410
Kentucky senate passes bill granting right to collect child support for fetuses
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
410 points (99.0% liked)
News
23361 readers
3134 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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?