BY: ANNA KAMINSKI
Kansas Reflector
TOPEKA — Legislation that would cement child support payments for pregnancy-related costs before birth turned into a debate at a hearing Wednesday over whether the bill would establish “fetal personhood” in Kansas law.
House Bill 2062 would guarantee mothers child support payments from the moment of conception. But House Democrats questioned at a judiciary committee hearing the real intent of the bill, and opponents speculated it was an attempt to establish fetal personhood, the idea that a fetus, embryo or fertilized egg has the same legal rights as a born person. Fetal personhood bills have taken many forms across the country with far-reaching consequences.
The bill would add the following definition to child support-related statutes under the Kansas family law code: “The term ‘unborn child’ means a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.”
It was written by Kansas Family Voice, an anti-abortion Christian advocacy group that also testified in favor of a gender-affirming care ban for trans youths this week. A nearly identical bill last year died in committee.
This year, eighty-three people submitted written testimony opposed to the bill, and three were in favor.
Pregnancy-related medical costs already can be considered in child support judgments in some cases. Brittany Jones, director of policy and engagement for Kansas Family Voice, told the committee the intent of the bill is to ensure pregnancy-related expenses are always considered.
“This is not a revolutionary bill,” Jones said. “This is not intended to change much of anything besides to make it uniform that courts consider it.”
Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, an Overland Park Democrat said she wasn’t sure of the point of the bill because much of its contents already exist in law.
“In my view, this is creating a new bill that just codifies fetal personhood and, you know, this idea of what an acceptable abortion is,” Vaughn said.
Taylor Morton, a lobbyist with the advocacy arm of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, criticized the bill’s lack of “meaningful structure” for miscarriages, stillbirths, abortions and births that result in adoption. The bill also lacked clarity in how paternity would be determined before birth and protocol for how payments would be distributed given pregnancy complications.
“On the surface, this bill appears to be a means of supporting pregnant people and families, but in reality, it is just an attempt to advance an anti-abortion agenda, and again, further codifying that fetal personhood language into Kansas law,” Morton said.
Such language could give way to laws that criminalize or restrict access to health care during pregnancy, Morton said.
Jeanne Gawdun, a lobbyist for the anti-abortion organization Kansans for Life and one of the bill’s proponents, pointed to Kansas Department of Health and Environment data that showed of the roughly 12,500 children born out of wedlock in Kansas, 8,600 people could apply for child support benefits under the proposed legislation. Assuming 10% of those who applied would qualify for pre-birth child support payments, child support services would take on an additional 867 cases per year.
“Many women facing unexpected pregnancies choose abortion because of financial insecurity or uncertain relationship status,” Gawdun said.
This bill could address the financial aspect, she said.
Research has shown bad timing, concern for existing children and interference with future opportunities are also among the top reasons cited for obtaining an abortion.