I read Mike Cannatelli's article today with confusion. Here he was chastising us for not supporting young women, apparently unmarried with child. Pro-Life, Pro-Choice gets all the attention! Two issues here, come to mind.
First: Pre WW2, up to 1960's, private charity and family cared for the limited number of 'out of wedlock' pregnancies and newborns. Salvation Army's Booth Memorial Hospital was present in most cities.
I was a social unmarried young male,and recall the code of sexual conduct--against getting pregnant, at that time. It worked. So what induced today's broad open attitude, that--unmarried, pregnancy,responsibility, was no longer Un Civil-Un Moral; and, induces Mike to chastise readers to support these fatherless families, so they can live in a decent manner?
Subsidize anything, and get more of it. The 1930s Social Security Act included support for 'Unmarried White Women, with Child', limited, but--the beginning. Gradually, such support included Black Women, broadened overall coverage; until in 1965, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that Black families were becoming severely comprised by so many unmarried women with child, on support. Great Society--Civil Rights Laws of mid 1960's were to correct 100 years of Jim Crow suppressions.
The 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision eliminated illegal abortions. So, as they say--'The Rest is History". Whites, Blacks, there is no distinction where unmarried families exist; all are characterized similarly; a mother responsible for self, needing support. Family structure severely compromised, especially in urban areas.
Let's start over; WHO started this Syndrome of Family Destruction; children out of wedlock; Civil disruption that condones this unnatural relationship as acceptable? Government Laws? President Roosevelt and the Democratic controlled congress, 1935 Social Security. A mixed bag of Laws, including both Political Parties, for the next 70 years.
Presently, government has fashioned a Social Welfare System that consumes 40-plus percent of tax dollars, to support the Myriad of subsidized, so called unfortunates; who have been marginalized from self sustaining citizens.
Mike, why should a sympathetic public support these dependencies? We are victims too!
Government created the means for this disaster. Let GOVERNMENT SOLVE the mess, and support their problem.
It's time Congress, and Presidents act in the PUBLIC best interest, as our Constitution defines the Rules that governs their actions.
Is there a parody here?