Poland: Popular protests against abortion ban.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Sad to see that so many consider the ability to end human life for convenience a question of civil rights. While it is scientifically proven over and over again that a moment of conception procreating the existence of a human life does exist, there are still so many who are willing to go to extremes to end that life in order to escape the consequences of their personal choices. The rights of the woman who carries the child to be free from the responsibility of bearing a choice she didn’t make, or that would otherwise endanger her own life, is important in cases of rape or incest, and this is a line the Polish government seems wise not to cross. The sole basis of counterarguments seeking to deny the very existence or equal rights of the life she carries seems to be that this life must be extinguished to prevent people’s selfish decisions from creating further externalities in society. While such appeals to consequence can be used on either side of the debate to equal effect, those demanding loosening or elimination of abortion restrictions in Poland are unable to contend with the fact the restrictions they so loathe aim to protect those who cannot protect themselves, in accordance with the views of the majority of the people there.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The polnish police president Jaroslaw Symczyk declared that 430000 people demonstrated on Wednesday against the ruling.

So majority supports it is false.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The polnish police president Jaroslaw Symczyk declared that 430000 people demonstrated on Wednesday against the ruling.

So majority supports it is false.

A. Your claim is a non sequitur
B. You previously rejected data contradicting your ideological viewpoint. Your assertion that facts are false because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean anything worth entertaining further. As mentioned previously, 65% of Poles believe abortion is immoral. This is consistent with regular Ipsos polling that finds only 30% of Poles support abortion on demand, with the remainder of declared opinions favoring it under limited circumstances such as rape or danger to the mother’s life (consistent with current law), or not at all.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...rtion_2017.pdf

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

As expected a misrepresentation from data by you.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In 2017 30 % were for a not restricted abortion and 45 % were for an abortion under certain circumstances.

But as marked by me those circumstances were only examplary enumerated as the phrasing 'such as if a woman has been raped' is obviously showing.

'That 45 % are favoring it under limited circumstances such as rape or danger to the mother’s life (consistent with current law)' is your own false misinterpretation of that statistic. Its not backuped by those statistic.

As 2017 an abortion in case of severe genetic defects was legal, those case was obviously counted to these circumstances in this opinion interview.

Your interpretation is wrong.

But even if it would be right, it wouldn't matter as in October 2020 430.000 polnish people have demonstrated against the court decision.

2017 is obsolete and gone.

But as you are a staunch defender of 'those who cannot protect themselves':

Where is the conservative / right-wing protection or help for single moms?

As example the US:

In 2006, 12.9 million families in the US were headed by a single parent, 80% of which were headed by a female.

Single mothers are one of the poorest populations, many of them vulnerable to homelessness. In the United States, nearly half (45%) of single mothers and their children live below the poverty line, also referred to as the poverty threshold.^[17] They lack the financial resources to support their children when the birth father is unresponsive. Many seek assistance through living with another adult, perhaps a relative, fictive kin, or significant other, and divorced mothers who remarry have fewer financial struggles than unmarried single mothers, who cannot work for longer periods of time without shirking their child-caring responsibilities. Unmarried mothers are thus more likely to cohabit with another adult.^[23] Many of the jobs worked by, or are available to women, are not sufficient and do not bring in enough income for the mother and her children; this is common in the United States and other countries all over the world.^[24]

Why are Anti-Abortionists only caring for childs till they are born?

[Lord Thesaurian]

As expected a misrepresentation from data by you.

In 2017 30 % were for a not restricted abortion and 45 % were for an abortion under certain circumstances.

But as marked by me those circumstances were only examplary enumerated as the phrasing 'such as if a woman has been raped' is obviously showing.

'That 45 % are favoring it under limited circumstances such as rape or danger to the mother’s life (consistent with current law)' is your own false misinterpretation of that statistic. Its not backuped by those statistic.

Your assertion is demonstrably false. If you don’t understand how to read the graph I urge you not to continue to make foolish claims based on it. 30% favor abortion on demand, 45% in certain circumstances such as rape. Another 10% and 7% of Polish respondents answered that abortion should not be permitted unless the mother’s life is in danger, or not at all, respectively. Thus, “only 30% of Poles support abortion on demand, with the remainder of declared opinions favoring it under limited circumstances such as rape or danger to the mother’s life (consistent with current law), or not at all,” exactly as I said.

As 2017 an abortion in case of severe genetic defects was legal, those case was obviously counted to these circumstances in this opinion interview.


