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 ...
Katie may be wrong on this. Some “ladies” will collect the benefits at conception and then kill the baby in the eighth or ninth month, and they will have gotten paid for the eight or nine months even though they never intended to have the helpless child.
As long as the paternity can be determined. No man should sign off on a birth certificate without first doing a paternity test.
How is this a federal issue?
What part of the Constitution allows the feds to impose such a rule?
My first reaction is that this incentivises killing babies in the womb.
That’s fine, then. IF DNA tests are performed and the ‘father’ stuck in the relationship who is NOT DNA-related doesn’t have to pay anything, court order or not. Otherwise, NO.
The fact is that most young women today are complete liars when it comes to ‘who is the father’ and they are in a troubled relationship. You can spend days/weeks on YT seeing it.
Correct!
It’s crazy today. I really believe in the DNA test at birth before any BC is signed.
Steve Garvey would have been a senator long ago if he was smarter.
Rats get kudos for their ‘intent’. We can play the same game.
“What part of the Constitution allows the feds to impose such a rule?”
She’s a woman, the Constitution was written by men.
While I'm entirely opposed to abortion, if we're going to go down this route, then no abortion should be permitted without the consent of the father, who heretofore has had not say in the matter.
“...to combat decreasing birth rates.”
It’ll do the opposite and continue to increase the decreasing birth rates.
There are maybe a handful of constitutionalists in the GOP ranks. The rest are Deep Staters who use social issues to grift.
absurd......
Another government hand-out program.
If the Republicans are truly serious about the declining birth rate, the atrocity of abortion, and the attack on families, they would be introducing legislation to bring moral teaching back into the school system.
If strong families are the key to a successful nation, then everything that promotes strong families should be supported. Start condemning recreational sex, and even sex outside of marriage (shock!). Stop condoning homosexuality. Stop supporting people to have babies outside of marriage. It’s all very simple, or at least it used to be.
It will make men even more wary.
We are supposed to encourage couples to get married and raise children. But our policies are encouraging the opposite.
Only the Muslims can advocate for that kind of platform in the political party.
Truly a stupid idea!
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.