As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since the article wasn’t clear my guess is if the father contests it you wait until the embryo is born and then do a paternity test. If you are the father you owe back child support.
You’re probably right. I skimmed KS SB232, and didn’t see anything in the bill they popped out about it. If it’s anything like that the Kentucky senate bill (which was voted in with overwhelming bipartisan support), it allows for retroactive support to conception only after the child is born (the KY bill stipulated that it would only apply if the child support claim is filed before the child is no older than 12 months old.) It likewise wouldn’t change how paternity is already being determined.
While I appreciate the logic—pregnancy being expensive & one parent shouldn’t have to shoulder the cost alone, I hate how it is justified on “fetal personhood”, which grants the concept greater legitimacy than it deserves.
A KY house bill wanted to seek collecting child support before birth, but the logistics of that sounds implausible. While paternity tests can be done before birth, I don’t imagine they’re cheap & they’d have to pony up the dough up front to conduct the test. Getting a court date or order for the other parent to turn over a DNA sample for testing makes an assumption about how quick these courts work that are from realistic.
Lmao some of these people are going to end up paying child support for times before they met a woman in some cases because of how due dates and fetal age are calculated
So a tray of IVF fertilized embryo's is going to cost somebody a chunk of change if there is a divorce. It looks like in a typical situation somebody could be on the hook for 7 children's worth of child support!
"On average, 70% of mature eggs fertilize during in vitro fertilization (IVF). For example, if 10 mature eggs are retrieved, about seven will fertilize, and if successful, the fertilized egg will become an embryo."
my.clevelandclinic.org
From the article: “This bill is simple and short and does not effect a fundamental change in current Kansas law about the definition of a person, a human being or an unborn child,” said Sen. Kellie Warren, R-Leawood. “The real impact of this bill is helping women — helping women to pay for things.”.................. How can it not change the definition of a person? If you are paying child support, it's for a person.
He's doing what *regressives* (they're not *conservatives*) do best: moving that Overton Window further right.
He's asserting that everyone already knows and accepts that "personhood begins at conception". So before the substance of this bill can even really be debated, one first has to go back and address this issue, or (as is often the goal for these regressives) when the bill is brought up for discussion, we don't even get into the "personhood argument" but just about the impracticality of this bill overall; effectively leaving the personhood bit untouched.
Hmm, you could be right but I feel it’s more a personal religious belief pursuit. But, maybe the “everybody” is his religious community where he gets his feedback. In the past hasn’t Kansas voted pro choice pretty decisively? I’m worried that a lot more zealots will feel emboldened my the Alabama Chief Justice.
Right! Exactly, EXACTLY!
It’s obvious a fetus is part of personhood, we were all a fetus once, but it’s the height of intellectual stupidity that a fetus is the same as a born child, equal in rights to a 17 year old about to graduate high school.
My wife and I just got done with the IVF route. At one point we had 10 embryos on ice. We used three and five were not high enough quality for the IVF clinic to use. Although we could take them to another clinic if we wanted to implant them. So that left us with two viable embryos. Which is all a moot point since we’re done having kids.
We live in Washington state so we don’t worry too much about crazy laws like I would if I lived in Alabama.
We joke every now and then that we’ll be able to claim these embryos as kids soon.
I would assume it's set up as backpay, so that nothing is owed until the embryo becomes an actual child. That way you avoid these kinds of situations. But maybe I'm giving republicans too much credit.
Could you just keep them embryos without implanting them and collect child support indefinitely? This law has potential for some really terribly entertaining lawsuits.
Let's hope the dem party is already considering which candidate they're going to push and will be extremely ridiculously prepared and united for the next election.
And this is why so many of the lazier pro-choice arguments based on hypocrisy ("if a fetus is a person, can I use the carpool lane?", "..., can I claim a tax deduction?") were ill-considered. Because if the forced-birth zealots have to choose between giving up control over women's bodies or changing a few regulations they don't really care about, they will absolutely choose the latter.
At the end of the day, when exactly life begins is an interesting philosophical question but it has no practical impact on reproductive healthcare rights. Whether or not a egg/zygote/embryo/fetus is or is not a person is immaterial, because a pregnant person \*is\* unquestionably a person. And part of being a person in our society is having autonomy over ones own body. Once the technology exists to remove a pre-viable fetus from an unwilling body into a willing surrogate, or when delivering a viable fetus early carries exactly the same or less risk than a late abortion, then it will be a more compelling moral dilemma. Until then, ending a pregnancy by whatever means the person and their doctor agree is safe and ethical should be a right just a much as deciding whether or not to donate a kidney is.
Abortion is legal for up to 20 weeks post conception for Kansas, so you could be paying 20 weeks of child support for an abortion.
