HAWKISH CHILD SUPPORT LAWS WORK

AP/The Olympian (HAT-TIP DISSECTING LEFTISM):

Researchers at the University of Washington and Columbia University found that states with the most stringent child support laws and strict enforcement have up to 20 percent fewer unwed births. ... The percentage of unmarried births in the United States has increased from 10 percent in the 1960s to about a third of all births today. Because children of single parents run a higher risk of poverty, academic failure and other problems, lawmakers are always seeking policies that will discourage unwed births — usually focusing on the mothers. Researchers said their study recognizes the father's responsibility. ... The study didn't show whether tougher child support laws prevented pregnancies or encouraged marriage. Plotnick said the data limited the researchers to observing a strong correlation between tough child support enforcement and fewer out-of-wedlock births. Whether that's caused by fewer unmarried people getting pregnant or more couples marrying when the woman is expecting, he could not say. But he said the findings warrant further study.

This is another example of how HAWKISH laws - that are tough on bad behavior - actually reduce bad behavior. It also proves that the LIBERAL (lovey-dovey/group therapy) policies of permissiveness (and coddling of bad-players, and rationalizing bad-behavior, and blaming society for the bad behavior of individuals) only encourages bad/anti-social behavior. (RUDY proved hawkishness is the most effective way to deal with bad-players in NYC when he GOT TOUGH on ALL CRIMINALS - including the squeegee-men and he reduced crime EXPONENTIALLY! Reagan proved that hawkishness works on the international front when he got tough with the Soviets and brought them to their knees. If the doves had been elected there'd still be a USSR!)

Of course, in a larger sense, the fact that their LIBERAL policies have only encouraged out-of-wedlock births (and thereby increased childhood poverty) doesn't bother LIBERALS one bit because these so-called "progressives" are in-their-heart-of-hearts ANTI-TRADITIONALISTS who WANT to destroy traditional BOURGOISE families - it's always been part of their POMO/Marcusian "revolutionary" goal - and it's why NOW (after denigrating monogamy and marriage for decades) they want it extended to homosexuals.