Why Diapers Matter When It Comes to Personal Responsibility and Poverty-Article title

[SummerSnow]

A California bill that would subsidize diapers could help low-income families remain in the workforce. So why are conservative politicians rejecting it?

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2014/08/california_diaper_bill_could_help_end_the_cycle_of_poverty.html


As the bill’s text explains:

(a) Existing federal law classifies diapers with cigarettes, alcohol, and pet food as disallowed purchases under CalFresh and the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

(b) However, low-income parents cannot take advantage of free or subsidized child care if they cannot afford to leave disposable diapers at child care centers, a requirement for most child-care centers.

(c) Without access to child care, these parents are less able to attend work or school on a consistent basis, leading to increased economic instability and a continuation of the cycle of poverty.


The bill has been introduced to correct a quirk in how federal law is interpreted. Under government-subsidized programs for the poor, such as California’s Special Supplemental Food Program, diapers are not covered for purchase. Instead they are categorized as optional luxury items, like cigarettes.


*Diapers are a luxury item now?*

read full article at link

[jwirr]

1. Medicare and Medicaid pay for diapers for the incontinent to keep them in their homes instead of

higher cost nursing homes.

[rurallib]

2. see, if they never have sex (that immoral act) then they'd

never have babies. Thus having sex and making babies means that they are a luxury.
Simple logic.