Your interpretation is wrong.

Again, my indication of what the graph literally states is a matter of self evident fact. Your assumption, by contrast, is undermined by the specific exceptions named in the separate polling questions.

But even if it would be right, it wouldn't matter as in October 2020 430.000 polnish people have demonstrated against the court decision.

2017 is obsolete and gone.

Again, not true. Based on the same polling metrics from Ipsos, opinions on abortion have remained the same (or if anything, disfavored it more strongly) since 2017, with 27% favoring abortion on demand, 42% in “limited circumstances such as rape,” 13% only if the mother’s life is in danger, and 9% not at all, according to the latest data available. That’s a 5% shift against in comparison to 2017.

These are the results of a survey conducted by Ipsos on the Global Advisor platform. Ipsos interviewed a total of 17,997 adults aged 18-74 in United States, Canada, Malaysia, South Africa, and Turkey, and 16-74 in 20 other countries on its Global Advisor online survey platform, between May 22 and June 5, 2020.

The samples in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the U.S. can be taken as representative of these countries’ general adult population under the age of 75.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-pol...-view-abortion

Ipsos publishes these findings on an annual basis going back to 2014.

But as you are a staunch defender of 'those who cannot protect themselves':

Where is the conservative / right-wing protection or help for single moms?

As example the US:

Why are Anti-Abortionists only caring for childs till they are born?

I’ll consider this blatant deflection a concession you have no argument nor basis for your rejection of the facts I’ve presented, apart from your own ideology.

[Vladyvid]

Some things for you people to consider, before you get too carried away - like the protesters in Poland.

The protesters escalate their riots and anti-protest groups are being formed. This is a way to bloodshed and open war between two groups in the streets. It has already started. And for what? I would say all thanks to attacks on churches, and overall overreaction that these protests clearly are. Many protesters are simply hysterical, and in my opinion they dont even understand what are they defending. For most people its enough that they are fighting the government and "fighting for women's rights" which in my opinion, is just an opinion and not a fact.

I would like to notice that the way and form of those protests clearly shows lunacy in many cases. They dont even act as civilized people im sorry to say. More and more people looks at them as vandals and hooligans. Besides, what do these young students really know of life? They only know that they want to do whatever they want and that they hate the rulling party. Thats enough for them.

The issue of having children or abortion is one of great responsibility - while the protesters are breaking the basic covid restriction of gathering large groups of people together. If they cannot be responsible in this situation, do you really think these type of people can be taken seriously? In my opinion they cannot be taken seriously because of what they are doing.

As for those who support the protesters, many are people who are opposed to the rulling party (its just very trendy to bash the gov party, cause its just so easy). So they will basicly support anyone who fights the current government, no matter what is the cause.

Now, lets be real here, the cause of the protesters is not really a good cause. Abortion is nothing good, period.

Also, the current government was elected by the people, so if anybody wants a change, they should vote for a different party, yes? In democracy you dont just go in the streets each time a law is made that you dont agree with, right?
I mean come on guys, those protesters behave as if this rulling is like freaking end of the world.... While all they need to do, is to support another party to win next elections and change this legislation. That is how you do things in democracy, is it not? As for the "hell of women" and all that bs, that is just propaganda at its finest. Feminists are not sensible people, im sure its no secret.

I would like to finish with the notion of responsibility. Even if the current legislation stands, anyone can go to a neighbour country and do the abortion there, if they so desire. Take this responsibility, and maybe before you go on and make a kid, check your genetic deseases, and then use pills or condoms? That would be more responsible than vandalizing churches and public buildings.

Just one more thing, 11th november is getting close, and its the Independence Day in Poland. My prediction is that if these protests will not cease until then, then there will be blood in the streets, and there will be casualities. Best to stay at home right now, cause regardless of the protests, the current covid situation in Poland is bad and gets worse each day, and the protests are only making it worse tbh. People are just irresponsible, both the gov, and the protesters. Its like nothing has changed since they left their caves.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

@Legio:

No, as i already pointed out, the enumeration 'such as' in 'abortion should be permitted in certain circumstances such as if a woman has been raped' is only examplary, not finally.

So 75 % have supported abortion in case of severe genetical defects as it was allowed by law in 2017.

So your whole point of "majority of polnish people support the prohibition of abortion in case of serious genetic defects is PURE RELIGIOUS-CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA.

