Bill Overview
Title: Unborn Child Support Act
Description: This bill requires states to apply child support obligations to the time period during pregnancy. This requirement is applicable retroactively based on a court order at the request of the pregnant parent and a determination by a physician of the month during which the child was conceived. Existing state requirements are applicable to these obligations, such as proof of parenthood.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Mike [R-LA-4]
Target Audience
Population: Expectant parents of unborn children
Estimated Size: 111000
- The bill applies to pregnant individuals, requiring child support obligations during pregnancy.
- This affects expectant parents (both mothers and potential fathers) since it deals with child support obligations before the child is born.
- Physicians and courts will be involved in determining conception dates and administering support orders, respectively.
- State governments need to implement and enforce the retroactive child support determinations.
- Families, especially those in situations where the biological father's paternity might be questioned, are also impacted.
- Current legal frameworks and support systems will be adjusted to uphold this legislation.
Reasoning
- The target population includes expectant parents who are more likely to undergo financial stress during pregnancy. Certain demographics like single mothers, low-income families, unplanned pregnancies, or high medical costs face more challenges.
- Understanding regional differences is crucial, as states with higher birth rates or poverty levels might see a greater impact of the policy.
- A significant number of expectant parents could benefit from support during pregnancy, alleviating immediate financial pressures and potential stress-related health issues.
- The policy has indirect effects on other stakeholders like physicians and courts, who will engage more in administrative tasks.
- Given the budget constraints, this policy cannot cover extensive legal disputes or be overly complex in its rollout.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This new act could provide much-needed relief as I have struggled to cover prenatal expenses with my current job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds a financial obligation unexpectedly early, but could help ensure both parents share responsibility from the start.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Unemployed (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With this policy, I can get some financial help before the baby is born, which is exactly when I need it the most.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Physician (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Professionally, this policy could increase our workload but also acknowledges the monetary needs of patients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The retroactive payment could be a heavy burden if paternity is confirmed, but it ensures fair responsibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College Student (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might help me stay in college by easing financial pressures while I am pregnant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Lawyer (New York, New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy creates more cases to handle but recognizes early child support needs, reflecting systemic improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Charlotte, North Carolina)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing there's potential support during pregnancy could ease my anxiety and help us plan better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
HR Manager (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should enforce equal responsibility, which I support. However, it should be fair and considerate of people's financial situations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Student (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step toward fairness, but these actions emphasize the importance of planning and responsibility, which are challenging when you're a student.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $130000000)
Year 2: $102000000 (Low: $71400000, High: $132600000)
Year 3: $104040000 (Low: $72828000, High: $135252000)
Year 5: $108243840 (Low: $75871296, High: $140997888)
Year 10: $118789294 (Low: $83292506, High: $154426079)
Year 100: $318820964 (Low: $223174674, High: $414467253)
Key Considerations
- The burden on state administrative and court systems could be significant unless additional resources are allocated.
- The policy might face challenges around paternity disputes and costs associated with DNA testing or medical assessments.
- Legal and social implications surrounding the enforcement of retroactive child support will require careful management.