I'm not a Democrat.   I can also see the difference in those that may do something with intention, say rigging voting districts by gerrymander to concentrate your opponents in as few as districts as possible.  Do you understand how gerrymandering works?  That's intentional.    

For people that sincerely wanted to provide minimum support for poor women and women with children in particular, I think their hearts were in the right place.   

What they didn't think about is excluding the father from the family structure.   When a rational decision to take support discourages marriage, then what do you suppose happens - the logical thing.    While some women may use children for income support, that number is small in comparison to women who must decide to get support, or give up their child.   I saw this choice many times in rural white Iowa, young women with children and no father