Marco Rubio is one of the co-sponsors of a new bill that would require fathers to pay child support from the date of conception. The financial obligation would be retroactive in the event paternity could not be established before birth.
You can see why this approach appeals to Rubio; it permits him to appear woman-friendly without expanding the size of the welfare state, which is of course anathema to the GOP. In fact, I predicted the GOP would move in this direction over a year ago. But the legislation comes with many problems, including:
- The current child support system lacks effective enforcement tools even for the born, largely due to the fact that many fathers simply don’t have any money. Imagine the problems collecting for a fetus!
- Rubio probably imagines that the vast majority of abortions are the result of hook-ups. That is not true; his legislation does nothing for women in stable relationships.
- It is reasonably easy to determine the additional financial needs created by an actual child. For a fetus, not so much. It doesn’t require clothes or shelter or food separate from the mother. How would this calculation be made?
- I don’t think it’s possible to do paternity testing until the child is born. If not, making the financial obligation retroactive does nothing for the immediate needs of the mother. Do you really think service providers are going to permit her to, in effect, borrow against the inflow of cash that the system says she will receive months from now? Would you be willing to bet on that, if you were such a provider?
The bottom line is that the state’s enforcement abilities would have to be beefed up very significantly in order to make the legislation work. Rubio and his friends aren’t going to vote for a major expansion of government for that purpose. That’s not how they roll.