Overview
Title
To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to establish requirements for biological fathers to pay child support for medical expenses incurred during pregnancy and delivery.
ELI5 AI
The "Supporting Healthy Pregnancy Act" is a bill that tries to make sure dads help pay for the mom's doctor bills when she's having a baby, but it doesn't include costs if the mom has an abortion. It wants dads to pay at least half of these bills, but some parts might be hard to agree on, like how much these bills should be.
Summary AI
H.R. 6755, titled the "Supporting Healthy Pregnancy Act," proposes changes to the Social Security Act to require that biological fathers cover at least half of the reasonable out-of-pocket medical expenses during pregnancy and delivery, if the mother requests it. This includes costs such as health insurance premiums and other related expenses. The bill explicitly excludes expenses related to abortions from being considered medical expenses for this purpose. The change would take effect at the start of the year following the enactment of the Act, though states needing legislation to comply would have additional time.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 6755, titled the "Supporting Healthy Pregnancy Act," aims to amend the Social Security Act to mandate that biological fathers contribute financially to the medical expenses arising from pregnancy and childbirth. Specifically, the bill proposes that biological fathers pay at least 50% of the reasonable out-of-pocket medical costs, including health insurance premiums and other related expenses, provided the mother requests such support. The bill explicitly excludes costs connected to abortion from this financial requirement. Additionally, it allows for delayed implementation should states need to pass supportive legislation.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill presents several notable challenges and ambiguities:
Paternity Disputes: One of the foremost concerns revolves around the practicality of enforcing these obligations when disputes over paternity arise. The bill necessitates biological confirmation before any financial duties can be established, a process that can be contentious and legally complex.
Vague Terminology: The phrase "reasonable out-of-pocket medical expenses" lacks specificity, potentially leading to varied interpretations and legal disputes. What constitutes a reasonable expense may differ depending on individual circumstances and emerging medical practices, complicating consistent enforcement.
Exclusion of Abortion-Related Expenses: By excluding abortion-related costs from this mandate, the bill treads into contentious ethical and political territory. The exclusion may be interpreted differently across jurisdictions, especially concerning state laws that have varying definitions and regulations around abortion.
Complex Implementation: The bill does not detail the process by which mothers should request financial support, leaving room for implementation challenges and inconsistencies in execution between different regions and cases.
State Legislation Requirements: The provision allowing for delayed enactment if states require additional legislation could lead to differing timelines and application of the bill’s measures across states, potentially affecting the uniformity of support available to pregnant women under this new framework.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill seeks to establish financial responsibility for biological fathers in a way that could alleviate some of the financial burdens of pregnancy and childbirth on mothers. This could have a positive impact on public health by ensuring that mothers receive adequate support and care during pregnancy. However, the success of this impact is contingent upon the efficient resolution of disputes and clear guidelines for determining reasonable expenses.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Mothers: For expecting mothers, the bill offers potential financial relief and shared responsibility for pregnancy-related expenses, potentially improving access to necessary healthcare. Nevertheless, without clear procedures and due attention to legal disputes, some mothers might face difficulties in securing these financial contributions.
Biological Fathers: Men identified as biological fathers may find themselves financially accountable for significant medical expenses. For many, this could introduce financial pressure, especially in higher-cost medical situations. In cases where paternity is contested, the requirement may also lead to legal battles and strained relationships.
State Governments: States are tasked with the implementation of this mandate, which may require additional legislative action and resources. The need for state-specific legislation could lead to delays and differing standards, affecting how support is provided in various regions.
In conclusion, while the "Supporting Healthy Pregnancy Act" aims to establish a fairer financial arrangement for pregnancy-related expenses, its effectiveness will largely depend on the resolution of outlined issues, particularly those concerning implementation, legal disputes, and uniformity across states. These factors will significantly influence its real-world impact on family dynamics and public health.
Issues
The requirement in Section 2 for biological fathers to pay at least 50% of reasonable out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred during pregnancy and delivery could be difficult to enforce, particularly in cases where there is a dispute over paternity. This raises potential issues of fairness and legality.
The definition of 'reasonable out-of-pocket medical expenses' in Section 2 is vague and could lead to legal disputes over what constitutes a reasonable expense. This could result in inconsistent application and potential legal challenges.
The provision in Section 2 specifically excluding expenses associated with abortions from the child support obligation may be contentious, leading to differing interpretations of what medical expenses are applicable. This could also clash with varying state laws and individual beliefs, raising ethical and legal issues.
The bill's language in Section 2, which defines 'abortion' very specifically, might not align with all state laws or medical definitions, potentially leading to conflicts between federal and state legal interpretations.
There is a lack of detailed process in Section 2 concerning how a mother should request payment for support, which introduces ambiguity and could complicate the implementation phase for both parties involved.
The effective date provision in Section 2 allows for delays in implementing the bill's requirements if state legislation is necessary, which might result in inconsistencies between states in terms of when and how the amendments are applied, leading to potential political and legal complications.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states that the name of the legislation is the “Supporting Healthy Pregnancy Act.”
2. Requiring biological fathers to pay child support for medical expenses incurred during pregnancy and delivery Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section amends the Social Security Act to require states to establish policies that make biological fathers responsible for paying at least half of the mother's reasonable medical expenses related to pregnancy and childbirth, as long as the mother requests this support. It also clarifies that abortion-related expenses are not included, and provides conditions for a delay in implementation if state legislation is needed.