Thanks for your words Sherrie,

I think more of us need to rant about this latest outrage. One of the
effects of this continued assault it that it makes us all rather numb.

David

At 02:54 PM 18/04/98 -0400, Sherrie Tingley wrote:
>On [log in to unmask], Susan Smethurst[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>wrote:
>
>> >I have not heard any mention about the fact that harris yesterday
>> >summarily cancelled the $37 monthly supplement to pregnant women on
>> >welfare because he doesn't want the money wasted on beer.
>>
>> What's to comment on? Every time this man opens his mouth he makes some
>> other outrageous statement that shows a complete lack of understanding of
>> real people and their needs and concerns. The list is endless.
>
>I found this move going way beyond outrageous statements.  In light of the
>governments supposed commitment to "Healthy Babies" this move is totally
>indefensible.  To quote Ian Morrision, co-chair of the Ontario Social
>Safety Net  "this is like pulling wings off flies".
>
>Just a few comments.
>
>How much money does the government spend on beer?  Is there some way to
>find out?  I have seen receptions where wine has been served.  I would
>guess that it would be under 10% of what is currently spend a year on this
>benefit  to pregnant women on welfare.
>
>The benefit was never targeted to food, so the line that women can ask
>their doctors for a note just does not fly.
>
>We know that access to prenatal care  is one of the most important factors
>that affect outcomes, with the cost of travel it is easy to see this
>benefit eaten up on that alone.  In addition prenatal vitamins cost over
>$15. a month.
>
>Over 40% of violence in a domestic relationship start while a women is
>pregnant and 21% of  all assaults occurred during pregnancy, over half a
>million women in Canada over the age of 16 have experienced violence by a
>partner during pregnancy.  I wonder why we would have pregnant women on
>welfare???
>
>I understand that since the U.I. changes that the numbers of women
>qualifying for U.I. maternity benefits dropped by half, at the same time
>the number of women in the workforce or having babies did not change.
> Again, I wonder why a pregnant women would be on welfare?
>
>The benefit rate for a women with one child on welfare in Ontario is $957.
>(if she is paying over $511 on shelter)  and for a single person it is
>$520.
>
>I am not sure of the government's intent in announcing this change, I think
>they were hoping to turn people attention and hatred towards women who
>access welfare during pregnancy to have the public believe that recipients
>were having unlimited children, although recently the National Council on
>Welfare announced that less then 1% of the caseload in Canada is mothers
>under 20 and that families on welfare have fewer children then the national
>average.  In addition we know that 93% of the children who's parents are
>forced to turn to welfare were born before their parents went onto the
>system.
>
>For the women who are pregnant and on welfare and really for all the women
>on welfare in the province this statement from the Premier was one of pure
>hatred and an indication of continued economic violence planned for women.
>
>Sorry for the rant, I am hoping that there is continued outrage not only
>about this move but the effects of the rates cuts and the relation of the

>benefits to the actual level of expenses.
>
>S
>--
>Sherrie Tingley
>[log in to unmask]
>