And as usual you are ignoring not convinient arguments of mine, its so boring predictable.

Because of your poor discussion skills, i will ignore futurily your poor skilled propaganda posts.

[Lord Thesaurian]

@Legio:

No, as i already pointed out, the enumeration 'such as' in 'abortion should be permitted in certain circumstances such as if a woman has been raped' is only examplary, not finally.

So 75 % have supported abortion in case of severe genetical defects as it was allowed by law in 2017.

So your whole point of "majority of polnish people support the prohibition of abortion in case of serious genetic defects is PURE RELIGIOUS-CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA.

And as usual you are ignoring not convinient arguments of mine, its so boring predictable.

Because of your poor discussion skills, i will ignore futurily your poor skilled propaganda posts.

As already demonstrated, you are repeating blatant falsehoods and doubling down on baseless assumptions. While I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you merely misunderstood the data, it’s clear now that you are outright lying, just as you rejected other data before, dismissing it as “fake.” I understand why you would be unwilling to debate further given that you are unable to contend with the facts indicated by consistent polling data which contradicts your ideological convictions.

[Basileos Leandros I]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16...omania-alabama

In 1966, the leader of Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu, outlawed access to abortion and contraception in a bid to boost the country’s population. In the short term, it worked, and the year after it was enacted the average number of children born to Romanian women jumped from 1.9 to 3.7. But birthrates quickly fell again as women found ways around the ban. Wealthy, urban women were sometimes able to bribe doctors to perform abortions, or they had contraceptive IUDs smuggled in from Germany.

Yet Romania’s prohibition of the procedure was disproportionately felt by low-income women and disadvantaged groups, which abortion-rights advocates in the United States fear would happen if the Alabama law came into force. As a last resort, many Romanian women turned to home and back-alley abortions, and by 1989, an estimated 10,000 women had died as a result of unsafe procedures. The real number of deaths might have been much higher, as women who sought abortions and those who helped them faced years of imprisonment if caught. Maternal mortality skyrocketed, doubling between 1965 and 1989.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

@Basilaios Leandos I:

Thats exactly what happened before the abortion law of 1974 in West Germany (in East Germany already with the law of 1972), as abortion was punished for women and doctor with jail sentences up to 10 years prison.

It didn't end illegal abortions, only more german women died by the coathanger.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The 29-year-old woman was nervous as she arranged the hospital appointment for her fifth abortion recently, remembering the nightmarish pain when she ended an earlier pregnancy.

''I asked them to give me an injection, but they didn't pay any attention to me,'' said the woman, Nadezhda V. Lobikinova, who is a nurse. ''They ended up having to do the abortion twice. It was very painful.''
Abortion - widely accepted here, and performed in assembly-line conditions - has suddenly become the target of a lively and unusually frank debate.

Unlike the abortion debate in the West, which has focused on the rights of the unborn and the woman's right to choose, the Soviet debate is on women's health care - the right to adequate supplies of reliable contraceptives, to sanitary conditions, anesthetics and the respect of medical workers. 'Stone Age Equipment'

Abortion statistics are sketchy in many countries, but abortion may be more common here than anywhere else in the world. By official count, 6.4 million legal abortions were performed in 1987, almost 1 million more than the number of Soviet babies born in the same period. The data show almost one of every 10 Soviet women of childbearing age had an abortion. By comparison, the rate in the United States was about 1 in 36, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research center in New York.

Some Soviet health researchers believe the real number of abortions may be far higher - as much as double the official figure. Many women readily pay $75 to $150 for an illegal abortion, often performed after hours in a state hospital or outpatient clinic.

A paid abortion has two advantages over the state's free operations: a woman is given enough anesthetic, and she avoids the required hospital stay, typically three days long.

''Our medicine is very cruel - it has a stone heart and Stone Age equipment,'' said a Moscow woman who recalled her own abortion, performed by rude medical workers with an ineffective dose of painkiller. 'Cruelest Abortion System'

The Soviet Union has ''the world's cruelest abortion system,'' charged a commentator in New Times magazine. ''The main thing is to queue up in time and not shudder when you climb onto the obstetrical execution block.''

The most graphic account appeared last month in the weekly Moscow News, under the headline ''I Don't Want to Be Sorry I'm a Woman.''

The author, Yekaterina Nikolayeva, condemned the ''conveyor line'' atmosphere at the clinic where she had an abortion. When she entered the operating room, a doctor yelled at her for staring at his blood-stained rubber gloves.

