409
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 148 points 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 63 points 9 months ago* (last edited 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago
[-] mPony@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Jokes on her: I know Smoothie when I see 'm

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago

My dude, they are forty years into the long-term plan. It’s going really well

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] GomJabbar@lemmy.myserv.one 10 points 9 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.

[-] Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

'Only stupid people reproducing' rhetoric unfortunately is veeeery close to eugenics talking points

[-] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 131 points 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.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago

It also dodges issues with abortion and child support.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 67 points 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.

[-] RampageDon@lemmy.world 41 points 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.

[-] watty@lemm.ee 20 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] Aviandelight@mander.xyz 10 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TaterTurnipTulip@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

This sure seems like a step towards a personhood bill. Which is exactly what Republicans want

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 18 points 9 months ago

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

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Rukmer@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 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

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 6 points 9 months ago

If you could opt out if child support no one would pay. That's a bad idea.

[-] Zoot@reddthat.com 5 points 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.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 7 points 9 months ago

Yes there is. Use a condom.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 65 points 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.

[-] june@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

I didn’t even have a co pay for mine.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

Same. The whole thing was covered by insurance.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 10 points 9 months ago

I think my co-pay was $20.

[-] Sodis@feddit.de 13 points 9 months ago

There are still people, that want to have kids at some point.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

I second this. This is good life advice for pretty much any guy out there right now.

[-] Sacreblew@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago

Shave it yourself before the appt

[-] frickineh@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They still have to shave it again at the doctor. My mom said she wished people wouldn't pre-shave surgical sites (she's a nurse, not just a weirdo offering to shave people for fun).

ETA: If your doctor tells you to shave before a procedure, do it. It's probably just a good bet in general to always follow whatever pre-op instructions you get from your specific provider because every doctor is different.

[-] Bob_Robertson_IX@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Fuck my doctor. He didn't mention prepping the area, so I didn't shave, figured they'd take care of it. Nope. Didn't shave, just cut then applied glue to my sack.

The glue on my hairy sack was the worst part of the whole experience, and it lasted for 2 weeks. I left feedback but it works have been a much better experience of they'd just told me to shave.

[-] frickineh@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Holy shit. Apparently a lot of places don't do it there and will tell people to do it themselves a couple days before (not sure if it's practice to practice, doctor's preference, or what) but I've never heard of anyone just doing a vasectomy on hairy skin. That suuuucks.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] solrize@lemmy.world 38 points 9 months ago

What about child tax credits for frozen embryos?

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago

Aaaaaaand in 3... 2... 1... abortion rights are about to become a bit more popular at the polls

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 11 points 9 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.

[-] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Well. They are consistent at least.

[-] Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network 7 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 15 points 9 months ago

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..."

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
409 points (99.0% liked)

News

23627 readers
2584 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS