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.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

  • jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

  • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    One more gentle nudge towards only stupid people reproducing.

    But that’s probably the conservative goal. Playing the long game, expanding their base.

    • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

    • GomJabbar@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Any young buck reading this: If you have insurance, they’ll usually cover vascectomy with a minimal co-pay. Do it. Contact your doctor, your insurance company, figure it out and do it. Yeah, it’s a little weird having someone shave your junk, and you’re achy for a few days after, but think about it. A lifetime of less stress and more money. Just do it. You’ll thank me in your dotage.

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Imagine the gall to look around at this world and be so blinded by, I don’t know, narcissism, self-centeredness, hubris and think,“Yeah, what we need here is another fucking human.”

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    Edit: Yep, this does push towards fetal personhood, which is quite bad. Overall this is a bad law due to that trend by shithole states. But (depending on the language) this may be benign enough to withstand a federal law to protect abortion.

    • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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

        • Zoot@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

    • RampageDon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.