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: Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by prenatal child support
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill impacts individuals who are pregnant, particularly those seeking child support, as it sets regulations for obtaining financial support from conception.
- The legislation affects potential fathers because it requires proof of parenthood and obligates them to provide support during pregnancy.
- Health professionals, especially physicians, are involved to determine the conception month, which may impact medical protocol and judicial proceedings.
- State governments, as the bill mandates them to apply child support based on set criteria, will need resources to implement and potentially adjust current child support systems.
- Legal professionals may see an increase in caseloads involving the establishment of paternity and child support during pregnancy.
Reasoning
- The Unborn Child Support Act is focused on providing financial support during pregnancy by obligating the father from the time of conception. This primarily targets pregnant individuals seeking financial assistance and potential fathers who could be obligated to provide support.
- In the US, with about 6 million pregnancies per year, a significant number of individuals could potentially benefit from this policy by receiving additional resources during pregnancy.
- The policy could also increase the workload for healthcare providers required to determine conception timelines and for legal systems processing paternity cases.
- Given the budget constraints, it is important to select cases where financial support during pregnancy is the most impactful and necessary. Many people not directly involved in pregnancies or legal and healthcare systems may remain unaffected, keeping the policy focused on its intended demographic.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would really help me manage my finances better while I'm pregnant. Right now, I'm stressed about expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
software engineer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to unexpected financial obligations, but it's fair to support the child from the beginning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
family law attorney (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might face an increase in caseloads, but this policy provides justice and fairness for pregnant clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
state government official (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy requires significant changes to our systems but supports those in need during pregnancy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
unemployed (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm scared about managing expenses on my own, and this policy could bring some relief if it works.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
doctor (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will increase my workload, but it serves an important purpose for my patients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
paralegal (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'll have more work, but it means helping more clients who truly need assistance during pregnancy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
family law judge (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will create more work in the judiciary, but it's necessary for fairness in child support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
college student (Boston, MA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm overwhelmed with school and pregnancy. This policy could make my life easier by providing some financial relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
single mother (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change would have been helpful in my past pregnancy and should help others in need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $41600000, High: $72800000)
Year 3: $53000000 (Low: $42400000, High: $74200000)
Year 5: $55000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $77000000)
Year 10: $58000000 (Low: $46400000, High: $81200000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- State infrastructure and staff readiness to incorporate prenatal child support claims efficiently without undue delay.
- Potential need for technology upgrades to track and administer the prenatal support accurately.
- Judicial system capacity to manage potential case increases without extending case durations.
- Availability of healthcare professionals to conduct timely conception assessments as required by the law.