''Hurry up, you,'' he said. ''I'm sick and tired of your stupidity.''

The author quoted another doctor scolding a frightened patient: ''You should have had second thoughts before. You're all fond of sweets, but you're not willing to pay the price.'' Abortion Rate 'Not Normal'

The Moscow News account dismayed Aleksandra P. Biryukova, the highest ranking woman in the Soviet Government, who ordered a Health Ministry investigation and called the high Soviet abortion rate ''not normal.''
''We must change this radically over the next year and a half to two years, by developing the contraceptive industry,'' she said at a recent news conference in Moscow.

Mrs. Biryukova's call for change will not be easily accomplished, though. Despite their bitter complaints, many Soviet women still see abortion, which has been legal here since 1955, as their simplest birth control option.

''My mother had 3 children and 13 abortions,'' a young Moscow woman said. ''My father refused to use condoms, and there was nothing else she could do.''

Abortion is available to all women in the first trimester of pregnancy. In the second trimester, abortions can be performed for medical reasons, or for ''social reasons,'' like rape or divorce.

The Moscow News reported in January that 600 to 700 women die each year as a result of abortions in the Russian Republic alone, which has slightly more than half the national population. Soviet officials also say the high abortion rate has contributed to high rates of infertility and premature births. Promise of More Contraceptives.

The Health Ministry has promised to increase production of intrauterine devices and condoms, and to import more birth control pills, which are not manufactured in the Soviet Union.

The Government offers financial incentives designed to encourage women to have more children. These originally were intended to increase low birth rates among Russian and Slavic women, and there is some statistical evidence that the incentives are beginning to work. But there has been no organized effort to discourage abortion, and rates remain high in the Russian Republic.

Still, there is no national debate here about the morality of abortion.

''We are basically an atheist society,'' said Svetlana I. Markovich, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the Family and Marriage Clinic in Moscow. ''Of course it would be better to prevent pregnancy rather than to have an abortion. But I can't think of abortion as murder, because at the stage when abortions are permitted, this is not a person.''

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/28/w...-abortion.html

[Prodromos]

Sad to see that so many consider the ability to end human life for convenience a question of civil rights. While it is scientifically proven over and over again that a moment of conception procreating the existence of a human life does exist, there are still so many who are willing to go to extremes to end that life in order to escape the consequences of their personal choices. The rights of the woman who carries the child to be free from the responsibility of bearing a choice she didn’t make, or that would otherwise endanger her own life, is important in cases of rape or incest, and this is a line the Polish government seems wise not to cross. The sole basis of counterarguments seeking to deny the very existence or equal rights of the life she carries seems to be that this life must be extinguished to prevent people’s selfish decisions from creating further externalities in society. While such appeals to consequence can be used on either side of the debate to equal effect, those demanding loosening or elimination of abortion restrictions in Poland are unable to contend with the fact the restrictions they so loathe aim to protect those who cannot protect themselves, in accordance with the views of the majority of the people there.

It's not surprising that people whose worldview can't account for human dignity, don't believe in human dignity. That said, many if not most of those on the pro-abortion side are probably anti-abortion without realizing it. When they say they support abortion, it's only because they don't know what abortion is.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

US Evangelical and Neocon or european right-wing abortion tears would be more credible, if they won't cut, where there rule, social welfare for single moms.

[Prodromos]

US Evangelical and Neocon or european right-wing abortion tears would be more credible, if they won't cut, where there rule, social welfare for single moms.

If you found out there were anti-abortion people who supported government welfare for single moms, would that change your mind on abortion?

[Cope]

US Evangelical and Neocon or european right-wing abortion tears would be more credible, if they won't cut, where there rule, social welfare for single moms.

If the objective of conservatives and evangelicals was to reduce the cost of social welfare, they would simply support abortions.

[Lord Thesaurian]

If the objective of conservatives and evangelicals was reduce the cost of social welfare, they would simply support abortions.

Also, deflecting to welfare and single moms is an especially nonsensical pivot in the case of Poland:

The party, known as PiS, its Polish acronym, came to power in 2015 after campaigning on its flagship Family 500+ program, a monthly allowance of 500 złoty (about $125) per child for each kid after the first, or for single children in low-income families. Since the program went into effect, the Gromułs have been collecting 1,000 złoty a month, or nearly half of Poland’s minimum wage. That income will soon double once their daughter is born and their first son is included—the program has now expanded to cover all children. The kids are getting a taste for the high life, they joke, and are clamoring to visit Italy too.

