When Poor Women Are Punished for Surviving Poverty in the US

This is what we mean when we say, “poverty is intentional.”

• A Michigan woman, Talia C. Teneyuque, is reportedly charged with food stamp fraud.

• 

  Photo by Thought Catalog

  She allegedly used her Bridge Card (Michigan’s EBT / SNAP card) to buy ingredients (food) and then baked goods from those ingredients, which she sold. BIN: Black Information Network

• Authorities claim this violates the federal SNAP / Food Stamp rules — specifically, using SNAP funds for resale or business purposes, which is not permitted. BIN: Black Information Network+1

• The U.S. law (Title 7 U.S. Code § 2024) prohibits using SNAP benefits in unauthorized ways — for example, trafficking, which includes using benefits in exchange for cash or using them to buy goods to resell. Eisner Gorin LLP

• The USDA rules also say it is illegal for retailers (or individuals) to “buy store inventory from customers who buy it for you with their SNAP benefits.” This is called indirect trafficking. Food and Nutrition Service

⚖️ Why they are charging her

From the laws and rules above, the state (or federal) government sees this as fraud or trafficking of SNAP benefits:

1. SNAP is meant for personal food consumption, not business inventory or resale they say.
   Using benefits to purchase ingredients with the intent to sell something derived from them is often seen as stepping outside the legal use.

2. Trafficking rules.

   • Direct trafficking is exchanging SNAP benefits for cash or something not allowed.

   • Indirect trafficking is buying inventory from someone who bought it via SNAP (which is what happens when someone uses food stamps to get items that you then buy from them or re-sell). Food and Nutrition Service

3. Intent matters in law.
   If authorities believe she intended to profit from benefits, that can elevate it to a felony level under SNAP fraud statutes. Eisner Gorin LLP

🌿 Here’s the reality:

• Most people accused of “benefit fraud” aren’t profiteers.
  They’re surviving systems designed to be confusing and unforgiving.

• She likely used the food stamps to buy ingredients, then baked and sold a few items to stretch her family’s income — maybe to buy shoes for her child, pay a bill, or keep her lights on.

• What the government calls “fraud” often looks, in truth, like resourcefulness under duress.
  It’s survival — not theft.

⚖️ The law vs. lived experience

The law sees it as unauthorized use of public funds.
But in real life, it’s a woman trying to:

• feed her family,

• maintain dignity,

• use her skills instead of begging for help she already qualifies for.

This is where policy and empathy collide — because the legal system rarely makes room for survival logic.
It recognizes intent in terms of rules, not desperation.

💔 A broader injustice

Punishing a poor woman for trying to create income — while billion-dollar corporations routinely misuse government money without prison time — reveals how unequal the system is.

This isn’t about fraud.
It’s about who’s allowed to survive creatively and who gets criminalized for it.

🌱 What this shows us

When someone like her gets charged, it tells us two things:

1. Poverty is still being treated like a crime.

2. The system fears independence more than dishonesty — because her small act of making and selling food is an act of agency.

*Note: This is all around food and people eating. Food.