One more gentle nudge towards only stupid people reproducing.

But that’s probably the conservative goal. Playing the long game, expanding their base.

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.

So this doesn't seem quite so extreme. It allows child support retroactively for the pregnancy period. Being pregnant can be quite expensive, especially without insurance. So having parents share the cost makes sense. We'll have to see how it pans out. Note it only can be utilized if child support is ordered within the first year after birth.

“I believe that life begins at conception,” Westerfield said while presenting the measure to his colleagues. “But even if you don’t, there’s no question that there are obligations and costs involved with having a child before that child is born.”

While I disagree with the premise, it's a fairly mild take and I agree with the latter.

Kentucky is among at least six states where lawmakers have proposed measures similar to a Georgia law that allows child support to be sought back to conception. Georgia also allows prospective parents to claim an income tax deduction for dependent children before birth.

Well at least Georgia is being somewhat consistent. But if these people truly believe in conception being the start of personhood, miscarriages should also convey personhood and tax breaks.

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.

What about child tax credits for frozen embryos?

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.

Aaaaaaand in 3... 2... 1... abortion rights are about to become a bit more popular at the polls

Well. They are consistent at least.

Okay.. Having not actually read the bill in question and only having a cursory understanding of what specifically constitutes a fetus vs an embryo, unborn child (like actively going into labor), etc. this feels like an actually kind of okay thing?

I mean, obviously the removal of a woman's rights to control and administer their own bodies is fucking insane and those supporting it should be treated with nothing shy of the most abject contempt one could muster.. But the way this article is worded makes it sound like the bill will allow women to seek some form of monetary justice from an unwanted pregnancy? Which feels jarringly contrary to the motivations behind the policys that make this bill necessary?

Genuinely asking. Am I missing something? Lol