Measure allows parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses
The Republican-led Kentucky senate voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to grant the right to collect child support for fetuses, advancing a bill that garnered bipartisan support despite nationwide fallout from a controversial Alabama decision also advancing “fetal personhood”.
The measure would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses. The legislation – Senate Bill 110 – won senate passage on a 36-2 vote with little discussion to advance to the House. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers.
One more gentle nudge towards only stupid people reproducing.
But that’s probably the conservative goal. Playing the long game, expanding their base.
Yup. That’s why they ban books and cut funding for public education. They want uneducated people to keep voting for Republican candidates who put their own kids into private schools, and the cycle continues.
Neofeudalism, having fun yet?
Jokes on her: I know Smoothie when I see 'm
This comment makes me Happy!
My dude, they are forty years into the long-term plan. It’s going really well
Definitely that, but it’s a two birds thing. Their base is horribly ignorant, but they are not. They are 100% malicious. Not only do they get to control the rights of people they’ve never empathized with, they get to do exactly what you said over time.
Exactly. The goal in red states is to cultivate a large population of angry and unintelligent people by essentially forcing the impoverished to have kids and sending them through dismantled education systems. They are creating a feeder system for the military and for Republican votes. That’s just my conspiracy theory.
‘Only stupid people reproducing’ rhetoric unfortunately is veeeery close to eugenics talking points
Not at all. Everyone should be entitled to a safe, healthy life no matter their traits or attributes. Restricting people’s reproductive choices is insidious and people can’t be trusted to do it properly, even if there was a ‘fair’ way to do it. It doesn’t stop conservatives from constantly doing just that, though.
What I am getting at is, the more stupid laws that get passed to ‘punish’ people for having sex, the more people on the end of the spectrum that have good critical thinking skills will choose to delay or avoid having kids in that place that’s making the stupid laws. It’s strictly about incentivizing behavior through policy.
That’s all true and fair. And I’m certain that’s part of the plan of Republicans. That doesn’t mean we have to also think the way they do about it. It creates a narrative of reproduction of certain people being less desirable as that of others. While that doesn’t restrict those people’s reproductive rights per se, it creates an ethical conundrum about who should and shouldn’t reproduce. Again, I’m sure rightists believe those things, but aren’t we above that? It also reinforces the narrative that things like rational thinking skills are genetic rather than the result of education or lack thereof, which is a wholly separate issue that also has to be solved. Can’t we focus the discussion on this, simultaneously making sure more people realize what we perceive as intelligence is mainly an issue of education and not much of genetics?
That’s all true and fair as well. But I think you’re arguing against a point I wasn’t trying to make. I never wanted to imply there was a ‘should’ group and a ‘shouldn’t’ group. I don’t believe the government (or the church) has any business in how many kids someone has. I do believe that laws like this add to the pile of reasons certain groups of people will delay or refrain from having kids at all. I know because I’m in that group.
The education part is a whole other conundrum, and you seem to feel that has a much bigger impact on the situation. I agree with you, if so. Access to a good education is the real equalizer in life, if you can say such a thing exists.
Great discussion!
Sorry I phrased it in a way that made it sound like YOU were saying certain groups should or shouldn’t have kids. What I’m trying to say is that I personally feel like even just pointing out that something is making more ‘stupid’ people reproduce keeps the narrative of who should or shouldn’t have kids alive, even if that’s not the intention. I think we should try to let that narrative die. But yeah I think we agree about pretty much everything else. I know it’s a big current problem that people delay or even refrain from having kids. And I find it quite heartbreaking, I’m very sorry you have to consider all this in your family planning.
All I’m trying to say is maybe we should consider how we speak about these issues, because prejudiced individuals and groups could read it like we’re agreeing with their prejudice, which reinforces their prejudice. I hope I’m making sense? We’re trying to say republicans are trying to keep the masses dumb, and by this we mean they like that those who can’t access the education necessary to form critical thinking skills are having kids who also won’t be able to access this education. But without this clarification, it could sound like we’re saying that certain people having kids leads to a dumber population, which is good for rightists and bad for us. Am I being overly cautious maybe?
And yes, that is what what I was trying to say about education being a driving factor!
