“A bill introduced by a group of Republican state lawmakers in Pennsylvania this week set off alarms at the Children’s Defense Fund, which told Raw Story on Thursday that the proposal boils down to “starving children” in order to punish women for giving birth while on taxpayer-funded welfare. “This is absolutely outrageous,” Patti Hassler, spokesperson for the Children’s Defense Fund, told Raw Story. “Children do not choose their parents and should not be punished for whatever their parents’ actions are. Starving a child, no matter the circumstances of birth or actions of the parents, is always wrong. It’s just outrageous.”* Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss the idea of a woman being forced to prove she was raped, as well as the fairness of punishing children and calling the bill the “starving children bill.” *Read more from Stephen C. Webster/ Raw Story: s.tt Support The Young Turks by Subscribing bit.ly Support The Young Turks by Shopping bit.ly Like Us on Facebook: www.fb.com Follow Us on Twitter: bit.ly Buy TYT Merch: theyoungturks.spreadshirt.com Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here: www.current.com
25 comments
No ping yet
deedee white says:
February 19, 2013 at 6:06 pm (UTC 0)
not as close as you (fiscal cliff)
sharon hubbard says:
February 19, 2013 at 6:26 pm (UTC 0)
disgusting
GhibliKid says:
February 19, 2013 at 6:54 pm (UTC 0)
How the fuck do you even prove that.
DeadFishFactory says:
February 19, 2013 at 7:44 pm (UTC 0)
Not if you believe the GOP idiots. They would blame her for dressing slutty or asking for it.
Hell, even if the mom made a poor decision, you’re still punishing the baby if you’re illegalizing abortion and you are not in favor of social programs that help the mother raise the child.
bubbleypixie says:
February 19, 2013 at 8:36 pm (UTC 0)
@Elizabeth George i wasn’t talking about rape. I don’t think the gov’t should have any say on how many kids they have. The whole idea of a rape council is stupid. It’s basically perpetuating the idea that women all lie about rape .
Elizabeth George says:
February 19, 2013 at 9:10 pm (UTC 0)
If a woman is raped, it is NOT her “mistake.”
MrMrCompiler says:
February 19, 2013 at 9:40 pm (UTC 0)
Making people prove they were raped before they are considered and treated as if they have been raped. Doesn’t make any sense at all, right?
Vulpes Fidelis says:
February 19, 2013 at 10:31 pm (UTC 0)
If that bill had gone through, it would have encouraged false accusations of rape. Great job, GOP.
- sextuple facepalms -
Seriously, what happened to what the Republicans USED to be? They might have been conservative in the past, but they weren’t the monsters they are now.
Ruth Barr says:
February 19, 2013 at 11:19 pm (UTC 0)
So starve children for who their born to, clever. Then get lots of men accused of rape so their children don’t starve, this is crazy.
raspberrymuffin says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:09 am (UTC 0)
And then republicans claim they aren’t waging a war on women. This is EXACTLY the same logic Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East use.
The only reason it makes sense that republicans hate Middle Easterners, is because their religions are competitors. Otherwise, I would wonder why they even hate each other. Their logic is gradually becoming more and more similar.
greenpeices says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:41 am (UTC 0)
So if i cannot afford to feed and cloth my child, my child should go hungry and naked?
icarus313 says:
February 20, 2013 at 1:09 am (UTC 0)
I love how Cenk trolls Ana at the end, haha!
dioseoloreturns says:
February 20, 2013 at 1:53 am (UTC 0)
Who’s Bill and why does he want women to prove they’ve been raped?
Darlene Jimenez says:
February 20, 2013 at 2:14 am (UTC 0)
Yes but shouldn’t these children have a chance to live, to make something of themselves? They do not deserve to die either. (BTW I’m not trying to argue, just stating my opinion).
flake452 says:
February 20, 2013 at 3:04 am (UTC 0)
Would be better to just sterlise people after a period of unemployment or after the first birth if they cannot afford the child.
Artemis750 says:
February 20, 2013 at 3:05 am (UTC 0)
The problem with what you’re referring to, which is full-reserve banking (not sure what you mean by 40s and 50s, full-reserve banking was mostly replaced by fractional reserve banking since the 1800′s).
I don’t disagree with you. I agree that we need legislation that’ll regulate our banks and I would like to see a version of Dodd-Frank more tough against banks to be enacted, but banks run on fractional reserve. Without it, they can’t exist in today’s market.
brighteye007 says:
February 20, 2013 at 3:33 am (UTC 0)
I think bank nationalizing is a little step to far, but how about a regulation that say, you want to bet some money, use your own profit and dont touch money that people deposit at your bank , and you can only bet with money you actually have ?
This worked in the 40s and 50s, and regulation like that made a very strong America in the 60s… until a certain mr Nixon started to deregulate. ( with the help of every president after him..)
Goverment as a job creator, i like it….
deimos93UK says:
February 20, 2013 at 4:10 am (UTC 0)
Give me a break. The Eurozone has a higher GDP and lower debt than the United States.
Fox News really ought to stop fear-mongering about Europe and take a good look at themselves.
Petronio39 says:
February 20, 2013 at 5:01 am (UTC 0)
Dude, don’t even get me started on the banks. If people on welfare are my shitty friends, the banks are a gang of robbers who constantly break into my house and steal my shit, whom I now want to shoot on sight.
I’d fucking nationalize the banks. The idea of a for profit money storage and loan facility is just off to me.
I still think people shouldn’t have kids on welfare though, just out of respect, not out of obligation, and the government shouldn’t spoon feed them, it should give them jobs.
gekapat says:
February 20, 2013 at 5:38 am (UTC 0)
They can stand in line at the DRV… The Department of Rape Victims…
brighteye007 says:
February 20, 2013 at 5:49 am (UTC 0)
” The government’s shouldn’t have to tell people not to get pregnant on welfare, but Americans are shitty friends who take you for granted ”
Well, Americans look at the fat bankers that made some very bad bets, got some goverment bailouts and after that, continue to make more bad bets.
If the richest people in America lack responsibility, why would the poorest have some ?
This is your friend crashing on your sofa, that he sells, so you have to buy a new one , that he also sells…
aoteagirl60 says:
February 20, 2013 at 6:01 am (UTC 0)
true but it takes two to tangle and in a majority of cases the male takes no responsibility “all the pleasure no responsibility”. I think you will find that there is only a small percentage of females who would take advantage of the system, otherwise informed sex education is the answer to stop unwarranted pregnancies, you know the requirement to wear a condom, easy availability of contraception etc
Lord666Belial says:
February 20, 2013 at 6:58 am (UTC 0)
I do not disagree with you but if the person can not finanically take care of the child they should not expect the government to take over that role. It is not the governments job to do that. Our government is not supposted to take care of us we are supposed to take care of it. Thats why it is a nation for the people by the people. The government should pay for NOTHING that only benifits individual people.
Lord666Belial says:
February 20, 2013 at 7:22 am (UTC 0)
No if that is the case she should abort the child. I never blamed the female. I simply said if the person knew they could not afford the child they should be smart enough not to have it. That is the point.
greycloud24 says:
February 20, 2013 at 8:12 am (UTC 0)
i am not worried about money, its the principle. its not ok for people just to add to the burden of everyone else. it doesn’t follow the no harm caused principle. by having a child they can’t afford they cause harm to the child being born as well as the society who now must pay for the child. no i am not worried about a pension.