New Jersey's Justices Uphold Cap on Aid to Mothers on
Welfare
By DAVID
KOCIENIEWSKI, New York Times, August 4, 2003
TRENTON — New Jersey is legally entitled to continue its policy of denying
additional welfare benefits to women who have babies while on public
assistance, the State Supreme Court ruled today.
In 1992, New Jersey became the first state to adopt a so-called family cap
policy, which ended the practice of increasing welfare benefits by $64 a
month when a recipient had an additional child. The state contended that
it was trying to reduce the cost of public assistance and to encourage
women on welfare to make responsible choices. More than 20 other states
have since adopted similar procedures.
Women's rights groups and advocates for children opposed the cap,
saying it punished poor families unfairly and sought to influence
decisions about whether to have children. When a Rutgers University study
in 1998 suggested that the cap might increase the number of poor women
having abortions, some anti-abortion groups also challenged the policy.
In a unanimous decision released today, however, the State Supreme Court
ruled that the policy simply placed welfare families "on par with working
families," which do not automatically receive wage increases when they
have children.
"This case is not about a woman's right to choose whether and when to have
children, but rather about whether the state must subsidize that choice,"
Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz wrote.
Lawyers who argued the case for welfare recipients said they were
disappointed that the court upheld the policy. They contended that there
were 14,000 fewer births and 1,400 more abortions among New Jersey women
on welfare since the family cap was enacted.
"New Jersey's family cap law punishes the child because the state
disapproves of the behavior of the mother," said Sherry Leiwant, a senior
staff lawyer with the National Organization for Women's Legal Defense and
Education Fund. "As a result, some needy children are denied the basic
necessities of life."
Marie Tasy, legislative director of Right to Life New Jersey, said the
ruling indicated the state's lack of regard for poor women and their
children. One of the two plaintiffs in the suit, a welfare mother
identified only as Sojourner A., said the policy compelled her to have two
abortions because she could not afford to support the children.
"Shame on New Jersey for placing women in this position," Ms. Tasy said.
"The empirical data proves that abortions increase when states fund
abortion for women and impose family caps. They send a terrible message
the poor woman and her children are not valued by society."
But Michael J. Haas, an assistant attorney general who argued the case for
the state, said that welfare recipients who had additional children were
eligible to receive extra food stamps and that the state had been careful
to provide other services for poor families. New Jersey's maximum benefit
for a family on welfare is $424 per month.
"All this law did was set a budget for families," Mr. Haas said, "like
every other working family."
Officials for the state's Department of Human Services declined to comment
on the ruling. A spokesman for the agency, Ed Rogan, said 43,200 children
had been born to welfare recipients since the policy was adopted. The
state has saved more than $47 million under the cap, and that money has
been diverted to job training programs, Mr. Rogan said.
Today's ruling upheld an appellate court decision and was consistent with
a federal court ruling upholding family caps, leaving opponents of the
policy few legal options. But Lenora Lapidus, a lawyer for the American
Civil Liberties Union, said the Supreme Court ruling did mention New
Jersey's promise to ensure the health and safety of needy families.
"We intend to hold the state to that promise," Ms. Lapidus said.
|