And yeah, I’m enjoying this discussion too!
I’ll go with the over-cautious …. Maybe we’re phrasing it inappropriately, but it’s still an important point. The more difficult we make it to have and raise children, the more likely they’ll be parented by those with the least choice, the least resources, the least options.
And I’ll even say yes, it will lead to a dumber population. theres no reason this is genetic, although I suppose that’s possible. Children raised with poor nutrition, lack of morals, disrespect for education, inadequate support for their future, parents unable to dedicate sufficient attention to children, etc …… is that functionally different from a dumber population? It’s not our business to decide who can raise a child or how, but we can help them provide adequate nutrition and care, adequate healthcare and education, we can make sure they have opportunities if they’re willing to take it. We can help make it easier for parents to raise their kids well, and we can help that child to see opportunity as a functioning citizen…… is that functionally different from a smarter population?
I don’t think there are many people here who think the solution is for stupid people to stop reproducing, rather that our education system stop producing so many stupid people.
I didn’t specify in my original comment that you replied to. This is exactly my thinking. I just worry the original phrasing might be playing into eugenicists cards and feel we’d be safer if we specified that we mean exactly what you said.
I think this is the wrong way to frame it. Really, it will come down to people with a strong enough upbringing to understand their choices. A lot of people have children because they didn’t have good guidance from adult figures in their lives, it’s not because they’re stupid. A lot of those folks are just poor.
The original version would have allowed a child support action at any time following conception, but the measure was amended to have such an action apply only retroactively after the birth within the time limit.
Weird, it’s almost like there’s a huge difference between a fertilized egg and a baby.
It also dodges issues with abortion and child support.
So this doesn’t seem quite so extreme. It allows child support retroactively for the pregnancy period. Being pregnant can be quite expensive, especially without insurance. So having parents share the cost makes sense. We’ll have to see how it pans out. Note it only can be utilized if child support is ordered within the first year after birth.
“I believe that life begins at conception,” Westerfield said while presenting the measure to his colleagues. “But even if you don’t, there’s no question that there are obligations and costs involved with having a child before that child is born.”
While I disagree with the premise, it’s a fairly mild take and I agree with the latter.
Kentucky is among at least six states where lawmakers have proposed measures similar to a Georgia law that allows child support to be sought back to conception. Georgia also allows prospective parents to claim an income tax deduction for dependent children before birth.
Well at least Georgia is being somewhat consistent. But if these people truly believe in conception being the start of personhood, miscarriages should also convey personhood and tax breaks.
Just to be devils advocate, while a law like this doesn’t seem bad, yay social programs, doesn’t it sort of set up more precedent that a child is a child at conception? In turn making it harder to argue for abortion rights based on other existing laws like this one.
Abortion rights are based on the bodily autonomy of the woman, not the status of the fetus.
Even a fully grown adult cannot use another person’s body without consent.
I’d say it sets a precedent that a child isn’t a child until after birth. They don’t want to pay the bill without proof of purchase. Fuck these vermin.
They generally can’t determine paternity until after birth. That is why its a retroactive assessment.
You can get a prenatal paternity test as early as 7 weeks however it is very expensive and most likely not covered by insurance.
It sounds like it doesn’t take effect until the child is born, so I dont think it itself respects that precedent. But it’s a red supermajority state so I’m sure they’ll find a way to oppress women with this, even if I do fundamentally agree with the idea that an absent father be on the hook for pregnancy expenses.
devil’s* advocate
Make no mistake, this may seem reasonable on the surface, but it’s a Trojan horse that anti-choice extremists are hoping to leverage so they can get another case in front of our extremist supreme court to argue that fetuses should get full protection under the 14th amendment, resulting in a full nationwide abortion ban. NPR recently released an article about this: How states giving rights to fetuses could set up a national case on abortion
This sure seems like a step towards a personhood bill. Which is exactly what Republicans want
if these people truly believe in conception being the start of personhood, miscarriages should also convey personhood and tax breaks.
They should get paid bereavement leave
I don’t know if you mean this ironically but parents of a miscarried fetus really should get bereavement leave. It’s extremely traumatic and would take time to recover from.
