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.
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.
While I disagree with the premise, it’s a fairly mild take and I agree with the latter.
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.
Removed by mod
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
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.
No birth control works 100% and women can change their minds about how they feel about abortions, especially when it’s their body.
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
I guarantee this has been said word for word during a protest outside of an abortion clinic.
So? Getting an abortion or taking the morning after pill are possible solutions for women. They are not possible for men because men don’t get pregnant and therefore don’t have access to those solutions. Why you think that means they should be able to have risk free sex and transfer all their economic risk to women is beyond me. Seems rather unfair to be honest, and what incentuve would men have to use contraception then? There is no point in continuing this conversation.
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
Isn’t this approach worse for everyone?