Rape Clause ?.

[mackay 3,739]

What's your views on it ?, inhuman or justified?.

[jacknife 2,005]

I have always said the any form of child benefits should only be paid for the first 2 children.... If you decide to have more then you pay

 

I don't see a problem with paying any benefit to parents who have a third child as a result of a rape

 

I think Sturgeon is being an arse jumping on it.... Had there been no clause for women who have been raped and the government had capped benefits at 2 children end off

 

Sturgeon would then come out with... What about women who have been raped and had a third child blah blah blah

[C556 351]

I quite agree.

[scothunter 12,609]

Oh she has no shame will jump on any cause to further her own agenda. Horrible excuse for a human being.

 

In every policy or benefit if you look deep enough it will throw up a bad element.

 

What about her own meddling in scottish law. She tiedto get the colloberation law dropped.Where one person ccould accuse you of something.however under scottish law there needs to be an impartial person to back it up. SNP dropped the policy as scottish decision makers of law said it was unfair and open to wrongfull accusations.

[Squeamish5 309]

I suspect the 'Rape Clause' is a media hype / pre-election red herring.

 

I may have got completely the wrong end of the stick here but, as I understand it, the government is cutting child tax credits to only 2 per family, (children born after April 2017) with the reasoning that 'People on Benefits' should have to consider / suffer the consequences of having more children than they can afford to keep, just as 'Ordinary Working Families' do.

There are 4 exemptions to this....

•Multiple births

•Adoption from local authority

•Friend or family child coming to live with you

•Child conceived as a result of rape/ non-consensual sex/ abusive relationship.

 

I've probably missed something, as I'm not sure whether the protest against the 'rape clause' is specific to that particular exemption, or being used as a highly charged example to show that these child tax credit cuts might be unworkable or unfair.

IF (and it's a big IF) this is an acceptable policy, then why should any of these exemptions apply to people 'on benefits' when 'ordinary working families' will have exactly the same possible scenarios to deal with within their family budgeting?

 

Whether any woman would want to (or should have to) speak to anyone in social services / the police / the medical profession, about sexual abuse or rape, is a different matter altogether.