I’d actually agree if our family court system wasn’t so broken and sexist. But I’m also apart of the unpopular minority that believes that if women can opt out of having kids by having an abortion men should be able to opt out of paying child support.
Honestly none of this would really be an issue if healthcare was universal like it should be. It’s essentially treating a knife wound with a band-aid
If you could opt out if child support no one would pay. That’s a bad idea.
If you are a man, and don’t want to have a pregnancy, there is no way to “opt out”. Now I agree with you entirely, however I understand where he is coming from as well. As far as I know, the father does not have a say in whether or not a child is born, however you can easily argue that you probably shouldn’t put yourself in that situation if its such a worry.
Yes there is. Use a condom.
You could say the same thing about abortions. If a father wants to be a father, they’ll be a father. If a father has no say in whether or not a woman can abort a baby, they should have a say in whether or not they want to raise it.
They do have a say in whether or not they want to raise it. No one is demanding that they be active and attentive parents. They’re just being told that they need to help financially support the child that they had an active hand in creating.
Until UBI and true test tube births are a thing, pregnancy will always put all of the risk on the birth giver. This is inherently unfair. In order to even out that risk, the non-birthing parent should be required to support the child to a minimum level.
Granted, UBI and universal support would entirely negate the need for this discussion and it’s what we should be working towards in the long run, but we can’t just… not support the kids in the mean time.
Sex carries risk and if you willingly ejaculate into a woman then you willingly risk being a father. Use birth control and don’t sleep with pro lifers. You can"t opt out after the fact because you’re not the pregnant one, it’s pretty simple and the men whining about would be better served by demanding better birth control for men than trying to punish women.
Use birth control and don’t sleep with pro lifers.
No birth control works 100% and women can change their minds about how they feel about abortions, especially when it’s their body.
you’re not the pregnant one, it’s pretty simple and the men whining about would be better served by demanding better birth control for men than trying to punish women.
What’s your saying is men should have absolutely no say about a child who carries half of their DNA. We have no say involving abortion, we have little to no say in child support, and we have little to no say with regards to custody. And let’s not pretend that their isn’t a subsection of women who actively use their kids to punish the father. You can’t scream about equality yet want to keep a inherently sexist system that gives the woman ALL the power when it comes to birth and child rearing. I’m pro choice but the idea that a woman gets to completely opt out of raising a child while a man simply has to bare whatever decision she makes with basically no say in it is bullshit.
It may be your body but it is both of your lives.
You can’t scream about equality yet want to keep a inherently sexist system that gives the woman ALL the power when it comes to birth and child rearing.
Newsflash: human reproduction is an inherently sexist system that gives women ALL the negative consequences and responsibility of menstruation and pregnancy.
Men have a say about whether to have sex (barring rape where i don’t beleive men should pay anything) and whether to use contraception. As I said in my comment, better contraception that men are in control of is the solution. You can’t opt out of the consequences of your actions. For women the consequence may be abortion but that is still a consequence. Men would not have this issue if they took responsibilty for their fertility, but instead you want to put it all on the woman and call that fairness. Laughable.
human reproduction is an inherently sexist system that gives women ALL the negative consequences and responsibility of menstruation and pregnancy.
Which is why I’m fine with pro choice, but a woman’s choice shouldn’t be the only choice outside of her bodily autonomy.
better contraception that men are in control of is the solution.
Which currently doesn’t exist. There are some but besides condoms (which aren’t perfect) male contraception similar to the pill are still in trial phases. You can argue getting a vasectomy but considering the cost of things now getting elective surgery isn’t doable for most.
You can’t opt out of the consequences of your actions.
You’re making the exact same arguments as anti-abortionist. Rules for thee not for me. And considering it takes two ppl to make a baby BOTH parties are responsible for their fertility. It’s ewually both parties fault of a pregnancy happens
I find it laughable that women can completely opt out of raising a child to the point France made it a constitutional right, yet a man has no say (in most cases) at any point from conception to the childs 18th birthday considering both parties are equally responsible. How can you be pro-choice yet make the state force a man to take care of a child they may have openly said did they did not want before the pregnancy?
