Michigan Republicans Have Some Real Stupid Questions About A Program That Helps Kids
They're always concerned about the wrong thing.
One thing we know about Republicans is that they love kids and trust parental judgment implicitly, so long as those kids don’t need anything that will cost them money and the parents are just putting their kids’ health in danger because they believe something stupid.
On Tuesday, Michigan’s House Oversight Committee held a hearing on Rx Kids, the state’s cash support system for newborns and prenatal care. Michigan State University professor Dr. Mona Hanna, who runs the program, was eager to share the so-far very impressive results just two-and-a-half years in.
And Republican legislators wanted to know every little thing about the program … except for the actual results, which they did not seem to be even remotely concerned about. Rather, they were far more concerned about how the program might be abused by nefarious actors who want to spend all of that money on pills and liquor.
Via Michigan Advance:
Those questions, and the technicalities raised by Republican lawmakers, were not new critiques. Rep. Angela Rigas (R-Alto), for example, asked Hanna if there was any stipulation in the program that says parents receiving funds cannot spend the money on luxury items, like televisions or on alcohol and drugs, an argument that House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) has alluded to in the past.
Well, it is a very classic “critique” indeed. Hell, I’m half-surprised that Rigas didn’t add “king crab legs” to list. Or Cadillacs.
Another critique came from Christian Nationalist white rapper and one-time Wonkette regular Josh Schriver.
Schriver wanted to know if there were restrictions that would prevent a pregnant woman from getting the $1,500 prenatal payment and then getting an abortion afterwards.
The thing is, in order to qualify for the program, one must be 16 or more weeks pregnant and, as the Michigan Advance pointed out, 96 percent of abortions occur before 15 weeks. It seems fairly unlikely that a significant number of women are going to go out, get knocked up, go through 15 weeks of pregnancy for a $1,500 check, and then go and spend at least half of that on a surgical abortion, as a medication abortion would typically not be recommended at that point. In fact, I would be surprised if there were even one. But even if there were one, would that be a good reason to take all of that prenatal care away from all of the other pregnant women in need?
Also … what kind of restriction would that even entail? Barring these women from having abortions? Because a lot of the time, when abortions occur that late in pregnancy, it’s because a serious problem has developed.
Or does Schriver just want to put that hypothetical out into the universe to further demonize those who choose abortion?
Hanna explained to Schriver that the program has actually led to a reduction in abortion, due to the women being able to get prenatal care and feel more confident about their ability to support a child. Later on, she also explained that the funding for prenatal care has led to a marked decrease in infant mortality, which you’d think he’d be into if that were his actual concern.
The thing is, while these kinds of restrictions make people like Rigas and Schriver feel good, they come with heavy administrative costs, don’t do as much for people and are simply less effective, as Hanna explained:
Hanna also told legislators, and reporters after the hearing, that the bureaucracy of Rx Kids is designed to be minimal and streamlined to allow as much funding as possible to go to actual families instead of administrative costs. The more requirements and reporting in place for parents, she said, the less money within the program would be going to actual families.
So strange that this kind of criticism only seems to come with programs that specifically benefit the poor. You never hear any conservatives saying “Well, if we give billionaires these tax cuts, how can we be certain that they’ll be responsible with them? How do we know they will spend them on providing more jobs instead of buying an island on which to sexually assault and traffick teenage girls or, perhaps, hunt the most dangerous game?”
Want to donate to us but not to Substack? Click here or join our Patreon!
Republicans have been up-in-arms for years about how we must trust parental judgment over medical expertise when it comes to vaccines, how we must trust parents enough to out their transgender children to them without the child’s permission, etc. etc. They love trusting parents! Just … not in this case.
“This is a program built on trust, trusting women, trusting mothers, trusting families to best meet their needs,” Hanna said. And you know what? The actual results of the program show that this trust has been well-placed.
The data collected from program participants shows that the vast majority of money received by families is spent on baby supplies, food, rent or housing expenses, and utilities.
“We would not be seeing the outcomes that we’re seeing without knowing that families are spending this to meet needs,” Hanna continued. “We’re seeing a 90% reduction in evictions. We know that it’s going to help families pay rent and get into more stable housing. We’re seeing these incredible birth outcomes. We know that’s helping families get the care that they need and go to prenatal care, get proper nutrition.”
Imagine caring less about results like than you care about the hypothetical scammers who might be spending that money on “bad” things. Imagine, frankly, dreaming up a hypothetical scenario in which there are bad, selfish, imaginary parents taking this money and spending it on their own vices instead of on their imaginary kid and being more concerned about the imaginary fraud than the imaginary child neglect.
Like, if someone were to do that … the fraud would not be the problem. The problem would be that they were not taking care of their children, and that is something better handled by CPS than by restrictions on a social program.
Hell, if there were a woman out there so desperate for a few hundred dollars that she would go through 15 weeks of pregnancy and a surgical abortion, shouldn’t the abortion be of less concern than the abject poverty she would have to be living in to even consider that as an option? Sheesh.
I love your idea to make sure that the tax cuts to the rich are being used properly and not being wasted on yachts and private sex slave cults!
We have a local community college and set up a fund to give monthly stipends to students who also are the head of the household—caring for a parent or sibling or kid(s). It’s really successful and keeps the student in school, not having to worry about having another job or care for a dependent. It pays more to that person and the community than it costs.