Kansas Committee Hears Bill to Allow Child‑support Orders From Date of Conception

Chairwoman Humphreys opened a hearing Tuesday in the House Committee on Judiciary on House Bill 2062, which would allow courts to calculate child‑support obligations "from the date of conception" for an "unborn child" and cap support for an unborn child at the mother’s direct medical and pregnancy‑related expenses.

"House Bill 2062 provides for child support orders for unborn children from the date of conception," said Jason Thompson of the Revisor's Office during his bill brief. Thompson described the bill's principal changes to Kansas statutes, including an amendment to KSA 20‑165 to direct the Supreme Court when adopting child‑support guidelines to consider pregnancy‑related medical expenses and a change to the Kansas Parentage Act that expressly defines the term child to include an unborn child.

Supporters told the committee the change would reduce financial pressure on people facing unexpected pregnancies. "No woman should ever feel that abortion's her only option, and House Bill 2062 may help alleviate some of the financial stress a pregnant woman faces at a critical time for her and her child," said Jeanne Gowden, director of government relations for Kansans for Life.

Britney Jones, director of policy and engagement for Kansas Family Voice, said the bill "is a simple way to ensure that courts consider pregnancy related expenses, not just birth expenses, for a child support judgment." Jones emphasized the sponsors did not intend to change procedures for establishing paternity or enforcement mechanisms.

Opponents said the bill raises legal and administrative concerns and could further embed language describing fetal personhood into Kansas law. "House Bill 2062 also raises serious questions, both bureaucratically and financially," said Taylor Morton, policy analyst with Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes. Morton said the bill "could put undue strain on the state's budget and resources" and argued the measure would not deliver the evidence‑based maternal‑health supports she and her group favor.

Key provisions and legal references

- The bill would add a subsection to KSA 20‑165 instructing the court to consider "the direct medical and pregnancy related expenses of the mother if the child is an unborn child." Thompson read the bill's proposed definition of "unborn child" as "a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth."

- The bill adds a provision that "the maximum amount of child support to be ordered for the support of an unborn child shall not exceed the direct medical and pregnancy related expenses of the mother," and that the support amount "shall be calculated from the date of conception" and that interest will accrue at the statutory rate until arrearages are paid.

Committee questions and legal history

Members pressed proponents and the reviser on whether existing statutes already allow courts to order pregnancy‑related medical expenses. Representative Vaughn cited KSA 23‑22‑15, which currently allows a court to order payment of "all or a portion of the necessary medical expenses incident to the child's birth," and asked whether HB 2062 meaningfully changes the law. Thompson said some courts interpret the existing language broadly and others narrowly and that the bill was meant in part to clarify definitions and to add the interest and retroactivity language the sponsors seek.

The reviser noted prior legislative attempts: a Senate bill (425) heard in Judiciary in January 2024 died in committee; a House measure (HB 2653) passed the House in March 2024 but died in a Senate committee; elements later surfaced in conference as part of Senate Bill 232, which passed both chambers but was vetoed by the governor.

Practical and fiscal concerns

Opponents and committee members raised implementation questions: whether paternity can be determined before birth and what would happen when a pregnancy ends in miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion. Jones and Gowden said the bill does not change methods courts use to establish paternity and that awards could be sought retroactively after paternity is established. Morton pointed to the fiscal note the committee received and told the committee that if parentage needed to be established before birth, federal rules would not permit that in all cases and state general funds could be required to contract for in‑utero genetic testing; her testimony cited an average quoted figure of about $1,750 per instance.

Several members asked whether the bill's definition of "unborn child" or the phrase "from the date of conception" makes any new legal claims of fetal personhood. The reviser noted the language mirrors definitions already appearing elsewhere in Kansas law and in criminal and wrongful‑death statutes, but opponents characterized the broader effect as a further codification of fetal personhood language in statutory law.

Next steps

Chairwoman Humphreys and members said they would leave the record open to receive submitted written testimony on the committee's S drive; the committee received multiple written opponents and proponents. Several members asked the Revisor’s Office to research controlling case law on the interpretation of existing statutes (for example, how courts have interpreted "medical expenses incident to the child's birth") before the committee works the bill. The chair said she would consult with the reviser on timing for any possible amendments or a committee work session.

Ending

No formal committee vote was taken during the hearing. The committee took public testimony from two in‑person proponents and one in‑person opponent and noted numerous written submissions on file. The committee scheduled further work on its calendar pending the reviser's case‑law review and staff follow‑up.