“Dependent Child” Under 42 U.S.C. § 606(a) Does Not Include the Unborn: No Presumption of Eligibility for AFDC Benefits Attaches if the Statute Is Ambiguous

Examines the effect of the United States Supreme Court case of Burns v. Alcala. Burns established that the term “dependent child” did not include unborn children for the purposes of the Aid to Families of Dependent Children program. The author questions whether Burns will really have the effect of clarifying welfare eligibility when the statute is ambiguous.