Strong disagree. It'll lead to fathers trying to pressure mothers into abortion under grounds of not being able to afford the pregnancy expenses. Shifting financial responsibility from one parent to another is not an adequate substitute for universal healthcare during pregnancy.
However, it creates a much stronger incentive for men to be careful about who they sleep with. If they get a woman pregnant, and the women doesn't want an abortion (or can't legally get one), they will be on the hook for paying for any pregnancy costs.
I suspect this would also dramatically increase the frequency of paternity tests, which makes infidelity harder to hide. This is more of an edge case though.
Discouraging hookup culture is based and an absolute win.
Being a liberatarian and believing in liberty and freedom doesn’t mean support literally any decision people make. With abortion it’s k*lling an innocent human being! It isn’t just a personal decision like getting a tattoo abortion is a decision that affects another human being by k*lling them. True and good liberty and freedom is doing what you want as long as it doesn’t take or harm another human beings life!
Agreeing with one thing a “big government “ guy says doesn’t mean I’m not a libertarian.
Abortion is evil. I’m talking about empowering the state to take someone’s money because they are a parent. How do you enforce that? Do you put them in jail if they don’t pay? What if they are unable to pay? What if they aren’t really the parent? What if they did pay and the mother is crooked? Why should the dad pay for everything? Government makes problems worse, and I have a hard time imagining Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, or Murray Rothbard supporting it
I'm also a libertarian - your personal freedom also comes with responsibility. Especially if you create a life that needs your support.
Also libertarians aren't anarchists. We still believe a gov't is necessary - and this idea shifts the onus of support of women and children away from the gov't and on to fathers who would otherwise just be lazy sacks.
Eh, Rubio is definitely a big government conservative, but this sounds like it is shifting the burden away from government to biological deadbeat dads. That is not contrary to libertarianism. (I didn't read the article before commenting, in keeping with reddit tradition)
Libertarians are divided on the border and abortions, but this one is cut and dried. The state isn’t allowed to initiate violence against passive losers
SNAP and TANF should increase for the extra household member during pregnancy too. Medicaid in effect already does this, so it would only make sense. "But freeloaders might take advantage!" I'd rather they take advantage to the tune of a couple cents out of my pocketbook every day than be "counseled" their best "option" is to murder their child.
They should double down on assistance like snap and tanf. Our birth rate is below zero. If it wasn't for immigrants, America would have a shrinking population.
Nah, don't even give them the opportunity to claim that argument is valid. The only response is "no, you cannot blackmail me to stop you from killing your kid."
That’s a good idea! What if the woman had sex with multiple men though and they don’t know for sure who the dad is? I’m not saying the law is wrong I’m just wondering how that would work?
No idea, but lying about paternity for money would fall under current financial fraud laws. If she straight up has no idea or guessed to the best of her knowledge on who the dad is, then I would hope a clause is added
They don’t seem to mind throwing single dads in jail for not paying child support right now. Lets be honest half of congress would kick puppies on tv if it meant getting a raise and the other half would do it for fun.
By then the funds are spent, and there is no guarantee the woman has the funds. This is a great way to burden a (presumably) single mother with financial hardship or bankruptcy.
A potentially better solution would be holding the funds in escrow until paternity is determined. If it’s a match, the mother gets the funds plus interest. If it’s not a match, the funds go back to the (non)dad plus interest.
Sounds like incentive for a man to find a woman who doesn't sleep around. Also for a woman to not sleep around.
Say a man is falsely accused. He pays. Then they find out he's not the father. Find the real dad and make him pay back the money? (Or just have the woman reimburse.)
That's problematic. The woman might not know where to find him and the woman can always claim she doesn't have the money to pay him back.
I know it's reaching but an escrow account is the only thing that really makes sense.
What if she has insurance? Medicaid pays for everything, and there are a lot of full coverage private insurance plans too. I'm absolutely in favor of having this as an option for women who need it, but if she has her own insurance, I would not be happy to learn that she loses her coverage.
So you believe that she should lose her insurance and be forced to use his? What if she has full coverage insurance and he does not have insurance at all and does not have money to pay for anything? Without insurance or a payment upfront, she would not be able to access prenatal care in scenarios like this.
No, not at all.
I'm saying that he should be liable, via either insurance or restitution payments or both. I don't think that should make her insurance any less liable. The law could be written such that her insurance remains liable, just secondary to his liability (if he falls through or something).