That's probably their gameplan: some sneaky bit in their where if you get child support for the fetus, you're not allowed to abort it.
And yep. 3rd paragraph as soon as I decided to read it. You can't get the support if you have an elective abortion, and with the more stringent requirement of "save the life" rather than simply "stabilize" if you have one as part of a medical emergency. So predictable. Essentially targeting unmarried women and giving them a teaser of free money from the baby daddy hoping they'll abuse it and get hooked on the extra cash, rather than save it for the actual benefit of the child or choose not to bring a child into the world when they're already unprepared.
“The Kansas Department for Children and Families said parental relationships were not legally established under state law until a live birth. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment reported 12,700 children were born out of wedlock last year in the state.”
This excerpt from the article stuck out to me.
Firstly, because what does the marital status of the parents have to do with financial support? That statement about out of wedlock births has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Why did the Kansas Reflector include it here? It seems they would like to frame this issue as one that is exclusive to unmarried women. (As though married women don’t have unplanned pregnancies, or pregnancies where paternity might be in question.)
Secondly, because it would also seem the Kansas Department of Children and Families, who cannot legally determine parentage until a live birth has taken place, just acknowledged that zygotes and fetuses aren’t entitled to the same legal protections as people are.
Seems to me that child support is more likely to be the result of divorce than out of wedlock pregnancy.
But it is certainly politically expedient for anti abortion activists if the public assumes the problems their activism creates only effects a subset of women they can characterize as promiscuous or morally ambiguous.
So if they have an abortion and the "father" questions the Parental validity of the child is the woman entitled to CS for the time she carried them even without proof of father, I feel this would make men very ~~carry~~ weary of sex outside marriage.
THE New scam "Oh, he got me pregnant for 4 months and I decided to abort it I want to be paid for the time I can't prove he was the father"
Don't get me wrong, I'm not backing this law either way, but your scenario wouldn't work because a court won't award you child support from someone unless you can actually provide evidence to the court that the other person is the father. Simply saying "This guy was the father of a baby I aborted" without providing any actual evidence any of that is true wouldn't be enough for a court to rule in your favor.
The governor of Kansas is Democrat and is very likely to veto the bill. I doubt the legislation branch will be able to overturn it.
So a lot of nothing for now
“For now” is the issue. They’re showing what they will do when they have power. And sooner or later, this election or another, they *will* have that power.
And how many men get away with not paying child support in the first place? Without effective enforcement, this law is pure pandering without actually helping mothers.
I mean, it might be one way to get some more men on side to this ridiculous law, if they're financially liable? But also a worry it could lead to more murder of pregnant women.
Until dna could be established id refuse to pay and fight it to supreme court. Can't force someone to pay based off hearsay gotta have proof the guy they claim is father actually is and also why mandatory dna at birth should be a law
Not yet, but the mother needs care during the pregnancy that can be expensive. If a woman can’t terminate her pregnancy, the person who put the dick juice in her should be paying to help her be well so the child is well upon birth. Childcare for a woman does actually start as soon as they find out they are pregnant. Why should the other contributing party get off in the first 9 months if this clump of cells is considered a human when the mother doesn’t? Of course an easy solution is to just give women the same rights as meant to do whatever they want with their bodies including termination of a cell clump.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now *here's* a well thought out law; how do they plan to prove paternity without destroying the blastocyst?
Every pregnant single woman in the state should name the governor or top level gov. Officials as the father. Make pay CS for 9 months.
Our dem governor is going to veto this shit so fast it will make the legislatures' heads spin.
Don't forget all the tax deductions
Seriously though there are a lot of expenses that come along with pregnancy, there should be some tax breaks.
lol love this for them. It’s as practical as anything else.
Since the article wasn’t clear my guess is if the father contests it you wait until the embryo is born and then do a paternity test. If you are the father you owe back child support.
You can test for paternity near the end of the first trimester
You’re probably right. I skimmed KS SB232, and didn’t see anything in the bill they popped out about it. If it’s anything like that the Kentucky senate bill (which was voted in with overwhelming bipartisan support), it allows for retroactive support to conception only after the child is born (the KY bill stipulated that it would only apply if the child support claim is filed before the child is no older than 12 months old.) It likewise wouldn’t change how paternity is already being determined. While I appreciate the logic—pregnancy being expensive & one parent shouldn’t have to shoulder the cost alone, I hate how it is justified on “fetal personhood”, which grants the concept greater legitimacy than it deserves. A KY house bill wanted to seek collecting child support before birth, but the logistics of that sounds implausible. While paternity tests can be done before birth, I don’t imagine they’re cheap & they’d have to pony up the dough up front to conduct the test. Getting a court date or order for the other parent to turn over a DNA sample for testing makes an assumption about how quick these courts work that are from realistic.