The populist parties of Eastern Europe are widely viewed from afar as a nasty gang of bigoted nationalists with a thinly veiled penchant for authoritarianism. But critics overlook a key part of their appeal: They have channeled serious money to voters in the name of shoring up the “family values” they say are under siege from secular Europe. These parties, such as PiS and Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, in Hungary, have found electoral success by combining a right-wing vision of society with state largesse. The Family 500+ program in particular, with its catchy title, neat round number, and wide reach, has become a model for other countries in the region, where declining birth rates and emigration of native-born citizens to more prosperous European countries have sparked demographic panic.

The program’s design—free money, no strings attached—is similar to a universal basic income, and marks a sharp departure from the paternalistic attitude of previous governments, which viewed poor families as “incapable of being in charge of their own money,” says Tomasz Inglot, a political scientist at Minnesota State University who studies welfare states in Central and Eastern Europe.

The universality of the program has even won it grudging plaudits from some feminists, most of whom hold otherwise dim views of the government, which tried to outlaw abortion in 2016 and routinely depicts feminism as a form of “gender ideology” that is poisoning Poland’s traditional values. Agnieszka Graff, a writer, feminist, and professor at the University of Warsaw, notes that Family 500+ recognizes the economic value of caregiving, an acknowledgment that, ironically, could give women more power within their households, even as it may discourage them from joining the formal labor market. At the same time, the program reinforces traditional values that still resonate widely among the country’s conservative voters.

For progressives and other PiS opponents, these programs’ popularity leave them with little room to maneuver, except to call for more investment in public institutions such as child care, schools, and hospitals. Barbara Nowacka, a politician who ran the campaign on social policy for a left-wing coalition in 2015, told me its message, which included promises to invest in kindergartens and encourage employers to offer women better job protection and flexible work, was admittedly “boring” in comparison. She would prefer to see the program’s budget—estimated by the labor ministry at 31 billion złoty in 2019 and 41 billion złoty in 2020—directed toward services such as warm meals in schools and school-based medical services, such as nurses and dentists. “But we know that this 500+ satisfies people,” she said. “Everyone believes that it is better to have money than trust the state.”

Anna Krawczak, a researcher at the University of Warsaw and an activist on behalf of fertility patients, has been fostering two young children with her husband for nearly three years, alongside the couple’s two biological children. She is critical of the government’s prioritization of family reintegration over what she sees as the children’s best interest. “There’s a huge emphasis on biological families,” she told me. Still, though she said she would never consider voting for PiS, she admitted that Family 500+ went a long way—she uses the benefits to pay for therapy for their foster children.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ndouts/599968/

The law was adopted in February 2016. The new, universal child-raising benefit of PLN 500 (EUR 114) monthly is granted for every second child under 18, and for the first child if the family income is below PLN 800 (EUR 182) per capita per month (PLN 1,200/EUR 273 in the case of child disability). Broad eligibility criteria allow all types of families to apply for benefits (married couples, cohabiting parents, single parents, foster families, etc.). Child-raising benefit is twice as high as the previous average family benefit per beneficiary (PLN 295/ EUR 70) in 2014 (MPiPS 2015). Note that only families with an income below a threshold of PLN 574/EUR 137 (PLN 664/ EUR 158, in the case of child disability) were eligible for family benefits under the old scheme. The new child-raising benefit is managed and monitored by local governments which – in cases of documented misuse – can provide benefits in kind or even withhold the payments.

https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServ...6077&langId=en

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

As usual only right-wing version of truth about PiS family policy:

PiS was praised by many, including some parts of the left, for introducing child benefit payments. It was one of the main points in their electoral programme, was successfully used as the electoral bait, and can be considered as long- overdue introduction of social benefits to the country. The benefit is given to all people with two or more children, and couples or single parents with only one child need to be means- tested in order to receive the benefit. That particularly hits single parents, as it is them who are likely to have only one child. One- third of all children in Poland are brought up in one parent families. Considering that the number of single mothers in the country is eleven times bigger than that of single fathers, the restriction on child benefit is particularly hitting the women who, one may think, deserve particular care from the state. Single parent families however do not fit the right- wing government ideal of the family, so they are not supported.

https://freedomnews.org.uk/polish-go...-war-on-women/


But i can understand, why male white conservatives like that old role model, where they were the almighty pater familias.

