College Services for Mothers... All Mothers

Hmmmm...just read though the actual bill. I wonder why they can't just write those things so that they make sense. I swear Congress likes to have it's own language just to keep us regular folks out of their business. While, I like the idea of it....in essense, yes..more support for moms in school, childcare, services, etc....I don't see why adoption really has anything to do with it and why it is so predominently mentioned in the bill. I also didn't see anywhere where they said it was to steer away from abortion. Was that clearly stated somewhere else? I can infer it...and then, of course, the adoption part becomes very clear, but I still don't like that aspect of it. Like why? Why can it not just be a bill to provide help and support for mothers to go to school. Why does it have to be about the politics of Roe vs. Wade? It should be done because it is a good bill...not because the right to life has gotten so much control...and the politicians are desperate to find another solution to abortion. I HATE that the current administration is pumping money into adoption...not because they know so much about it, not because I think they really care, but because they just see it now as the golden ticket to satisfy the abortion issue. Like if college student Susy finds herself pregnant and she checks into these great new services, why does adoption have to be brought into it? Why can't she get the services without anyone even thinking that she would NOT want to parent her child? Plus, if she is interested in adoption and wants to go forth with that..then the majority of agencies would help her with support..so the need for government services are moot. They aren't saying that they want to lower the expenses of the agencies and adoptive parents..which are rediculous and out of control..unless that is what they are doing, but don't want to say that. Bleh..it's good..it's a step in the right direction, but I fear for the wrong reasons. Why can't we just foster support and assistance and positive reinforcment for moms in school, assume parenting, without bringing adoption into the equation?

Hi,The information about opening options to women other than abortion is from statements made by Sen. Dole.

Hmmmmm..So, the article has no mention of adoption..and makes the bill out to be a really great funding source for women in college with kids. And by the article, I wouldn't even feel an objection that they are doing it to counteract abortions. It's like OK, you see abortion as a problem, but they are offering a real solution. Nice..sincerely, nice.Still don't know why then, the real bill is mentioning adoption. That just really puzzels me.Unless, for whatever reason it somehow falls under the federal funding law where adoption must be offered as another option whenever they bring up adoption. Curious.

I haven't read the bill, so, I can't comment on it yet. But, I believe strongly that young pregnant women in this country who want to continue their educations need and should be given alot more support than they currently receive. Would that necessarily follow that less babies will be available for adoption? Probably. But, I would rather see less abortion, less adoption and more parenting as the first choice. While I have some concerns knowing the the Right to Life Feminists are behind this, I am glad that someone is promoting the idea. Currently, it seems as though abortion is the first choice, adoption is second and parenting is a distant third. In my opinion, the order is skewed. Parenting should be the first option. And I think it would be if more young women knew that they could parent and still finish college. So I am all for childcare support, etc. However, if this bill is another attempt to promote adoption as the "perfect solution" as usual, then, I do have problems with it. Perhaps those of us who favor parenting over adoption in most instances need to be involved with this and help insure there is some balance? For now, I think I will write to Elizabeth Dole to educate her that an unplanned pregnancy does not always translate to "unwanted". Thanks for the link. I am very interested in this whole subject as I have been whining for a while now about the fact that we treat women with unplanned pregnancies very poorly. Currently they receive little support and inaccurate info about adoption, abortion, and parenting.

(From the article offered in the second link from Nancy.) So can I ask how any of these proposed services help parents who have placed a child? I find it just as odd as Claude that adoption isn't mentioned in the article whereas it is mentioned in the Bill. I do agree that offering support to expectant parents considering adoption would be a great idea, especially to those still in school as trying to balance a pregnancy and a huge decision along with schoolwork can be daunting. I'm just confused as to how these services help those who have all ready placed. Any heads up on that matter?

You know, I have read the bill now, and I am unclear as to why adoption is mentioned. UNLESS they are wishing to reinforce and promote adoption too. Maybe I am being paranoid about this? Unless they do want to promote adoption, why would they include any mention of it? Am I missing something here? Or are they trying to make it clear that a pregnant young woman can receive this help even if she chooses to place her child? And to to say that they will help someone who is placing or will place her child? So, are they discouraging an abortion because a young woman won't receive any funds for that, but, she will if she places her child? But if a young woman is NOT parenting, why does she need extra financial support anymore than any other young woman. Or are they going to reward her for producing a child for someone else? Seems I have more questions than answers. I hope it makes more sense to others than it does to me. I feel somewhat ambivalent about the way it is worded, but, love the concept of more support for ANY young parent.

I haven't read the bill yet.. So forgive me if I am speaking too soon...:flower: My first reaction to the OP, was wow! That's GREAT! I was pleasantly surprised that it included mothers who placed their children, because I think that often, those mothers are also overlooked, and maybe forgotten? I am thinking maybe they wanted to/had to include all mothers so as not to be discriminative. KWIM? And since I haven't read the bill or the article yet, I'm purely speculating, I wonder if the use of "unwanted pregnancy" was meant for that, and not for all unplanned pregnancies? I think it's a step in the right direction. I'm going to go check the bill and the article out. Interesting topic!