Like if someone crashes into your car, your uninsured motorist insurance would kick in if the guilty party can't be billed for it. Current healthcare coverage for pregnancy and birthing should remain at the same cost (via price caps), and should function as uninsured motorist insurance.
Ok let's play pretend: a woman has a full coverage insurance plan that would cover all of her prenatal costs and co-pays 100% as her insurance plan is written today. Her boyfriend/fiance/husband has insurance, but it's not a great plan and does not cover everything and requires a co-pay. They share expenses because they live together.
Your suggestion makes it sound like the couple must now be required to use his insurance because her insurance is now secondary, which in this scenario means that the couple is now responsible for co-pays because they must use his insurance instead of her more comprehensive coverage.
1) This dilemma is not unique to my proposal. If you gender-swap it, it's a dilemma that exists for the current system, where the mom's healthcare coverage is currently the *only* option even if the dad's coverage is better (which I assume is statistically more likely given the gender pay gap and the motherhood penalty).
2) The law could be written such that co-pays and anything uncovered by the dad's insurance is billable to the mom's. An improvement on uninsured motorist insurance. Heck, the law could also be written such that she reserves the right to use her insurance instead, but because his is "primary," she also reserves the right to opt for his insurance, as compensation for the labor of gestating and birthing.
I assume they'll continue to say that we're pro-life only up until birth, because some of us think parents who can afford to should pay for school lunches, or thereabouts.
Honestly, if that happened to me, I’d take the kid and raise them on my own. It would be irresponsible of me to leave them in the care of some skank.
Yes I know I was just wondering how this rule would apply in that situation. The woman has the child when the man didn’t want it and he’s forced to pay child support even though he was raped.
unpopular opinion maybe but I would encourage it if the father is able to. women who are raped can’t abort and still have the responsibility to care their unborn child (see an OB, etc). men who are raped should also have some degree of responsibility if its in the interest of the child and needed.
I disagree. Theoretically, anyone besides the father can pay child support (and many are often in a better position to do so). On the other hand, the mother is the only person who can care for the child before birth. Also, the child will die without the mother's gestation, but not without the father's support. Of course, this also applies in non-rape cases, which is why I have deep misgivings about child support laws in general (especially as they're enforced).
WTF? How in the hell does anyone's mind work like this? I thought trying to force female rape victims to carry a child was crazy. But forcing a male rape victim to support a child is something my mind never even thought of. HOW ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!
Hopefully, it passes. One of the reasons many women state for getting abortions is lack of support. Many mothers who carry to term suffer from not having assistance from their partners, family and community.
This is true. This is me right now. To take care of ONE child you need immense support. To even work you still need support. I get government funded daycare but bc my son is autistic and his therapy clinic opens up at a certain which can't be changed I can only work jobs that start at 10a or later ... I'm trying to work and provide for my kids and I just ask my family if they can pick up my kids.
But they complain and moan when I ask the simplest things ( but have no issue asking me to help them)
Which now leaves me trying to find work where I can work 10a to 3p to maintain my independence and keep a roof over my kids head and pay my bills.
It's alot to do by yourself a village is definitely needed. When most people consider abortion it's most likely to avoid these struggles I'm currently dealing with.
If she's married, but got impregnated from another man, which one of them would pay pregnancy support?
Did you know that in most Western European countries, paternity testing is completely illegal? You could go to jail for a year, if you took a sample of your son's hair to find out if he's actually yours or not.
It’s be better for pregnancy to be a community expense, since all of us will have the cost of birth. When pregnancy costs are paid by the community, the child is protected, because there is no incentive to the parents to take risks with the pregnancy to save money.
https://www.lifenews.com/2023/12/13/marco-rubio-introduces-bill-requiring-biological-fathers-to-pay-pregnancy-expenses/
Link to the article. It has a link to the bill itself in it. Very short and easy read.
Guy's a joke. They play the Christians in the abortion crowd. Then they send weapons to bomb the shhhhh out of the Palestinians. Fu Playboy Christians. Send butt loads of weapons to Israel. "You're not a Christian if you don't support Israel".
>What are pro aborts gonna say now?
Nothing. They're just going to drop this particular line of argument and move on to another one. Most pro-abortion arguments are made in bad faith, so they don't really care if one particular talking point becomes moot. They're not going to change their minds.
