In Kentucky the state Senate voted 36 to 2 for a bill that grants the right to collect child support for unborn children. The bipartisan bill is now headed to the state's House of Representatives. The bill would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses. Lawmakers in 5 other states have proposed similar measures to put prospective fathers on the hook for child support from the moment of conception.
Of course, she only gets the money if she doesn't get an abortion. And she only gets the money after the baby comes out and they can do a DNA test to verify that the baby is his.
Presumably she wouldn't get the money if she miscarries or the child dies shortly after birth either. Based on the alleged logic behind this though, she should still get the child support up to the point the child dies regardless of the circumstances (unless she is deemed criminally responsible for the death) since she still has the pregnancy expenses up to that point.
I suppose if you knock someone up, they will be unable to work at some point, so I can see supporting her. If she gets an abortion, does he get a refund?
Under this law, she doesn't actually get the money while she's pregnant. She gets the money retroactively, after she gives birth.
So when a woman gets "knocked up" its all someone else's fault? She has nothing at all to do with it and should share no responsibility for it? She just woke up pregnant? Like slipping on a banana peel?
Did they give any details on how they will collect? If she is out of pocket for all pregnancy and birth related expenses, how will they enforce the law so that the mother gets her payment?
Pay her for what? For being too stupid to use a condom. a diaphragm or THE PILL? So now we'll start subsidizing stupidity?
Nothing is that black or white. Men don't "get women pregnant" all by themselves. Its a joint effort with the woman... unless its rape of course. Responsibility should be shared by both parties. And if I wasn't a participant, my tax dollars shouldn't be used at all. I'm always a bit suspicious of any woman that has sex without a condom, a diaphragm, an IUD, or THE PILL. It's a carer for some women.
In our society, parents rarely give these devices and medications to their young teen girls. Plus, you are once again ignoring the healthcare of women. Your comment on rape suggests your concern is about money. Yet the laws in question are not about money.
Good news and more needs to be done to insure it is maintained throughout the child's life to adulthood.
If the father contests it and put in the law that if they are the child they have to pay for that test too. ALL unmarried mothers should be required by law to disclose the father of the child else risk losing custody of the child.
I've always been on board with ensuring that pregnant women get the healthcare they need and want. In fact, everyone needs healthcare. What I'm not in favor of is giving legislatures the right to pretend they are doctors and invade a woman's bodily autonomy.
Why not if she identifies the fathers and there is a DNA match? The only support is her medical bills, the babie does not require clothing or a bed or separate food or diapers. The fathers should be paying their commensurate amount based on the incomes of him and the mother.
Why do you fallaciously say it is kidnapping? The state takes custody of minor children everyday are those all kidnappings now? If the woman is this irresponsible and refuses to act in the best interest of the child's putting some baby daddy ahead of her own child...........she should be a mother?
Australia tried a “baby bonus” to aid in expense with newborns. The Boguns bred like rabbits using the money to buy big TVs and boy toys (women rarely saw the money in that section of society) so safe guards have to be in place to stop exploitation however it will address this