This should turn a few men Democrat.
A man answered a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple a few years ago by providing them some of his sperm. They signed agreements that he wasn’t the father and had no financial responsibility for the child. One of the women had his genetic offspring, and then the lesbian couple split and one of them had to stop working due to illness. She applied for state benefits. Incensed, Kansas decided the sperm donor should have to pay that $6,000, not Kansas. So they mounted a lawsuit against the donor, whose lawyer said the court battle will cost a lot more than the $6000 Kansas could get out of it. The lawyer asserts it’s politically motivated, and it’s hard to conclude otherwise.
What is Kansas trying to prove, though? They probably don’t have a mechanism for charging the other half of a lesbian couple, who didn’t provide any genetics to the child, for child support. That’s their problem, and they should pass a law… oh, wait. That would mean recognizing same-sex couples on some level. Can’t have that!
But there’s something else. If your state has passed one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the union, like Kansas did, one of the arguments you’re going to face is that you don’t put as much zeal into making men pay for unwanted kids, too – that you’re just out to punish women. So you’ll want to go through some motions to make it look like you’re out to punish men, too. Enter: making some guy pay child support for what was obviously a sperm donor transaction.Men should expect more of this sort of thing as abortion restrictions tighten and women are unable to abort offspring that neither member of the couple wanted or anticipated. Legislators can’t just stick women with the bills, or overburden the state adoption system – if they did, that would provide loads of fodder for ACLU lawyers intent on taking it all the way to the hill. No, the anti-abortion states will have to go after the men for child support, too, and they’ll have to be vigorous about it.