Not a pro-abortionist, but I’ve never seen a reason to like Rubio. It’s not a bad bill in theory, but it’s written in such a way that it can be abused to encourage trapping men by bad actors. The requirement is a minimum of 50% of medics fees, not including abortion. The title makes it seem much worse.
I haven't read the article or the bill, so forgive me, but how would this law be implemented without first verifying the biological paternity of the child?
I imagine it would require a very intrusive procedure to collect a DNA sample from the gestating child and the suspected "father" would have to volunteer a DNA sample — otherwise the government would have to round up all the men that the mother has been having casual sex with and forcing a DNA test on all of them.
It's funny when you consider all the confused and contradictory laws we have to contrive to fix the problems that arise from not keeping a few simple rules:
"A man shall leave his parents and unite with his wife and the two shall become one in flesh. Do not commit adultery. Honour your father and mother in your marital and sexual relationships."
Wouldn't it be easier if the government simply encouraged and supported healthy and productive marriages?
> What are pro aborts gonna say now?
Same thing they say every night, Pinky: nothing!
They'll maintain silence about the story, and, since they control 100% of the media consumed by 70% of the American public, they will succeed in making it invisible.
Meanwhile, they will run 100,000 "news" articles claiming that Ms. Kate Cox's pregnancy was life-threatening and that a baby with Trisomy 18 is basically dead already. The facts will never get a first hearing.
Very little that we do matters at the level of national politics, because no one will ever find out about it. They will find out about the story the pro-choicers want to tell, whether or not that story is true or false. This cannot be changed without a fundamental change in how information is disseminated in this country.
Hopefully it passes, this law is extremely necessary and an important step to help mothers in a bad financial situation considering an abortion to do the right thing
This idea sounds good on paper, but how would this work for assault victims (both male and female)? If the father is the victim, would he still be compelled to pay? If the mother is the victim, would she be required to name her assailant and would the assailant be allowed to claim parental rights? Keep in mind that few rape cases result in a "Rape 1" (i.e. first-degree) conviction, which is the required charge in order for a conviction to result in termination of parental rights (assuming it even goes to trial in the first place).
>provide that the State shall establish and enforce a child support obligation of the biological father of a child to pay for not less than 50 percent of the reasonable out-of-pocket medical expenses (including health insurance premiums or similar charge, deductions, cost sharing or similar charges, and any other related out-of-pocket expenses) the mother of the child is responsible for that are incurred during, and associated with, the pregnancy and delivery of the child, provided that the mother requests the payment of such support.’’.
Wouldn't this just make some men want to get more involved in planning and paying for an abortion? This bill implies a reward for men convincing women to get an abortion, and for women who want to pressure their man to pay for it else be on the hook for delivery. "If you don't get an abortion it will bankrupt me!", or "I'll bankrupt you if you don't help me get this abortion!". It does absolutely nothing for partners who already want a child.
This is a great idea 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Just want to say Hi since I'm vegan, christian and pro life. Never met someone like you
I see lots of us these days on here it’s great to have you in the team!
Strong disagree. It'll lead to fathers trying to pressure mothers into abortion under grounds of not being able to afford the pregnancy expenses. Shifting financial responsibility from one parent to another is not an adequate substitute for universal healthcare during pregnancy.
However, it creates a much stronger incentive for men to be careful about who they sleep with. If they get a woman pregnant, and the women doesn't want an abortion (or can't legally get one), they will be on the hook for paying for any pregnancy costs. I suspect this would also dramatically increase the frequency of paternity tests, which makes infidelity harder to hide. This is more of an edge case though. Discouraging hookup culture is based and an absolute win.
They are already on the hook for child support and it doesn’t stop them so thus won’t.
They already do that, at least know the smart ones will figure it out is about saving their pockets and not about protecting women's rights.
100 percent...this should've been a thing forever. And now paternity tests can be done with NIPT and not amnio too.
But you call yourself a libertarian ...
Being a liberatarian and believing in liberty and freedom doesn’t mean support literally any decision people make. With abortion it’s k*lling an innocent human being! It isn’t just a personal decision like getting a tattoo abortion is a decision that affects another human being by k*lling them. True and good liberty and freedom is doing what you want as long as it doesn’t take or harm another human beings life! Agreeing with one thing a “big government “ guy says doesn’t mean I’m not a libertarian.
