Impact of 2-child benefit cap on abortion decisions

[niceberg]

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/03/two-child-limit-on-benefits-a-key-factor-in-many-abortion-decisions-says-charity

This was inevitable and as such must have been seen as an acceptable outcome by the government when it was introduced.

Why is this seen as a problem? All kinds of families have to make decisions about whether they can afford an unplanned third child, not just ones on benefits.
I was glad about the two child cap - it prevents abusive men fathering endless children on trapped abused women in order to live it up on the benefits - which they have no intention of spending on the poor wife or kids.

And I remember my own hospital ancillary staff being angry at patients on benefits with six children, while they could barely afford two on their salary. The cap is perfectly reasonable- nobody needs more than two kids, and our planet is already overpopulated and suffering environmental damage and global warming as a result.

I understand your point. I didn't say enough in my OP. My problem with it is that during the pandemic, when lots of low paid workers were losing jobs and income, the cap was not lifted. It seems to me to be an obvious form of support during the pandemic, and one which would relieve acute distress.

The rape clause is another issue...

I’m in two minds about this. There have always been families who have had abortions because they knew they couldn’t afford or offer adequate support to additional children. These are families which likely supported themselves and don’t count on receiving anything from the state.

Now the 2 child benefit cap means that people who do rely on benefits have to think about whether they can actually afford children in the same way that everyone else does.

That said I agree it’s very sad. It’s sad that anyone would have to make the choice between having enough food to eat or keeping a baby that they my desperately want.

I’m pro choice but don’t underestimate how upsetting having an abortion must be. My guess is that in the first instance the government hoped that people would rely more contraceptives than abortions.

I’m not sure how much covid comes into it. The cap doesn’t apply to children who were born before it came in, so only people who knew about the cap when they had their children will be impacted in the way you talk about.

I also didn’t think the cap covered things like free school meals? May be wrong.

I must admit I'm in favour of a cap, those of us who work know that we need to be able to afford our kids, I stuck at 2 because we couldn't afford more .

I can see why it’s a sensitive point, anything regarding abortion is but I think it’s fair to keep the cap and it was the right decision.

It’s brings families on benefits in line with families not on benefits. It’s more equal in terms of help.

I don't know why Covid would change the cap? I haven't ever claimed anything, I have two children and couldn't afford more.

Of course we should keep the cap.
I always remember my sis, her DH and their 3 children in a 2 bed starter home they both worked so all bought and mortaged paid for.
A lady we chatted to at school didn't work, her DH didn't work (except a bit of cash in hand), but they were trying for a 3rd child as it would get them a larger home.
Child poverty is inexcusable, but the 2 child cap means we must take responsibility.

Incidentally introduced when the minister concerned was a Roman Catholic, Iain Duncan Smith.

All the cap does is make life 10x worse for families who had more than 2 children because they could afford it right up until a parent dies or is permanently injured and unable to work, and they have to put up with the level of judgement shown here that they "should have thought about that before hey had so many kids".

And as for having to prove you were raped ...

I’m not sure a return to personal responsibility is a bad thing. We didn’t have more kids than we could afford. It was one of the factors we took into account when deciding to have ours. Not only financial but other factors as well. Even if we ticked all the other boxes but couldn’t tick the financial box it would have been a no. If you can’t afford them, don’t have them. Common sense surely?

All the cap does is make life 10x worse for families who had more than 2 children because they could afford it right up until a parent dies or is permanently injured and unable to work, and they have to put up with the level of judgement shown here that they "should have thought about that before hey had so many kids”

Or they should have factored in life/critical illness insurance into the cost of having children?

All the cap does is make life 10x worse for families who had more than 2 children because they could afford it right up until a parent dies or is permanently injured and unable to work

But that’s part of financial planning when considering if you can afford children. We put in place insurance for each of us to cover these scenarios so if this where to happen we wouldn’t be in a pickle. It’s a cost in deciding whether you can afford kids. I know of someone who couldn’t get death/disability insurance due to a serious health issue. This was the main factor in them deciding not to have a child and factored above the actual health issue in their decision.

I agree with all the above posters. Finances absolutely should be considered before bringing a child in to the world.

It effects working families as well though. When I had my first child years ago our household income was about 22k with DH working FT and me PT and we received tax credits.

I believe with 3 children the cap used to be 40k to receive tax credits.

There will be many families in full-time work who will have to choose between abortion and being pushed into poverty if faced with an unintended pregnancy.

@bluebluezoo

All the cap does is make life 10x worse for families who had more than 2 children because they could afford it right up until a parent dies or is permanently injured and unable to work, and they have to put up with the level of judgement shown here that they "should have thought about that before hey had so many kids”

Or they should have factored in life/critical illness insurance into the cost of having children?