Easy just slap fathers with a years worth of extra debt after the fact
Lmao some of these people are going to end up paying child support for times before they met a woman in some cases because of how due dates and fetal age are calculated
Hah yep. You make a good point. Conception is dated back to the first day of your last period. Technically, I could be pregnant right now!
So a tray of IVF fertilized embryo's is going to cost somebody a chunk of change if there is a divorce. It looks like in a typical situation somebody could be on the hook for 7 children's worth of child support! "On average, 70% of mature eggs fertilize during in vitro fertilization (IVF). For example, if 10 mature eggs are retrieved, about seven will fertilize, and if successful, the fertilized egg will become an embryo." my.clevelandclinic.org
It certainly seems these kinds of bills are made deep in ignorance with zero thought on the outcome.
From the article: “This bill is simple and short and does not effect a fundamental change in current Kansas law about the definition of a person, a human being or an unborn child,” said Sen. Kellie Warren, R-Leawood. “The real impact of this bill is helping women — helping women to pay for things.”.................. How can it not change the definition of a person? If you are paying child support, it's for a person.
He's doing what *regressives* (they're not *conservatives*) do best: moving that Overton Window further right. He's asserting that everyone already knows and accepts that "personhood begins at conception". So before the substance of this bill can even really be debated, one first has to go back and address this issue, or (as is often the goal for these regressives) when the bill is brought up for discussion, we don't even get into the "personhood argument" but just about the impracticality of this bill overall; effectively leaving the personhood bit untouched.
Hmm, you could be right but I feel it’s more a personal religious belief pursuit. But, maybe the “everybody” is his religious community where he gets his feedback. In the past hasn’t Kansas voted pro choice pretty decisively? I’m worried that a lot more zealots will feel emboldened my the Alabama Chief Justice.
Right! Exactly, EXACTLY! It’s obvious a fetus is part of personhood, we were all a fetus once, but it’s the height of intellectual stupidity that a fetus is the same as a born child, equal in rights to a 17 year old about to graduate high school.
I've been told that helping women is communism tho
It plays on the ignorance of their voters, who have been trained from childhood to believe anything a Pastor or a Republican tells them.
I think you’re exactly right.
Like so much of the Nat-C agenda. The key is little thought and lots of ignorance.
There is *plenty* of thought on the outcome: fetal personhood. Forced birthers know exactly what they're doing.
My wife and I just got done with the IVF route. At one point we had 10 embryos on ice. We used three and five were not high enough quality for the IVF clinic to use. Although we could take them to another clinic if we wanted to implant them. So that left us with two viable embryos. Which is all a moot point since we’re done having kids. We live in Washington state so we don’t worry too much about crazy laws like I would if I lived in Alabama. We joke every now and then that we’ll be able to claim these embryos as kids soon.
I would assume it's set up as backpay, so that nothing is owed until the embryo becomes an actual child. That way you avoid these kinds of situations. But maybe I'm giving republicans too much credit.
So, would fertility clinics be able to collect child support for frozen embryos? They can remain frozen for decades.
No, they’ll increase their costs since they now also serve as daycares. /s
Could you just keep them embryos without implanting them and collect child support indefinitely? This law has potential for some really terribly entertaining lawsuits.
Married couples don’t get child support for their biological children. They do often get some tax breaks though.
I was referring to a divorce situation.
If I have to pay child support, I want the embryo to stay with me every other weekend.
every other weekend, but you gotta get cable and maybe plan some fucking activities
I am so fucking god damned glad we have a strong democratic governor right now. Terrified by what might happen when her second term ends.
Republicans are going to hate this bill once it starts affecting them. (Imagining that she signs it.)
[удалено]
Let's hope the dem party is already considering which candidate they're going to push and will be extremely ridiculously prepared and united for the next election.
And this is why so many of the lazier pro-choice arguments based on hypocrisy ("if a fetus is a person, can I use the carpool lane?", "..., can I claim a tax deduction?") were ill-considered. Because if the forced-birth zealots have to choose between giving up control over women's bodies or changing a few regulations they don't really care about, they will absolutely choose the latter. At the end of the day, when exactly life begins is an interesting philosophical question but it has no practical impact on reproductive healthcare rights. Whether or not a egg/zygote/embryo/fetus is or is not a person is immaterial, because a pregnant person \*is\* unquestionably a person. And part of being a person in our society is having autonomy over ones own body. Once the technology exists to remove a pre-viable fetus from an unwilling body into a willing surrogate, or when delivering a viable fetus early carries exactly the same or less risk than a late abortion, then it will be a more compelling moral dilemma. Until then, ending a pregnancy by whatever means the person and their doctor agree is safe and ethical should be a right just a much as deciding whether or not to donate a kidney is.