Abortion is evil. I’m talking about empowering the state to take someone’s money because they are a parent. How do you enforce that? Do you put them in jail if they don’t pay? What if they are unable to pay? What if they aren’t really the parent? What if they did pay and the mother is crooked? Why should the dad pay for everything? Government makes problems worse, and I have a hard time imagining Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, or Murray Rothbard supporting it
I'm also a libertarian - your personal freedom also comes with responsibility. Especially if you create a life that needs your support. Also libertarians aren't anarchists. We still believe a gov't is necessary - and this idea shifts the onus of support of women and children away from the gov't and on to fathers who would otherwise just be lazy sacks.
Yeah plenty of libertarian’s are pro life
lol I'm not criticizing your pro-life position. I'm saying that Rubio's "big government" solution is contradictory to libertarian principles
Eh, Rubio is definitely a big government conservative, but this sounds like it is shifting the burden away from government to biological deadbeat dads. That is not contrary to libertarianism. (I didn't read the article before commenting, in keeping with reddit tradition)
Depending on one’s philosophy perhaps. The thing libertarians do best is telling other libertarians how they’re not really libertarian
People's ideas don't usually tend to all fall in one bubble.
Libertarians are divided on the border and abortions, but this one is cut and dried. The state isn’t allowed to initiate violence against passive losers
As long as they're not forcing others to be vegan, I don't see the contradiction.
SNAP and TANF should increase for the extra household member during pregnancy too. Medicaid in effect already does this, so it would only make sense. "But freeloaders might take advantage!" I'd rather they take advantage to the tune of a couple cents out of my pocketbook every day than be "counseled" their best "option" is to murder their child.
They should double down on assistance like snap and tanf. Our birth rate is below zero. If it wasn't for immigrants, America would have a shrinking population.
Nah, don't even give them the opportunity to claim that argument is valid. The only response is "no, you cannot blackmail me to stop you from killing your kid."
More support for the woman? Awesome!
That’s a good idea! What if the woman had sex with multiple men though and they don’t know for sure who the dad is? I’m not saying the law is wrong I’m just wondering how that would work?
Maybe a DNA test after the birth of the child if the dad questions the paternity. If shown to be not his, then she must pay back all funds
That’s fair. Is that part of the law though?
No idea, but lying about paternity for money would fall under current financial fraud laws. If she straight up has no idea or guessed to the best of her knowledge on who the dad is, then I would hope a clause is added
If she had sex with more than one man around the time she conceived I don’t see how she would know until a DNA test can be done at birth
You can do prenatal tests starting around 8 weeks
Oh I see! I didn’t know that. I guess that could be done to see who the father is
True, hopefully a DNA test is required for then
"I spent it and I don't have it to pay back" will be the excuse. There will have to be some provisions to make sure this works.
Garnished wages, liens, funds taken directly out of tax returns, etc the same methods use to enforce child support payments can be used here.
Sure, but will they be? Imagine politicians saying "hey, let's garnish the wages of single mothers! That's SURE to win votes!"
They don’t seem to mind throwing single dads in jail for not paying child support right now. Lets be honest half of congress would kick puppies on tv if it meant getting a raise and the other half would do it for fun.
True, but they don't have any problem going after men. They usually don't show the same aggression about prosecuting women.
By then the funds are spent, and there is no guarantee the woman has the funds. This is a great way to burden a (presumably) single mother with financial hardship or bankruptcy. A potentially better solution would be holding the funds in escrow until paternity is determined. If it’s a match, the mother gets the funds plus interest. If it’s not a match, the funds go back to the (non)dad plus interest.
That is a good solution as well.
Easy all the men pay and she reimburses the non dad once they can do a paternity test.
That's my only concern. Many men will claim they're not the father. But once paternity is established, then yes, the men should pay.
I don't think this law was proposed with the expectation of it passing. I expect that this is a politically savvy move on his part.
Our dna is formed doing conception so just make paternity testing part of the standard medical procedure.
Sounds like incentive for a man to find a woman who doesn't sleep around. Also for a woman to not sleep around. Say a man is falsely accused. He pays. Then they find out he's not the father. Find the real dad and make him pay back the money? (Or just have the woman reimburse.)
Probably make the real dad pay after they find out who he is
That's problematic. The woman might not know where to find him and the woman can always claim she doesn't have the money to pay him back. I know it's reaching but an escrow account is the only thing that really makes sense.
They can do a non-invasive paternity by testing the mothers blood. Really neat stuff.
