make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

1 NC city, 2 in SC among tops for unmarried moms

READ MORE:

GREENVILLE, NC (AP) -- A new US Census report finds that a North Carolina city is No. 2 in the country for its percentage of recent unmarried mothers, and two South Carolina cities are in the Top 10.

The report says about 36 percent of births in 2011 were to unmarried women.

A number of metropolitan areas had considerably higher percentages of unmarried recent moms. Tops was Flagstaff, AZ, where three out of four recent mothers were unmarried. Greenville was second with 69 percent of births in 2011 coming to unmarried women.

In South Carolina, Myrtle Beach was fourth with two-thirds of new moms unmarried, while Sumter had more than six out of 10 births coming to unmarried moms.

Louisiana, Mississippi and New Mexico were the states with the highest percentages.

(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

I find it odd that no one

I find it odd that no one seems to THINK about this subject matter when it comes to HOW the GOVERNMENT got involved in peoples personal decisions to begin with. The Native Americans to this Territory didn't seem to have ANY ISSUES with providing for thier own children and raising them up to become Warriors...It was the Colonialization and creation of Currency replacing individual barter that has cause People to attach DEBT CLAIMS to their children's SS#ACCOUNTS...turning humans against each other by collateralizing people.

The amount of welfare

The amount of welfare benefits & the working taxpayers that foot the bill due to behavioral poverty. Last year alone the OMB stated the average money to a individual on welfare was around $66,000. They receive rent, utility & phone subsidies along with paid cell phones. They can receive money for additional schooling (if taken) along with childcare subsidies. Not to mention all the benefits of Medicaid & food stamps , WIC ...all at taxpayers expense.

The OMB further indication large majority have never paid into the system for any of the benefits they receive.

Study after study have shown children born out of wedlock are 3 times more likely to live in poverty & commit crimes...most going on to have out of wedlock births themselves.

If you choose to live an immoral lifestyle that's your choice...but don't expect taxpayers to pay for your promiscuity.

I would have no worries if

I would have no worries if our household income was $66,000 a year. Maybe I need to reevaluate my approach to life.

i agree with GuestSYP - it

i agree with GuestSYP - it matters to the child.

also would be interested to know how many of these single moms and children are supported by the taxpayers. I would venture a guess that not ALL of them are, but a probably a pretty high percentage.

Study on Unmarried mothers in N C and S C

YES INDEED!!! THAT IS WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY TODAY! A CHILD NEEDS BOTH PARENTS TO GIVE A SENSE OF LOVE AND SECURITY. FAR TOO MANY YOUNG WOMEN THINK THAT THEY DON'T NEED A FATHER. I STRONGLY DISAGREE. THEY MOST CERTAINLY DO. YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS VERY STRONGLY!!!! THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE A CHILD TODAY UNLESS THAT CHILD CAN BE LOVED AND SUPPORTED PROPERLY!!!!

So what?

Why is this considered news worthy? Its a personal decision.

Its a personal decision.... uhhh NO!

A "personal" decision you say? If it was REALLY personal then it would be ok. Please read the following and attempt to educate yourself. Your statement proves you need some educating. YOU are part of the problem.

[quote]
In fiscal year 2011, federal and state governments spent over $450 billion on means-tested welfare for low-income families with children. Roughly three-quarters of this welfare assistance, or $330 billion, went to single-parent families. Most non-marital births are currently paid for by the taxpayers through the Medicaid system, and a wide variety of welfare assistance will continue to be given to the mother and child for nearly two decades after the child is born. On average, the means-tested welfare costs for single parents with children amount to around $30,000 per household per year.
[/quote]

When you get into my pockets it "ain't" personal any more. At least not the personal you are referring to. Please.....

wow

Hello Tatertot:

Thank you for the colorful reply. If you want to make a correlation between unwed mothers and welfare, Medicaid etc. okay, I won't dispute you with that. There is a statistical link. However, this does not apply to every case. Furthermore, this state has shown it is behind many others who continue to deny ALL mothers of all backgrounds who may want to raise a child without the sanctity of marriage. Of course there are others who have a child out of wedlock that is unplanned both knowingly and unknowingly.

However, marriage doesn't fix this countries entitlement issues. Marriage equality may improve it and a comprehensive revaluation of our welfare, Medicaid and other government assistance programs is also needed.

