I sincerely doubt that anyone would get pregnant just for the sake of receiving �200 and if the information is correct that to qualify, the mother must be at least seven months pregnant, then that dismisses the ridiculous notion of terminating the pregnancy after being in receipt of the cash. It seems unlikely to me that any woman would endure the ailments associated with pregnancy such as morning sickness, nosebleeds, cramps,swollen ankles etc not to mention the obvious matter of a lengthy and very painful pregnancy, just to hand over her baby for a measly �200. I doubt very much that any mother who has given her baby up for adoption has made that decision lightly (or at least in most cases) and to suggest otherwise is completely ludicrous.
Furthermore, as has been stated, there are currently vouchers issued in certain areas for fruit and veg for those in receipt of benefits or low incomes but to limit this to a designated supermarket such as Asda would seriously inhibit the availability to those not in close proximity to the said supermarket. It would be better if accepted by a wide range of participating supermarkets, corner shops and fruitmongers, to allow flexibility in choosing where to spend the vouchers.
According to this link, it will �120 - not �200 and will NOT be means tested, so will be available to all in 2009. Unlike the Sure Start maternity grant, this payment will be available to all in the same way as Child Benefit is payable to all with age appropriate children. I wholeheartedly agree with offering incentives to get expectant mothers eating healthily to promote good eating habits in pregnancy, which is essential for the wellbeing of the developing foetus but I feel that it is foolish to offer this as a cash payment and vouchers would ensure that the cash was ONLY spent on what it was intended for.
ht