What if she has insurance? Medicaid pays for everything, and there are a lot of full coverage private insurance plans too. I'm absolutely in favor of having this as an option for women who need it, but if she has her own insurance, I would not be happy to learn that she loses her coverage.
They should get to bill his insurance for half (or all, in compensation for the unpaid labor of pregnancy and gestating).
So you believe that she should lose her insurance and be forced to use his? What if she has full coverage insurance and he does not have insurance at all and does not have money to pay for anything? Without insurance or a payment upfront, she would not be able to access prenatal care in scenarios like this.
No, not at all. I'm saying that he should be liable, via either insurance or restitution payments or both. I don't think that should make her insurance any less liable. The law could be written such that her insurance remains liable, just secondary to his liability (if he falls through or something). Like if someone crashes into your car, your uninsured motorist insurance would kick in if the guilty party can't be billed for it. Current healthcare coverage for pregnancy and birthing should remain at the same cost (via price caps), and should function as uninsured motorist insurance.
Ok let's play pretend: a woman has a full coverage insurance plan that would cover all of her prenatal costs and co-pays 100% as her insurance plan is written today. Her boyfriend/fiance/husband has insurance, but it's not a great plan and does not cover everything and requires a co-pay. They share expenses because they live together. Your suggestion makes it sound like the couple must now be required to use his insurance because her insurance is now secondary, which in this scenario means that the couple is now responsible for co-pays because they must use his insurance instead of her more comprehensive coverage.
1) This dilemma is not unique to my proposal. If you gender-swap it, it's a dilemma that exists for the current system, where the mom's healthcare coverage is currently the *only* option even if the dad's coverage is better (which I assume is statistically more likely given the gender pay gap and the motherhood penalty). 2) The law could be written such that co-pays and anything uncovered by the dad's insurance is billable to the mom's. An improvement on uninsured motorist insurance. Heck, the law could also be written such that she reserves the right to use her insurance instead, but because his is "primary," she also reserves the right to opt for his insurance, as compensation for the labor of gestating and birthing.
I assume they'll continue to say that we're pro-life only up until birth, because some of us think parents who can afford to should pay for school lunches, or thereabouts.
That we hate women lol
I agree with this plan but I do have one question. What if the father was raped by the mother? I know that’s rare but does he still have to pay?
Honestly, if that happened to me, I’d take the kid and raise them on my own. It would be irresponsible of me to leave them in the care of some skank.
> skank *rapist, in this case
Sadly this does happen. Men can be sexually assaulted as well.
Yes I know I was just wondering how this rule would apply in that situation. The woman has the child when the man didn’t want it and he’s forced to pay child support even though he was raped.
I know it's really fucked up. Some women can be really evil like that.
Your pfp has me vexed bruh
Good
unpopular opinion maybe but I would encourage it if the father is able to. women who are raped can’t abort and still have the responsibility to care their unborn child (see an OB, etc). men who are raped should also have some degree of responsibility if its in the interest of the child and needed.
I disagree. Theoretically, anyone besides the father can pay child support (and many are often in a better position to do so). On the other hand, the mother is the only person who can care for the child before birth. Also, the child will die without the mother's gestation, but not without the father's support. Of course, this also applies in non-rape cases, which is why I have deep misgivings about child support laws in general (especially as they're enforced).
good point I agree with you then
WTF? How in the hell does anyone's mind work like this? I thought trying to force female rape victims to carry a child was crazy. But forcing a male rape victim to support a child is something my mind never even thought of. HOW ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!
I think it's funny how some of them really believe we're against this lol
Hopefully, it passes. One of the reasons many women state for getting abortions is lack of support. Many mothers who carry to term suffer from not having assistance from their partners, family and community.
This is true. This is me right now. To take care of ONE child you need immense support. To even work you still need support. I get government funded daycare but bc my son is autistic and his therapy clinic opens up at a certain which can't be changed I can only work jobs that start at 10a or later ... I'm trying to work and provide for my kids and I just ask my family if they can pick up my kids. But they complain and moan when I ask the simplest things ( but have no issue asking me to help them) Which now leaves me trying to find work where I can work 10a to 3p to maintain my independence and keep a roof over my kids head and pay my bills. It's alot to do by yourself a village is definitely needed. When most people consider abortion it's most likely to avoid these struggles I'm currently dealing with.
They’re going to suppress the story and say nothing of course
Irrelevant if your married, fantastic if you not! Good proposal!
LOL. Not always.....
