysmal: long lines and overcrowding, and inadequate proximity to welfare recipients' housing. Transportation, particularly in rural areas, is an impediment to access. It is estimated that only 60% of women eligible for government-funded contraception have access. A sign of serious welfare reform will be budget appropriations for day care, job training, and other reform programs.