In nightmarish Republican Congress news, Georgia Representative Jody D. Hice has introduced a bill, which has some reproductive rights activists wondering if this might spell the end to a woman’s right to choose.
The bill, which was introduced in the House on January 17th is called the ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act’ and it seeks to define human life as beginning at fertilization.
More specifically (as printed by Congress.gov):
“In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States—
(1) the Congress declares that—
(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and
- the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.”
Again, you can read the bill’s current text here.
This isn’t Hice’s first attempt at getting this bill passed through Congress. According to the federal legislation tracking website GovTrack.us, Hice first introduced the controversial measure back in 2009 during the 111th Congress, and again in 2011 in the 112th Congress.
Both attempts never made it out of the House.
But these are different times. And we’re dealing with both an Administration and a Congress where anything – no matter how far-fetched and ridiculous – is on the table (at the time of writing this, Vice President Mike Pence was addressing a crowd at a March For Life Rally in Washington D.C.).
So if such a bill passes, what would it mean for a woman’s right to choose?
“First and foremost, the way this proposed law is written is precisely meant to prevent an abortion from happening,” said Alycia Kinchloe, a Philadelphia-based family law attorney who spoke with Madame Noire.com . “It’s basically saying an unborn child has a right to life. And we now would have to weigh that with a woman’s right to choose.”
As bad as that sounds, Kinchole tells me that this bill, if passed, could have other unforeseen and “interesting” effects on matters regarding family law, particularly around paternity and child support cases.
Charing Ball: What kind of legal issues could arise from such a law? I imagine that it would be a headache trying to figure out things like paternity, visitation and custody – while a “life” is still in the womb?
Kinchloe: Yeah, in terms of child support, this law would present a very interesting dynamic. Custody a little less so – but then again, I can see someone possibly challenging a father’s ability to contact and bond with his child before birth. That’s where a custody issue might arise. The other issue is rights and property, like to an estate. For example, if someone passes away before a child is born and then the child dies after, the question becomes who inherits the child’s estate?
CB: So if a law like this passes, could we be looking at a total rewrite of those laws, rules and regulations?
Kinchloe: “Potentially. Some will not have to be changed whereas others will dramatically have to be changed. Interestingly enough a lot of the stuff that is around is not inconsistent with the way this law has been drafted. For example, within the family law statue in Pennsylvania, the language used for establishing paternity may not need to be corrected or changed. It would just need a new interpretation. And that just comes done to the courts, which will have to handle the question of “how do we do genetic testing on people who are pregnant” and “how do we pay for it?”
CB: I imagine this law, if passed, would also have the potential to tie up courts for years?
Kinchole: “That’s how a lot of changes get done; through litigation and case law.”
CB: Let’s talk specifically about child support? My feeling is if human life supposedly begins at fertilization, so should child support. So what are the current laws now?
Kinchole: “The first thing about getting child support is that you have to establish, or acknowledge, paternity, An acknowledgment of paternity can be done in several different ways. Usually if someone files for child support then the responding party – or the father – has to say “yes this is my child.” If he says “no,” then the court will order genetic testing. Now if he does not question paternity, everyone signs the paperwork and the process moves on. There is also a presumption of paternity if a child is born in wedlock. And even if you’re separated, there are guidelines in place to get whatever support or assistance you are trying to get.
Now in terms of this proposed law, single mothers filing for child support will have the biggest issues as there are no current guidelines for them to seek support for an unborn child. Now there may be situations where things were done in the past through some case law, but I do not know of any off-hand.”
C.B: And to clarify, can mothers petition the court for child support to cover the cost of pregnancy and labor?
Kinchole: No. The way that it works, at least in Pennsylvania, is it only goes back to the obligation of support. So if you file day-one of the child’s birth but you don’t get to go to court until two months later, the order will only go in effect from the date the obligation was filed.
C.B: So if this law, which would establish life at fertilization, is passed it could theoretically open up the possibility of women filing for child support for their unborn children?
Kinchloe: “I think that it could make a situation where people will attempt to. I think if you have a situation where a woman is not able to get an abortion, even though she wants one, and is forced through pregnancy and labor, she may be able to file a claim for child support. And she might be able to use this bill, if it becomes law, claiming this unborn person is a child and is entitled to the legal rights of a person.
The thing is, they would have get an acknowledgment of paternity. And that father would have to acknowledge paternity or genetic testing would be ordered. I’m not well-versed on what genetic testing looks like on children who are still in-utero, and how dangerous it is. But the question is, will the state want to take on that risk of ordering a test if there is a risk to the child?”
CB: So in a way, this would kind of screw single women completely. And not just as a matter of choice, but the ability to seek support for a human life they would be forced to carry and give birth to? [Note: The March of Dimes estimates the average cost of giving birth is $4,389 for healthy babies and $54,194 for babies who are premature.]
Kinchole: It can make it difficult. I think that if this thing really does happen, and the courts say it will happen, then how can we logically and practically do it. Like, if a man is saying that he is not the father, the courts will ask how can we practically establish paternity without risking the life of the unborn child and even the mother?
So it’s a very interesting. And I think people can find themselves in a very precarious situation depending on how this law is enacted and how quickly the law is enforced.
CB: So let me ask you this: you represent men in matters of family law. How do you see this bill, if signed into law, effecting them?
Kinchole: I think that the biggest question for men is if there will be appropriate measures in place to establish paternity of unborn children. And if there are, will there be measures in place to establish support amounts. As different states have different grids and guidelines and a child in-utero will have different support needs than a child who is out of the womb and walking around. So the question is: should the amount be different? Should it be less? Should it be more? What about insurance? God-forbid the mother doesn’t have health insurance to cover the cost of labor. Should he have to support that and at what amount?
And that’s where this bill becomes of interest to both the mother and the father.”
You read that, fellas? This will affect you too.
Anyway, this bill is still in the House, which means there is still time to defeat it. If you have something to say on the matter, make sure you let your local Congressperson know it.
Charing Ball is a writer, cultural critic and smarty-pants Black feminist from Philadelphia. To learn more, visit NineteenSeventy-Seven.com.
