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.

  • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    148
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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.

    • chingadera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      8 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        8 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.

        • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s all true and fair. And I’m certain that’s part of the plan of Republicans. That doesn’t mean we have to also think the way they do about it. It creates a narrative of reproduction of certain people being less desirable as that of others. While that doesn’t restrict those people’s reproductive rights per se, it creates an ethical conundrum about who should and shouldn’t reproduce. Again, I’m sure rightists believe those things, but aren’t we above that? It also reinforces the narrative that things like rational thinking skills are genetic rather than the result of education or lack thereof, which is a wholly separate issue that also has to be solved. Can’t we focus the discussion on this, simultaneously making sure more people realize what we perceive as intelligence is mainly an issue of education and not much of genetics?

          • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s all true and fair as well. But I think you’re arguing against a point I wasn’t trying to make. I never wanted to imply there was a ‘should’ group and a ‘shouldn’t’ group. I don’t believe the government (or the church) has any business in how many kids someone has. I do believe that laws like this add to the pile of reasons certain groups of people will delay or refrain from having kids at all. I know because I’m in that group.

            The education part is a whole other conundrum, and you seem to feel that has a much bigger impact on the situation. I agree with you, if so. Access to a good education is the real equalizer in life, if you can say such a thing exists.

            Great discussion!

            • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Sorry I phrased it in a way that made it sound like YOU were saying certain groups should or shouldn’t have kids. What I’m trying to say is that I personally feel like even just pointing out that something is making more ‘stupid’ people reproduce keeps the narrative of who should or shouldn’t have kids alive, even if that’s not the intention. I think we should try to let that narrative die. But yeah I think we agree about pretty much everything else. I know it’s a big current problem that people delay or even refrain from having kids. And I find it quite heartbreaking, I’m very sorry you have to consider all this in your family planning.

              All I’m trying to say is maybe we should consider how we speak about these issues, because prejudiced individuals and groups could read it like we’re agreeing with their prejudice, which reinforces their prejudice. I hope I’m making sense? We’re trying to say republicans are trying to keep the masses dumb, and by this we mean they like that those who can’t access the education necessary to form critical thinking skills are having kids who also won’t be able to access this education. But without this clarification, it could sound like we’re saying that certain people having kids leads to a dumber population, which is good for rightists and bad for us. Am I being overly cautious maybe?

              And yes, that is what what I was trying to say about education being a driving factor!

              And yeah, I’m enjoying this discussion too!

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I’ll go with the over-cautious …. Maybe we’re phrasing it inappropriately, but it’s still an important point. The more difficult we make it to have and raise children, the more likely they’ll be parented by those with the least choice, the least resources, the least options.

                And I’ll even say yes, it will lead to a dumber population. theres no reason this is genetic, although I suppose that’s possible. Children raised with poor nutrition, lack of morals, disrespect for education, inadequate support for their future, parents unable to dedicate sufficient attention to children, etc …… is that functionally different from a dumber population? It’s not our business to decide who can raise a child or how, but we can help them provide adequate nutrition and care, adequate healthcare and education, we can make sure they have opportunities if they’re willing to take it. We can help make it easier for parents to raise their kids well, and we can help that child to see opportunity as a functioning citizen…… is that functionally different from a smarter population?

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 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.

        • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I didn’t specify in my original comment that you replied to. This is exactly my thinking. I just worry the original phrasing might be playing into eugenicists cards and feel we’d be safer if we specified that we mean exactly what you said.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I think this is the wrong way to frame it. Really, it will come down to people with a strong enough upbringing to understand their choices. A lot of people have children because they didn’t have good guidance from adult figures in their lives, it’s not because they’re stupid. A lot of those folks are just poor.

  • jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 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.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 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.

    • Sodis@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Imagine the gall to look around at this world and be so blinded by, I don’t know, narcissism, self-centeredness, hubris and think,“Yeah, what we need here is another fucking human.”

        • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Strongly disagree. Your position is that the current age-bearing demographic forego the experience of having children?

          I don’t think this is sarcasm but maybe I’m eating the onion?

          • yamanii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I forgot the name of the movement but some people think it’s abuse to have children. Mind you this was years before COVID and the current wars, maybe someone else remembers them.

          • SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            No civilized and intelligent being should enjoy bearing offspring as we currently do, anyway.

            If the instinct alone is enough to overcome their reasoning, then they are not truly mature.

            • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              I think there’s likely some zeitgeist in play here that younger generations know they can’t afford kids. And I also imagine there’s animosity there. While having kids isn’t a prerequisite for personal joy (to each their own) it’s often a tremendously enjoyable experience. So who should they turn to for being put in this situation: the generation that should really skip having kids, sorry….

              Now, when I walk around stores on my day off and see homeschoolers with 5 kids I can agree with this sentiment: that feels stupidly selfish and excessive.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Wow, I can u derstand some people might not want kids, but self-centeredness? It’s self- e entered to devote so much of your ti e and attention to someone else’s needs, for two decades of your life?

          • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re not having a kid for the kid’s sake. You’re having to kid for your sake. Your self-centered sake. Not YOU, but like the general you.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          The world is better now than at any point previously in history (except maybe the 90s). The only reason things sound worse is that we have global news now.

          What point is there in trying to make a better future if none of us have kids? Who are we trying to fix climate change for, our geriatric asses?

          Kids are emblematic of hope for a better future – that society can build and create something that we won’t benefit from, but our descendants will. I’d go as far as to say they should be the mascot of leftism and progressives. Everything we do should be to give them a better world than we had. It’s all moot otherwise.

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • frickineh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        8 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          8 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 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.

          • frickineh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            She said it just makes the skin more irritated because they have to go over it make sure there’s no stubble, missed spots, etc, and shaving over freshly shaved skin is just kind of harsh. Especially in sensitive areas.

      • SmokumJoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Mine told me not to. Had a decent looking nurse take care of it beforehand. It was an odd, but not terrible experience.

            • bramblepatchmystery@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              I get it. My ass doctor is one of the prettiest people I have ever seen. The day she had to check for hemorrhoids inside me, she was being shadowed by a young doctor, also one of the prettiest women I have ever seen.

              I think everybody gets a bit uncomfortable when a pretty person sees intimate parts of us in ways we have never seen ourselves.

              I don’t think we should shame men for discussing their experiences in the medical world. It is already hard enough to get men into the doctor in the first place, and I think most women also have experienced being in the position of finding doctors attractive and that making the experience more uncomfortable.

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s also not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Once I told the Dr to stop telling me what he was doing down there and talk about movies or some shit it was no big deal. Best investment I’ve ever made.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    8 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.

    • ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      summary of the bill:

      child support may be retroactive to nine months prior to the date the child is born if the order is entered within the first year after the birth of the child.

      Even shitty lawmakers think of things like that.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 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.

    • Rukmer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Agreed, although there are other costs associated with pregnancy than healthcare such as extra food and supplies.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Kentucky trying to bankrupt itself, about par for course with republicans. In a short lived Anarchy their biggest donors are the clear winners.