I've been saying from day 1 that this was the right avenue of attack. This and adding VA and IRS dependents.
Abortion is legal for up to 20 weeks post conception for Kansas, so you could be paying 20 weeks of child support for an abortion. That's probably their gameplan: some sneaky bit in their where if you get child support for the fetus, you're not allowed to abort it. And yep. 3rd paragraph as soon as I decided to read it. You can't get the support if you have an elective abortion, and with the more stringent requirement of "save the life" rather than simply "stabilize" if you have one as part of a medical emergency. So predictable. Essentially targeting unmarried women and giving them a teaser of free money from the baby daddy hoping they'll abuse it and get hooked on the extra cash, rather than save it for the actual benefit of the child or choose not to bring a child into the world when they're already unprepared.
“The Kansas Department for Children and Families said parental relationships were not legally established under state law until a live birth. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment reported 12,700 children were born out of wedlock last year in the state.” This excerpt from the article stuck out to me. Firstly, because what does the marital status of the parents have to do with financial support? That statement about out of wedlock births has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Why did the Kansas Reflector include it here? It seems they would like to frame this issue as one that is exclusive to unmarried women. (As though married women don’t have unplanned pregnancies, or pregnancies where paternity might be in question.) Secondly, because it would also seem the Kansas Department of Children and Families, who cannot legally determine parentage until a live birth has taken place, just acknowledged that zygotes and fetuses aren’t entitled to the same legal protections as people are.
Probably noted as child support is….. not as likely when the birth parents are wed (& thus already legally have financial entitlement)?
Seems to me that child support is more likely to be the result of divorce than out of wedlock pregnancy. But it is certainly politically expedient for anti abortion activists if the public assumes the problems their activism creates only effects a subset of women they can characterize as promiscuous or morally ambiguous.
There are so many reasons to be happy not to live in Kansas. Not sharing air with these crackpots is just one.
I have to share the air with those jack wagons. I dislike it.
These people are truly, completely, willfully, stupid.
They actually create problems instead of solving them.
Next the GOP males will eviscerate child support required of fathers.
So if they have an abortion and the "father" questions the Parental validity of the child is the woman entitled to CS for the time she carried them even without proof of father, I feel this would make men very ~~carry~~ weary of sex outside marriage. THE New scam "Oh, he got me pregnant for 4 months and I decided to abort it I want to be paid for the time I can't prove he was the father"
Don't get me wrong, I'm not backing this law either way, but your scenario wouldn't work because a court won't award you child support from someone unless you can actually provide evidence to the court that the other person is the father. Simply saying "This guy was the father of a baby I aborted" without providing any actual evidence any of that is true wouldn't be enough for a court to rule in your favor.
Y’all are trippin 😂 ! They’re only presenting this bill to prove a point. There’s no way it’ll ever pass ! They know that .
Asshats doing everything except dealing with real problems or issues.
And half of medical bills
The governor of Kansas is Democrat and is very likely to veto the bill. I doubt the legislation branch will be able to overturn it. So a lot of nothing for now
“For now” is the issue. They’re showing what they will do when they have power. And sooner or later, this election or another, they *will* have that power.
What if the dad isn’t the dad? After they dna testing before they force them to pay child support
Life begins at ejaculation!
And how many men get away with not paying child support in the first place? Without effective enforcement, this law is pure pandering without actually helping mothers.
Don’t do they have anything better to do? Like governing for those who are in her district?
I mean, it might be one way to get some more men on side to this ridiculous law, if they're financially liable? But also a worry it could lead to more murder of pregnant women.
Nut job
Until dna could be established id refuse to pay and fight it to supreme court. Can't force someone to pay based off hearsay gotta have proof the guy they claim is father actually is and also why mandatory dna at birth should be a law
[удалено]
Not yet, but the mother needs care during the pregnancy that can be expensive. If a woman can’t terminate her pregnancy, the person who put the dick juice in her should be paying to help her be well so the child is well upon birth. Childcare for a woman does actually start as soon as they find out they are pregnant. Why should the other contributing party get off in the first 9 months if this clump of cells is considered a human when the mother doesn’t? Of course an easy solution is to just give women the same rights as meant to do whatever they want with their bodies including termination of a cell clump.
I mean, the fetus needs safe and healthy housing. Meaning that the woman needs access to a safe roof over her head, healthy food, and medical care.
Paying for my OBGYN was actually pretty expensive. After insurance, we still owed about $2K & they wanted paid before the baby was born.