Latest news
Home > Blog - In All Things > Paul Andrews SJ > A change to child benefits?

A change to child benefits?

When all the politics and shouting of the abortion debate was over, girls were still watching their periods, and finding they were with child. Some pregnancies were greeted with delight, as the answer to prayer; some with dismay, the result of a drunken encounter with no thought of children or commitment. Some were in between, not planned, nor really accidental. Whatever the context, those girls’ lives were changed. They had a totally new experience of themselves and their bodies. They were more vulnerable, aware that the rough and tumble of childhood was over. They were more needy than they had ever been.

The need was often a financial need. Morning sickness might keep them from work or reduce their income indirectly. Women with child have to nourish themselves well, take extra care of their health; that costs. They need to look ahead and save. Their earning power at that stage of life is usually not at its best. Probably less than half of new mothers can afford to sit back and be looked after. Most feel the financial pinch.

That is an old and rich title, women with child. It should, and often does, confer dignity and interest on an expectant mother; but not always. In the past I have known girls who became pregnant and carried their child to term without ever letting their parents know. The physical and emotional stress of pregnancy was doubled by their efforts to conceal their condition; and of course that must affect the life of the unborn baby.

Clearly a woman with child suffers stress. It is a condition charged not just with dignity and interest, but often also with foreboding and anxiety. Let me suggest a way of doing justice to the special needs of a woman with child. Give her Child Benefit from the time she is verifiably pregnant. A mother’s needs do not just begin with the birth of her baby. For nine months previously her financial and emotional needs have risen sharply. The Irish state, representing us, the public, recognises her needs once the baby is born, by allowing child benefit. This is a grant paid every month for each qualified child normally living with and being supported by the mother. Suppose we move that payment back nine months, or at least to the point when a doctor tells a woman that she is pregnant? Pregnancy testing is reliable and cheap, so the change could be managed safely.

Clearly you would not adjust the administration of it overnight. Child benefit has a long tradition here, and the ins and outs of a new system would need to be thought through. I wonder has this not been suggested earlier, by politicians, women’s groups, or other interested parties?

The move would not just help the finances of the pregnant. It would boost them emotionally, by recognising and rewarding their condition and dignity. And it would recognise the new life that is starting in the woman-with-child. Of course it would cost money, but I would rather see our hard-earned taxes going to needy mothers than to subsidising the expenses of public representatives, or extravagant sports facilities, or other causes that draw on public finances. And the move would draw popular support. I can think of few changes that would trigger more public approval than help for women at their most vulnerable. What do you think?

Photo: William Murphy / Flickr (CC) – From Tribute to Oscar Wilde in Merrion Square Park, Dublin, by Danny Osborne

One comment

  1. A good piece of writing about an important topic. Missing from it is the history of the way in which the Church has been involved over the years in denigating the woman, the child being carried and the families of those affected.
    There are many many more reasons the woman may be pregnant than those you have put forward and being raped is one that is common but not mentioned in your writings. Why?
    The treatment of pregnant women by the Church has been one of the key triggers as to why abortion is considered an answer in these times. Rape victims are usually told it is their fault.
    Parish support is nil and the Magdalene Homes approach leaves and has left pregnant women feeling even more isolated. Hardly fits with the statement about “pregnancy leaving a woman with a “feeling of dignity and interest” but definitely fits with “foreboding and anxiety”.
    When male Church celibate academics write about something they know little about, it causes women to wonder what is the reason for their interest. Is it to make out they are concerned? Why Ignore the reality of the history of the Church’s pastoral approach to women in general and especially those who are pregnant outside of marriage?
    Perhaps a few days spent with women who have been on the receiving end of the defective pastoral care approach of the Church would help in a more balanced article.