Opinion

Allison Morris: Two-child cap on tax credits has no place in a modern society

Theresa May's Tory Party has received much criticism over the so-called rape clause
Theresa May's Tory Party has received much criticism over the so-called rape clause Theresa May's Tory Party has received much criticism over the so-called rape clause

Imagine living in a world where a woman was forced to prove she conceived a child as a victim of sexual crime in order to claim a pitiful few quid to feed that baby.

A society where rape victims are forced to give birth to their abuser's baby whether they want to or not, and then doubly traumatised by having to explain to a complete stranger what happened.

You don't need an active imagination because this is the reality of the time and place we live, where women and children's needs, both medical and financial are still considered secondary.

For the doubters out there, if you need proof that we live in an unequal and patriarchal society look no further than the two-child cap on tax credits and the so-called rape clause attached to it.

A Conservative government policy so unfair and draconian that it has no place in a modern and seemingly progressive society.

When Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping introduced the country's one child policy in 1979 to limit population growth it was deemed inhumane by western society.

Any government using coercive means to limit the number of children people have should always sound alarm bells.

Eugenics is the study of limiting population growth by discouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have 'inheritable undesirable traits'.

In this case the current Tory government appear to believe that needing to supplement your income with tax credits is an undesirable trait and intend to restrict the reproduction of such people by telling them they can only have two children if they want help to feed them.

The British government have already been asked to explain to the UN how this policy conforms to its obligations on child poverty.

One of the exemptions to the two-child cap is the 'rape clause' which requires women to prove their third child was conceived through rape or during an abusive relationship, to qualify for the benefit.

Women must sign a declaration reading: “I believe the non-consensual conception exemption applies to my child" and then name the child, stigmatising them for the rest of their lives.

Nurses, midwives, health visitors, registered social workers and some Women's Aid groups in the north are among those who can act as assessors for the exemption applications.

Women's Aid have stressed that many women never disclose rape to anyone for reasons including trauma, self-protection, shame and fear for others.

Local GP Dr Michael McKenna also criticised the lack of consultation with health professionals who may be asked to help those affected fill out "rape forms".

He told Irish News health correspondent Seanin Graham that asking victims to "commit this to paper" was "insensitive at the very least".

Social conditioning to pave the way for this policy started a few years back when the language to describe those living in social housing and relying on benefits hardened, scroungers, spongers, layabouts.

A key part of eugenics is conditioning one section of society to dehumanise another, muting objections to their ill treatment.

Back to back Benefits Street-style shows, aimed at making those with little believe those with nothing were responsible for the financial problems actually caused by those with too much.

My mother had nine children, her youngest died at birth, the other eight all work and contribute to society, it is our taxes that help pay for the public services the Tory party are currently slashing.

My family, loving, caring, proud and hardworking are just the type the current Tory party want to do away with because we weren't born with wealth and privilege.

Northern Ireland has until now been shielded from the very worst aspects of benefits cuts masquerading as welfare reform, but a harsh winter is coming.

Unfortunately, I don't get to say where my monthly contributions go, otherwise I'd direct a portion to help pay benefits for the third or even fourth child of a single parent rather than towards subsidised lunches for those in the House of Lords.

The Electoral Reform Society revealed last week that £1.3m in expenses was claimed by 115 peers who hadn't stood up to speak in the chamber for over a year.

The think tank further revealed that 18 peers failed to take part in a single vote - yet still claimed £93,162 in expenses between them last year.

Traumatising women and thrusting children into poverty is perfectly acceptable to some politicians, but try cutting benefits to 779 members of the upper chamber and you'll see the patriarchy circle the wagons.

This perfectly demonstrates the political worth placed on women and children in comparison to the ermine robe wearing elite.