adoption, welfare, etc...

The main reason that many women would choose a home birth over a hospital birth is the issue of choice and privacy. This is directly weighed against the governments interest in public health, specifically in the mother and the child. The data however, would suggest that contrary to popular belief, a home birth can be just as safe, if not safer than a hospital birth. This may have something to do with a hospital’s tendency to intervene in childbirth, sometimes doing more harm than good. It is my opinion that a woman has the right to choose where she would have her baby. If she feels more comfortable in her own home, it is truly her prerogative. In the same token, if a woman feels more comfortable with a doctor and all the specialized treatments and equipment that a hospital has to offer, it is also her choice. As to those who cite safety concerns, one must only look at the statistics cited in the article about other western nations. These are higher rates of midwife aided births with a lower mortality rate.
I have never given much thought to adoption, though my conception of it was that it would be very similar to how it is now, based on care. This was an incorrect assumption however. Originally, adoption was designed to help maintain bloodlines. (Which are not important in the US, but were in England and still are in France). Childless couples could adopt in order to maintain their family name and grantee an heir. The article mentions that occasionally illegitimate children who were acknowledged by a father could be adopted.
IN the US, Massachusetts specifically, there was, and still is not any emphasis on bloodlines. In the past, adopting a child might be compared to “buying or selling a cornfield”, as Friedman puts it. Missouri law actually compared adopting a child to the acquisition of real estate. Luckily in more recent times, the courts systems have not only been charged with overseeing the “contract” of the adoption, but also the welfare of a child…which has taken on a much higher importance.
Welfare reform is a big issue in my studies as I plan on eventually going on the gat my MSW…however it is still astonishing how much I do not understand about it. At first glance I am sickened by the conservative view of welfare, that people who are on it are lazy, and “freeloading”. They believe that those on welfare lack a certain morality. This flies directly in the face of my views, which are far more liberal. That is that those on welfare generally are not people who lack morals or drive, but economic hardship has driven them to these points and they should be helped. (Of course, working in a social services office for a summer and watching the case workers dented my idealistic view a bit, but did not break it)
According to Hays, 90% of those on welfare are single mothers. The welfare reforms have made it increasingly hard to stay on welfare, as new limits on who qualifies and for how long have been enacted. Conservative family values seem stunted when single mothers are forced to get jobs in order to stay on welfare, and as a result must leave their children. This country’s emphasis on self sufficiency and a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality is all fine, but almost impossible to realize with today’s cycle of poverty. Children in poverty will either go without money, because a mother stays home, or without a mother, because the welfare system requires that at all times she be training, looking, or holding down a job.
Countries like the Netherlands consider poverty to be caused by economic and structural factors, rather than “bad behavior” according to Block, Korteweg and Woodward.. The bad behavior approach is more common in the US, where policy makers assume that it is because of laziness, drug use and promiscuity that poverty is maintained. (This very much echoes Hays ideas.) As I mentioned earlier, mothers who are forced to work to remain on welfare cannot take care of their kids, who then may get into trouble without supervision. IN addition, these women must sometimes “cheat’ the system because the requirements have become so ridiculously stringent. In order to improve, there must be a consistent effort to improve the range of people social services reach AND their quality. Other initiatives like raising the minimum wage to a reasonable level (at least high enough to raise families above the poverty line) must be taken on.
According to Clawson and Gerstel, in order to improve the child care system in the US, we must stop thinking about it as child care, and more as early education. IN the French education system, children begin school at the age of three. Even though much if it is thought it be fun, much of the day is used educationally. Clawson and Gerstel also point out that it is only a small bit more expensive for the French public version ($4500 per child) than it is for US version of private child care. However, in France, the standards are easy figure out. IN the United States, the standards and quality of child care is far more hit or miss.