Democrat governor vetoes bill that would have required men to pay child support from the moment of conception

I do have to give credit for consistency, because as anti-woman as abortion is, so is using the government to deny women financial help from their baby daddies as they go through the demands of pregnancy and delivery.

Wouldn’t want anything, even legislation that would compel a man to financially contribute to the wellbeing of a child he helped create, to get in the way of the pro-abortion agenda…right?

We hear “feminist” lunacy all the time from the progressive Democrat left. They denigrate men as “pigs” and “dogs” who only want “one thing” from women “and it’s disgusting.” They tell us that men are abusers, and women are constantly victims of their sexual exploitation. They say we live in an oppressive patriarchy and it must be toppled. They accuse Republicans and conservatives of being a bunch of woman-hating sadists who want to relegate women to the bottom of the socioeconomic totem pole. Then, they go and do stuff like this—from a report by Matt Lamb today at The Washington Examiner:

Gov. Laura Kelly (D-KS) vetoed legislation this month to require child support payments to begin at the start of a pregnancy. The idea behind the bill is that mothers need money throughout pregnancy, not just after childbirth, and fathers should contribute.

What a concept huh? Being a “wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am” kind of guy shouldn’t be an accountability-free escapade, and any pregnancy that results between casual and unmarried partners should be a responsibility borne by both parties, not just the woman carrying the child by virtue of her having the ability to bear children. I mean, they basically have a conniption fit over Harrison Butker’s Benedictine College address, and go on and on about how misogynistic it is that everyone just assumes that women do the child-rearing, but then they use political authority and delegated power to uphold an anti-woman system. From Rachel Mipro at Kansas Reflector:

Republican House leadership said women need more immediate financial support. House Speaker Dan Hawkins, Majority Leader Chris Croft, and Speaker Pro Tempore Blake Carpenter issued a joint statement about Kelly’s veto.

‘Women facing an unexpected pregnancy need support long before the baby is born,’ the statement read. ‘Between doctor’s appointment copays, sonograms, and other costs, prenatal expenses can get very pricey for women to handle simply on their own. The governor’s veto of this bill has failed Kansas women by dismissing financial accountability for the father.’

How in the world can Kelly justify vetoing a bill that would force men to help women pay for prenatal expenses when he’s the father?

Oh that’s right, because requiring a man to pay child support while that child is still in the womb would be quite an inconvenient consideration for the radically pro-abortion governor; we can’t have anything suggesting personhood and life now can we! Also from Mipro:

‘This divisive legislation has broad and sweeping implications that undermine the will of the majority of Kansans who voted overwhelmingly in 2022 to protect the constitutional rights of women to make decisions about pregnancy,’ Kelly said Friday. ‘This is another blatant attempt by extreme politicians in the Legislature to take more control over women and their families’ personal, private medical decisions.’

I mean who is this Laura Kelly? A long-lost relative of Hunter Biden? Kelly just got a boost in the polls from the deadbeat dads.

Free image, Pixabay license

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com