Posted on 05/12/2024 8:05:51 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
U.S. Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama introduced a bill today that would require child support throughout pregnancy and create a clearinghouse of adoption and anti-abortion pregnancy crisis centers to combat decreasing birth rates.
Britt introduced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed Act (MOMS Act) alongside co-sponsors Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). Britt said the bill is an effort to strengthen support for pregnant women and new moms.
“This legislation is further evidence that you can absolutely be pro-life, pro-woman, and pro-family at the same time,” Britt said. “The MOMS Act advances a comprehensive culture of life, grows and strengthens families, and ensures moms have the opportunities and resources needed so they and their children can thrive and live their American Dreams.”
The bill comes amid a decline in birth rates in the United States. Only 3.6 million babies were born in 2023, the lowest number since 1979, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In a press release, Britt said she introduced her bill to support pregnant women and moms to reverse that decline. One major component would require states to extend child support obligations during pregnancy.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Sometimes the father is given custody of a child, hows the primary custody of the child going to be worked out if the mother is a total flake?
I was thinking the same thing. Idiots. So force someone to risk harming the fetus.
Your proposal is crazy. So a guy can procreate and screw around get girls pregnant and not have to support his children as long as he remains unmarried?????
Someone explain why NY and Mississippi have child support til age 21? Ridiculous.
Most family courts are filled with corrupt and evil women judges..just saying
You want to see demon women, go to a family court hearing. The lawyers, the judges..evil
Our country is collapsing with no border and this is what these moronic women are focusing on? Katie Britt with this and Luna with a cosmetics bill. Pathetic
Yes.
He can whore around it he wants to
He has no access to his children
No women would want him, especially since his aim is to have sex without responsibility. And she would have all the responsibility.
This will cause a witch hunt.
wy69
This will cause a witch hunt.
wy69
Why is this a Federal Matter?
It may sound good but it is none of the Federal Government’s business.
The government can not legislate good behavior and should not try, the unintended consequences are always worse then the problem they say they want to fix.
Nice points. It does put the Dems in a pickle though. The won’t vote for it because it’s an admission of life before birth, and their constituents will be upset that women won’t get more money from the father.
I didn’t vote for her. I don’t like her...and that’s all I’ve got to say about that...
Someone Quick! call the vatican! Tell the pope! A woman has conceived with out a father being present! a new savior has been born!
Trying to figure out why the US Congress should be involved in such a topic. Seems to me this should be something for the individual states to address.
Also, it would be beneficial to society if we could return to a time when sleeping around and having children outside of marriage were looked upon as undesirable behaviors.
So…basically you want enshrine the right to be deadbeat Dad into law.
So…basically you want enshrine the right to be a deadbeat Dad into law.
Apart from the lack of federal jurisdiction, why is it in the public interest to give specifically unattached women an incentive to become pregnant? Attached women don’t need child support, they get it from their marriage or other relationship. And with Republican Senators this stupid, it is easy to give up hope in the political system.
You probably shouldn’t assume youtube is representative of the female population as a whole.
Not normally, but I see that same kind of younger female out there every day, and worse. This ain’t your father’s world anymore. The entire society is polluted with it and it’s poisoning young females’ minds, IMO.
Well, because the Legislature voted for it, I suppose. Sometimes observing constitutional order and having only the response “take it up with the Legislature” is all the answer we get. In CA is age 18 or up to 19 if still a full time high school student
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.