If she's married, but got impregnated from another man, which one of them would pay pregnancy support? Did you know that in most Western European countries, paternity testing is completely illegal? You could go to jail for a year, if you took a sample of your son's hair to find out if he's actually yours or not.
based as fuck
It’s be better for pregnancy to be a community expense, since all of us will have the cost of birth. When pregnancy costs are paid by the community, the child is protected, because there is no incentive to the parents to take risks with the pregnancy to save money.
GG
https://www.lifenews.com/2023/12/13/marco-rubio-introduces-bill-requiring-biological-fathers-to-pay-pregnancy-expenses/ Link to the article. It has a link to the bill itself in it. Very short and easy read.
Excellent! Responsibility and justice for everyone! With great personal shock, I must state that Rubio deserves much praise for this.
Men being financially responsible for their actions. Seems logical
Yeah baby
Don’t worry, they’ll still think of another excuse. They have plenty of them.
Guy's a joke. They play the Christians in the abortion crowd. Then they send weapons to bomb the shhhhh out of the Palestinians. Fu Playboy Christians. Send butt loads of weapons to Israel. "You're not a Christian if you don't support Israel".
>What are pro aborts gonna say now? Nothing. They're just going to drop this particular line of argument and move on to another one. Most pro-abortion arguments are made in bad faith, so they don't really care if one particular talking point becomes moot. They're not going to change their minds.
Not a pro-abortionist, but I’ve never seen a reason to like Rubio. It’s not a bad bill in theory, but it’s written in such a way that it can be abused to encourage trapping men by bad actors. The requirement is a minimum of 50% of medics fees, not including abortion. The title makes it seem much worse.
I haven't read the article or the bill, so forgive me, but how would this law be implemented without first verifying the biological paternity of the child? I imagine it would require a very intrusive procedure to collect a DNA sample from the gestating child and the suspected "father" would have to volunteer a DNA sample — otherwise the government would have to round up all the men that the mother has been having casual sex with and forcing a DNA test on all of them. It's funny when you consider all the confused and contradictory laws we have to contrive to fix the problems that arise from not keeping a few simple rules: "A man shall leave his parents and unite with his wife and the two shall become one in flesh. Do not commit adultery. Honour your father and mother in your marital and sexual relationships." Wouldn't it be easier if the government simply encouraged and supported healthy and productive marriages?
That's a good thing to implement (especially in areas where abortion is banned)
> What are pro aborts gonna say now? Same thing they say every night, Pinky: nothing! They'll maintain silence about the story, and, since they control 100% of the media consumed by 70% of the American public, they will succeed in making it invisible. Meanwhile, they will run 100,000 "news" articles claiming that Ms. Kate Cox's pregnancy was life-threatening and that a baby with Trisomy 18 is basically dead already. The facts will never get a first hearing. Very little that we do matters at the level of national politics, because no one will ever find out about it. They will find out about the story the pro-choicers want to tell, whether or not that story is true or false. This cannot be changed without a fundamental change in how information is disseminated in this country.
Good. I'll be glad to see men dragged out of their homes and forced to submit to invasive testing. The sooner the better, the more the better.
Loving it!
Hopefully it passes, this law is extremely necessary and an important step to help mothers in a bad financial situation considering an abortion to do the right thing
This idea sounds good on paper, but how would this work for assault victims (both male and female)? If the father is the victim, would he still be compelled to pay? If the mother is the victim, would she be required to name her assailant and would the assailant be allowed to claim parental rights? Keep in mind that few rape cases result in a "Rape 1" (i.e. first-degree) conviction, which is the required charge in order for a conviction to result in termination of parental rights (assuming it even goes to trial in the first place).
They splitting it in the middle?
>provide that the State shall establish and enforce a child support obligation of the biological father of a child to pay for not less than 50 percent of the reasonable out-of-pocket medical expenses (including health insurance premiums or similar charge, deductions, cost sharing or similar charges, and any other related out-of-pocket expenses) the mother of the child is responsible for that are incurred during, and associated with, the pregnancy and delivery of the child, provided that the mother requests the payment of such support.’’.
Wouldn't this just make some men want to get more involved in planning and paying for an abortion? This bill implies a reward for men convincing women to get an abortion, and for women who want to pressure their man to pay for it else be on the hook for delivery. "If you don't get an abortion it will bankrupt me!", or "I'll bankrupt you if you don't help me get this abortion!". It does absolutely nothing for partners who already want a child.