Ffs, they have a choice to have sex, sex carries risk. Grow up, use a condom and accept the reality that if you take the risk you take the responsibility. Biology isn’t fair and the woman has a choice due entirely to biology.
Ffs, they have a choice to have sex, sex carries risk. Grow up, use a condom and accept the reality that if you take the risk you take the responsibility.
I guarantee this has been said word for word during a protest outside of an abortion clinic.
It always comes down to the details…… yeah, it doesn’t seem like a bad thing to help with medical expenses, BUT ….
Skipping a lot of reasons that should still be considered, but this is about money, specifically for healthcare. Healthcare is ridiculously expensive, but I have medical insurance to help cover it and that certainly made it easier to afford pregnancy costs.
However, coming back for money after the fact is a horrible implementation
- where’s the support when you need it most, during pregnancy?
- how can this possibly be covered by insurance?
Isn’t this approach worse for everyone?
What about child tax credits for frozen embryos?
Ok here is an idea: get some sperm and with IVF get it fertilized. Now you have a frozen child. Since the age starts at birth as long as the child isn’t implanted it will never hit 18. Meaning you can still collect child support until the IVF facility has an accident or the father dies. For bonus points you can implant two eggs which, according to what I just read, is about 40% of the dad’s income up to 120k a year on average. For extra bonus points you can demand that the father puts you under a family insurance plan saving you about 8k a year on insurance.
If you pull this off right you can grab about 50k a year tax free.
Now all I need is some eggs and rich guy sperm, never have to work again. So ladies if you are angry about being reduced to less important than a cluster of cells you now know how you can exploit the situation. Just make sure you don’t let him flush the condom after you find some rich guy at a bar.
summary of the bill:
child support may be retroactive to nine months prior to the date the child is born if the order is entered within the first year after the birth of the child.
Even shitty lawmakers think of things like that.
Aaaaaaand in 3… 2… 1… abortion rights are about to become a bit more popular at the polls
They always strum up abortion rights because they have nothing else to create discourse. Their whole strategy is not to cooperate to create arguments and get votes through hate. It helps no one. Especially the people.
Well. They are consistent at least.
Okay… Having not actually read the bill in question and only having a cursory understanding of what specifically constitutes a fetus vs an embryo, unborn child (like actively going into labor), etc. this feels like an actually kind of okay thing?
I mean, obviously the removal of a woman’s rights to control and administer their own bodies is fucking insane and those supporting it should be treated with nothing shy of the most abject contempt one could muster… But the way this article is worded makes it sound like the bill will allow women to seek some form of monetary justice from an unwanted pregnancy? Which feels jarringly contrary to the motivations behind the policys that make this bill necessary?
Genuinely asking. Am I missing something? Lol
What you’re missing is that it’s a step in the direction of establishing fetuses as being treated like humans for things like child support, tax benefits, HOV lane benefits, and so on, with the end goal being able to stand in front of our extremist supreme court and say “Gee, isn’t it funny how we treat fetuses as humans for this, this, and this, but not as humans when it comes to the fourteenth amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law? You agree? Great! Now that we’ve established that fetuses have rights under the fourteenth amendment, let’s talk about all these pesky blue states that aren’t banning abortion…”
The correct way to get monetary justice from an unwanted pregnancy is to pay for medical bills, not claim the the clump of cells growing in the person is a child.
Yeah I kind of read it the same way. What I got from the article is that a single mom could get child support while she’s pregnant. Which seems reasonable to me.
Maybe the original bill was about “fetal personhood” but the current version sounds more like welfare for pregnancy. Being able to recoup costs of pregnancy after giving birth sounds like a great idea. Although we should have universal healthcare with no cost in the first place, but this is a step in the right direction.
Agreed, although there are other costs associated with pregnancy than healthcare such as extra food and supplies.
Kentucky trying to bankrupt itself, about par for course with republicans. In a short lived Anarchy their biggest donors are the clear winners.
Men’s Rights Activists(Whom I have many overlapping areas of agreement with)will revel in this news, just as Greens creemed their underroos over news of The Yangtze River Dolphins extinction… Such stories “prove” an activist’s gloom and doom worldview, without ever raising the question “How do we accumulate the public support necessary to gain the sort of political power that would prevent such things from occurring?”