I just read both, and I do think the bill is great. I think it's something to give expectant parents an extra option, or an extra opportunity, to parent if they chose. And, of course, there will always be expectant parents who just don't want to parent, for whatever reason, some may not ever want to. And I think that's the reason adoption was brought into the bill/article at all. This may be the kind of place/service where a woman can get objective support to help her make her decision, whether to parent, place, or abort. I think it's good for a service like this to be offered to young women (and the expectant dads, too) so they have a safe place to go and ask questions. They would have a resource center. Other than an abortion clinic or an adoption agency. (I admit, I don't know if there are other options out there, but that's what I think a lot of women in crisis/unplanned pregnancies think of, too.) So to have a place where people can go for advice, support, guidance--whether it's helping a young mom/dad get on WIC, welfare, find public housing, or find an adoption agency, or an abortion clinic--I think this is a great idea, and long overdue. I know that if I had been pregnant in college, I would have freaked out and not known who to talk to. And I think I would like to have a place like this to go to for support. I'm all for this.

Having read both the bill and the article it would appear that the proposed services are well-intended. It sounds as if there are a variety of options available and not just a cover to promote adoption. However, I do not see how these services would benefit somebody who has already placed for adoption....unless it is referring to counseling services? It would be ideal if the public viewed parenting as a first choice for an unintended pregnancy. I too have been opposed to promoting adoption as an alternative abortion.....the fact is they are both options to an unintended pregnancy and rarely, if ever is parenting suggested as a first option. Has anyone ever picked up a local newspaper in a college town? Have you ever read the personal ads? I live in a very small town, pop. 15,000....however we also have a State University....and barely a day goes by w/ out at least one ad from prospective adoptive parents....which seem to target the college-age population. The young women are already getting that message. Services such as what has been proposed sound as though they will provide an expectant mom w/ a variety of options that will enable her to see parenting as a viable option and not just that she either has to abandon her education or release her child to adoption if she chooses to not terminate. I attended this same university as a single parent, living in on campus family housing and at that time we had a very strong network of support, trading day care and encouragement for one another. The university has since discontinued family housing. Housing is part of the proposed bill and trust me, that kind of support can not be undervalued! In my opinion, there are several positives to the proposed bill. When options are in greater number there is usually a correlation of feeling like one is more in control as a result. Diane

OK - let me see if I am comprehending the bill correctly. I am 52, widowed, with a just-turned-7 y/o and a 13 y/o still home. Would I qualify for child care, etc., etc., if I signed up for a college class? If so, probably 75% or more of the women who attend college (including some of us oldies) have minor kids still at home. I think this is a TOTAL waste of tax dollars. Unless it's NOT funded by tax dollars, but private donations. IF that's the case, then fine. Sign me up.

I haven't read the bill, so I apologize if I'm getting a little ahead of myself... If they're thinking of giving birthmom's money for college, can us adoptees get some money, too?? :clap:

If I were to make a list of things that our tax dollars are "wasted" on, assistance for helping to keep moms/parents in school to receive an education would be nowhere on that list. Our government is guilty of huge wastes, things like building a bridge to nowhere costing millions, and our little local school system has had to make the very difficult decision to close a school for the lack of $250,000. It appears to me that priorities have been skewed. A program that assists young people in their educational efforts is investing in their futures and increases their options in life, not a waste at all. Education is the future.

Let me rephrase my intended communication. I do not agree with it being a GENDER and REPRODUCTION issue. And it clearly is, as this is currently proposed. What if I'm a FATHER? What if I'm a REPRODUCTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FEMALE who has by choice NOT procreated irresponsibly, but need financial aid in attending school, to be financially prepared for my future children? What if I'm FEMALE with kids, but my job is eliminated, and I can't afford to just go to school full-time, will I get money sent my way??? BTW, whose pocket will be picked further for tax $$ to fund this???? MINE! Sorry, as worded, it's totally irresponsible and NOT acceptable.

Yuck. Why can't it be a bill to support PARENTS, not just mothers? There's no need to discriminate on the basis of gender. (Totally OT: Hi Sass, I've been thinking of you and wandered over to see what you're up to these days. I'm well, and Aaron is a two and a half year old ball of fire. :-) )

Given the language of the bill, it appears that mother's that have relinquished are listed specifically so that they cannot be EXCLUDED from the programs (such as post-partum counseling and support groups). If they were not listed specifically, they would have no legal opportunity to be included in programs funded by the proposed grants. While I am concerned about how the plan would actually be executed, I did like that it listed providing information and referrals for adoption (among other things) for those that REQUEST such information. (As I said though, guaranteeing that it would actually be done that way could be another issue.) Not really sure how I feel about this though: It seems to exclude the father if the couple is neither married or intending to marry--unless you can say that you plan to marry, even if that means EVENTUALLY (you know, sometime in the next century or so). BTW...I fully agree that such legal documents are written in that form to intentionally keep us out of the loop.