Tell you what.

You go and get all the covers you like.

Then have 3 kids.

Then get MS*

Then discover that no chronic condition is covered.

Then try and claim ESA. And PIP.

And then come back and be as smug as you can. I bet it doesn't even come close to 1% of the attitude just shown.

Remember, that you'll need somewhere to live that's accessible - not that you have much chance of getting that. Plus aids and adaptations. All while you're told by many that you really just need to get a job and stop whinging.

*Other shitty debilitating, life limiting chronic and untreatable diseases are available. You can take your pick if you think MS is a conspiracy.

One thing I have noticed repeatedly on this forum is how "feminism" or whatever it's called - completely and utterly excludes disability. All the frothing about toilets which invariably ends up with "just use the accessible ones" as if (a) they grow on trees and (b) if you're disabled you just suck it up. Luckily most disabled people do "suck it up" - but not from choice.

@SerendipityJane

I am really sorry for your situation.

But is the conclusion from your story that everyone should get CB for unlimited children from the outset, or that women who become disabled or experience other hardship events (death of partner etc) should be better supported by the state in that event? I would say the latter

*PinkPlantCase

I’m not sure how much covid comes into it. The cap doesn’t apply to children who were born before it came in, so only people who knew about the cap when they had their children will be impacted in the way you talk about.*

Children born before the cap are only covered if their parents have claimed benefits continually since before the cap. If you had 3 or 4 children before the cap and then lose your job, you are only paid for 2.

I think its disgraceful that our government makes women prove they were raped to access financial support and I can't believe there isn't more anger about it. I also don't think its fair to let kids live in poverty because their parents make bad decisions but I understand why other people support the cap.

When we decided no more kids we made sure there was no unintended pregnancy. I used a form of contraception and asked DH to get the snip. He wasn’t keen, fair enough, but the result was he either wrapped it or didn’t come near me. To be honest if, for some reason, we could only use one form then we wouldn’t have had sex at all as dealing with an accident was not a position we wanted to be in. Obviously I’m going not talking about personal responsibility here when there is a choice, not referring in any way to rape.

*@SerendipityJane

I am really sorry for your situation.

But is the conclusion from your story that everyone should get CB for unlimited children from the outset, or that women who become disabled or experience other hardship events (death of partner etc) should be better supported by the state in that event? I would say the latter*

I agree.

Disability benefits should be better. That is where the issue is, not the benefit cap on children. It is ESA and PIP that need looking at, specifically for people in your situation. The answer for you is not just increasing child benefit for everyone else.

It’s awful that children are being aborted owing to the cap, but it’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation. If the measly amount of CB is a barrier to having a child you prob Ali shouldn’t be having a child in the first place. That’s no life.

I do think disability benefits should be better, and I also really detest the language used around proving conception as a result of rape.

But in the main, I think its a good thing that women are considering whether they can afford to provide before continuing a pregnancy.
By virtue of the fact that it would appear some of these women decided to have a termination because of the benefits cap, this must mean that they are on benefits to begin with, or low incomes with supplementary benefits. In that situation its only right that they consider whether another baby is affordable. And as I understand it this is why the policy was introduced. To discourage people from having large families and claiming state support for them rather than going out to work (And I'm not attacking disabled or unwell families - I mean the people who can work but choose not to because being on benefits previously paid them quite well).

Personally I would prefer that thought to take place before you reach the stage of requiring a termination though as I cant imagine the emotional impact that would have on you.

I was glad about the two child cap - it prevents abusive men fathering endless children on trapped abused women in order to live it up on the benefits - which they have no intention of spending on the poor wife or kids.

Or they'll keep fathering the children but the abused women won't have the financial ability to leave

@Babdoc

Why is this seen as a problem? All kinds of families have to make decisions about whether they can afford an unplanned third child, not just ones on benefits. I was glad about the two child cap - it prevents abusive men fathering endless children on trapped abused women in order to live it up on the benefits - which they have no intention of spending on the poor wife or kids. And I remember my own hospital ancillary staff being angry at patients on benefits with six children, while they could barely afford two on their salary. The cap is perfectly reasonable- nobody needs more than two kids, and our planet is already overpopulated and suffering environmental damage and global warming as a result.

I don't think it will stop abusive men fathering endless children on trapped, abused women. They'll just keep doing it, because ultimately it's the woman and child/ren who will suffer, not the man.

I am not opposed to policies which encourage families to only have two children, per se, but I don't think this is right, because it punishes women, and children once they get here (who then need to suffer in poverty), not the men who cause the pregnancies with their careless ejaculation, and subsequent lack of financial support for their offspring.