[Heathen Hammer]

The polnish police president Jaroslaw Symczyk declared that 430000 people demonstrated on Wednesday against the ruling.

So majority supports it is false.

You do realize that its a tiny fraction of population of Poland, right? 38 million people live there. 65% support the abortion ban.

As usual only right-wing version of truth about PiS family policy:

PiS was praised by many, including some parts of the left, for introducing child benefit payments. It was one of the main points in their electoral programme, was successfully used as the electoral bait, and can be considered as long- overdue introduction of social benefits to the country. The benefit is given to all people with two or more children, and couples or single parents with only one child need to be means- tested in order to receive the benefit. That particularly hits single parents, as it is them who are likely to have only one child. One- third of all children in Poland are brought up in one parent families. Considering that the number of single mothers in the country is eleven times bigger than that of single fathers, the restriction on child benefit is particularly hitting the women who, one may think, deserve particular care from the state. Single parent families however do not fit the right- wing government ideal of the family, so they are not supported.

https://freedomnews.org.uk/polish-go...-war-on-women/

Freedom’s Founding: A Journal of Anarchist Communism (1886-1927)

Who would have thought? Now do you have a source that's not from a neomarxist propaganda outlet?

But i can understand, why male white conservatives like that old role model, where they were the almighty pater familias.

That's actually racist and sexist. What does conservatives being white and/or male have to do with anything?

[Lord Thesaurian]

As usual only right-wing version of truth about PiS family policy:

PiS was praised by many, including some parts of the left, for introducing child benefit payments. It was one of the main points in their electoral programme, was successfully used as the electoral bait, and can be considered as long- overdue introduction of social benefits to the country. The benefit is given to all people with two or more children, and couples or single parents with only one child need to be means- tested in order to receive the benefit. That particularly hits single parents, as it is them who are likely to have only one child. One- third of all children in Poland are brought up in one parent families. Considering that the number of single mothers in the country is eleven times bigger than that of single fathers, the restriction on child benefit is particularly hitting the women who, one may think, deserve particular care from the state. Single parent families however do not fit the right- wing government ideal of the family, so they are not supported.

https://freedomnews.org.uk/polish-go...-war-on-women/


But i can understand, why male white conservatives like that old role model, where they were the almighty pater familias.

The Atlantic and the European Commission are not “right wing” by any means, so your quip about “the right wing version of the truth” is baseless. Per your quote from “freedom news,” a self-described anarchist publication:

“Single parent families however do not fit the right- wing government ideal of the family, so they are not supported.”

The article’s concern trolling about a widely popular policy is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth at best; and more aptly stated, a blatant falsehood that would appear to contradict the earlier concession in the article that single children and children of single parents are eligible for benefits. The criteria for means testing is not based on single parents, but rather, on single children. This is hardly surprising, as some main goals of the program are to disincentivize emigration and encourage families to have more children. As was already indicated and quoted directly:

The new, universal child-raising benefit of PLN 500 (EUR 114) monthly is granted for every second child under 18, and for the first child if the family income is below PLN 800 (EUR 182) per capita per month (PLN 1,200/EUR 273 in the case of child disability). Broad eligibility criteria allow all types of families to apply for benefits (married couples, cohabiting parents, single parents, foster families, etc.). Child-raising benefit is twice as high as the previous average family benefit per beneficiary (PLN 295/ EUR 70) in 2014 (MPiPS 2015). Note that only families with an income below a threshold of PLN 574/EUR 137 (PLN 664/ EUR 158, in the case of child disability) were eligible for family benefits under the old scheme.

In principle, the child-raising benefit should not impact eligibility for other benefits that remain unchanged. Especially, the benefits should not be included in the income assessment establishing eligibility for permanent social assistance benefits. However, improvement of families’ well-being might impact eligibility for temporary social assistance benefits. According to the amendment to the law on child-raising benefit, receipt of benefits should not impact the level of alimony (especially not reducing this due to higher family incomes) and cannot be taken by a bailiff. To prevent the latter, the Ministry of Labour envisages payment of benefits to separate bank accounts.

https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServ...6077&langId=en

[Himster]

Hooray, Poland promotes more back alley abortions, the continued alienation/emigration of its shrinking educated class and reaffirms its former reputation as an oppressive backwater.



Democracy hasn't seen such a success since 1932.