Though I respect your argument, I don't respect when someone tells me I am part of the problem without knowing me personally. Second, your argument assumes that this would apply to ALL unwed mothers. Just because the mother is unwed doesn't mean she will seek public assistance. Perhaps she is homosexual, perhaps she doesn't want to be married or perhaps she is wealthy enough not to need a male counterpart.

ahhh.. colorful!

Challenge Accepted!!!

I don't respect someone that throws out nonsense statements with no facts. As I stated IF it had only to do with the decision maker then have at it but it does not in the majority of cases and it is short sighted to take you at your statement.

I will give you a concession that it is NOT every case and I should have put you as "you" for the mindset that thinks it is such a simple subject. So could the system monitor this better and see to it that only deserving folks get the help? I think they could but I doubt it ever will. If they tried the libs would whine racist something....

As for your last statements. I don't give a rats behind WHY he/she isn't married. You can have 10 kids out of wedlock if you please. I am saying that is is NOT a personal decision once "you" involve the taxpayer. Pay your own way and get your hand out of my pocket then it can be truly personal. Until then...

The solution will never come

Oversight will never come because once the check is cashed its never reviewed. This is where the problem is. I think we are in more agreement then you would have originally imagined.

If the tax payer is involved, yes the personal "decision" is null and void, now its not public decision. What we need is simple logic.

They do not review current entitlement benefit holders under the same scrutiny as they spend. This is a horrific problem that continues to grow. The only way to be fair is with a blind system. Review all the applicants void of race and ethnicity. You can even void it of the names if you really want to be fair to everyone.

Then you have panel of volunteers, not paid, who simply have the authority to deny benefits on the basis as being a paying member in the tax base and get to review "subject a", "subject b" etc. based on criteria of time, in the system, actions to improve the situation, criminal records, property ownership. If a subject is on public assistance for many years and willfully has another child then he or she can continue to receive public assistance until he or she is willing to work toward improving their situation, seeking employment, willing to disclose all property and be required to pay the applicable agency back the full amount "borrowed" over time.

There cannot be a viable welfare system if the welfare's do not re-contribute to the welfare distributors. It should be run like a bank.

Again...just a dream but this will never happen.

Proof that there can be....like me, fiscally conservative democrats who believe in equality for all people, tolerance and acceptable policies that keep government in check as well as the people that it was created to serve.

But unfortunately, there aren't many of us left.

Personal Decision?

I understand what you are saying.

BY extension, does that mean when the unwed Mother and waif show up for public assistance -- as in food stamps, free cell phone, section 8 housing, and Medicaid, they should hear NO -- no benefits allowed as you made a dumb decision.

If that's the case, and the Legislature will go along with it, I'm all for it and stemming the tide of public funds to dumb decision makers.

So Tom

I guess then you are against having the NJ taxpayers subsidize footing the bill for Christie's lap band surgery?
Over eating is after all a personal decision.......

Vog

Did they

subsidize or foot the bill? You must have read something I did not.

I believe Blue Cross/Blue Shield would consider that elective surgery and would not pay a dime; or at the very least would not include al of the expense as a covered item.

But to answer your question. I would be against the NJ taxpayers footing the bill.

Tom

If their health plan is anything like NC BCBS plan for state government employees they would be GLAD to pay the bill.
Overweight people, over their lifetime, have a higher risk of health problems and therefore costs to BCBS.
BCBS says hmmmmm.......$15,000 for lap band surgery versus heart problems, diabetes, and other obesity related diseases.
At Chrisie's age LB surgery is probably cost effective.

But considering the state pays a big price for subsidizing BCBS coverage (If they are like us) no matter what, the taxpayer is on the hook for costs one way or the other...........
DISCLAIMER - I like Christie in some ways and although his chutzpah is misdirected at times he's actually used some common sense from time to time.

Vog

So what? What real

So what? What real difference does this finding make? Who really cares if a mom is married or not?

The difference is poverty

A child without a 2-income intact family unit is more likely to be raised in poverty. Women generally earn less than men.

These kids are starting life with a great disadvantage, and more likely to be recipients of Welfare and Food Stamps.

That's the difference it makes.

That's an easy answer!

It matters to the child, when there is no man to call daddy, no daddy to play games with, no daddy to learn from, etc, etc......

no daddy to support the

no daddy to support the family or kids

Greenville, NC

do not know why; but that surprises me. I would have thought Charlotte, Raleigh or Fayetteville given the population demographics. .