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.

  • @RampageDon
    link
    419 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      209 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
      link
      fedilink
      109 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.

      • @bitchkat
        link
        09 months ago

        They generally can’t determine paternity until after birth. That is why its a retroactive assessment.

        • Aviandelight
          link
          fedilink
          69 months ago

          You can get a prenatal paternity test as early as 7 weeks however it is very expensive and most likely not covered by insurance.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 months ago

      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.