Republican bill requires fathers to pay child support for UNBORN BABIES
'Caring for the well-being of our children begins long before a baby is born,' Senator Kevin Cramer said
A group of nine Republicans, including Senators Cindy Hyde-Smith and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, has reportedly introduced a new bill last Wednesday, July 13, that will require fathers to pay child support to unborn babies.
The Senate Bill 4512, The Unborn Child Support Act, says that fathers have to bear the finances in “the first month in which the child was conceived, as determined by a physician.” As per reports, if the bill becomes law, it would change Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act “to ensure that child support for unborn children is collected and distributed under the child support enforcement program.” It would also “provide flexibility for mothers, who do not want involvement of the father, by not requiring those mothers to receive child support”; “require judges to consult with mothers on payment plans and give mothers discretion as to whether or not child support payments will be awarded retroactively”; and “mandate that all paternity tests be at the discretion of the mother and not be conducted if the test would put the child at risk.”
Jose Benitez-Tilley: Indiana man gets 65 years after killing 2 people and sexually abusing dead female victim
In a statement, Hyde-Smith said, “I hope good legislation, like the Unborn Child Support Act, gets more support now that the Dobbs decision encourages us to look more seriously at supporting mothers and their unborn children. This legislation would help ensure women have opportunities to receive child-support payments from the earlier days of their pregnancy.”
Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, who has sponsored the bill, noted that “caring for the well-being of our children begins long before a baby is born. It begins at the first moments of life—conception—and fathers have obligations, financial and otherwise, during pregnancy.”
This comes after reproductive rights advocates blamed Republicans of not doing enough for mothers and their babies. The allegations increased after Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, which made abortion legal in the country. In the June 24 verdict, Justice Samuel Alito had stated, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ’implicit in the concept of ordered liberty'. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” he added.
Meanwhile, regarding the new bill, Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund co-founder Laurie Bertram Roberts is quite skeptical. She told the Mississippi Free Press, “This is not the first time they’ve tried to insert this personhood language into a national bill. And see, the way they’re doing it is very sneaky, the way they’re doing it is under the guise of, ‘Oh look, doesn’t this make sense?’ Because this is one of those arguments that has been coming from people who actually support abortion, which is why I tell people not to make these arguments, even in jest, like, ‘If y’all want to make us have babies, start child support at the moment of conception.’”
“I don’t think they really care about people getting support when they’re pregnant. I think their real goal is to get personhood language into a bill; and I think secondly for people to think that they care for you and want you to have support while you’re pregnant; and third for them to find another way to nickel and dime low-income and working class non-custodial parents in a way that makes money for the state,” Roberts added.