Kansas Senate Democrat breaks from party to add tax credit to fetal child support bill
Sen. Patrick Schmidt at a March 12, 2025, meeting of the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency, or COGE. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — Republican legislation to establish child support payments for pregnancy-related costs — and, in turn, establish 'fetal personhood' — revealed tension among legislators as one Democratic senator inserted a bipartisan tax credit provision.
Senate Democrats agreed that House Bill 2062, which requires courts to consider fetuses when determining child support judgments, risked providing legal precedent for treating fetuses as people. But with an amendment that expands eligibility for tax credits for families, Sen. Patrick Schmidt, D-Topeka, said he took an opportunity to make 'lemonade out of lemons,' while his Democratic colleagues disagreed.
Most Republicans, initially hesitant, were in favor of Schmidt's amendment Tuesday and approved it in a preliminary vote.
On the Senate floor Wednesday, before legislators took final action on the bill, Schmidt said he had 'the most pro-choice legislator' in the delegation. He ultimately voted against the bill along with the rest of the nine-member Democratic caucus.
While fielding flack from Democrats and abortion rights advocates, Schmidt told Kansas Reflector he expects his amendment will either kill the bill because of it's added nuance or give families tax credits, both of which he considers a win, especially for his constituents in central Topeka.
The amendment created a child tax credit for all pregnant parents, not just those involved in child support judgments. Parents would be allowed to claim 'an unborn child' on their tax returns, and a taxpayer identification number would be assigned to a fetus.
'It's a bad bill, with or without an amendment,' Schmidt said.
Melissa Stiehler, a spokesperson with Loud Light Civic Action, said Schmidt made 'serious mistakes' in declining to consult fellow Democrats, advocates and policy experts before proposing the amendment.
'It is pretty disappointing to hear Senator Schmidt declare himself the most 'pro-choice lawmaker' while simultaneously adding the most anti-abortion language I've ever seen a democratic lawmaker intentionally amend into a bill,' she wrote in a statement.
Stiehler called the amendment 'bad economic policy,' claiming Schmidt's proposal was a regressive flat tax. She said it was 'bad constitutional policy' because it added a new subject to the bill. She said he utilized 'bad political strategy' in trying to alter the bill without consulting experienced lawmakers and playing into anti-abortion efforts.
'He just gave it to them without a fight and now with bipartisan support,' she said.
Schmidt stuck by his strategy. If Democrats want to stop legislation they disagree with, they have to try something new, said Schmidt, who is serving his first year in the Legislature.
'The same tactics are not going to work in perpetuity,' he said. 'They haven't been working.'
Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes, D-Lenexa, in an explanation of her 'no' vote Wednesday, said the bill was disguised as a child support bill but was 'far more insidious.'
'This bill grants legal recognition to a fetus as a separate person, even providing a state tax ID number, which would have sweeping consequences beyond financial support,' Sykes said.
Instead of helping women, the bill makes reproductive rights vulnerable to attack, she said.
The bill passed the Senate in a 30-9 vote, with all Democrats voting against it. It passed the House in February in an 85-34 vote, but House and Senate negotiators would have to work out differences in their versions of the bill before sending it to the governor.
Anti-abortion organizations were the architects and primary proponents of the legislation during the bill's hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The committee's chair, Sen. Kellie Warren, R-Leawood, said Tuesday on the Senate floor that the bill wouldn't change anything about how paternity is assessed or who is required to pay child support.
'It just adds it to the list of the other nine factors that a court shall consider when considering an order of child support,' Warren said.
Sen. Cindy Holscher, D-Overland Park, proposed an amendment to remove large portions of the bill's text. Expanding child support obligations establishes 'legal personhood' for fetuses, she said.
'That move is a foundational step to restricting access to forms of reproductive health care,' Holscher said.
Her amendment failed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the business world has to like (and not) in the Senate version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
The business community has some clear wins in a Senate version of President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" but it isn't getting everything it wants. The Senate's Finance Committee's 549-page blueprint contains significant changes, especially on taxes, Medicaid funding, and clean energy. One proposal was quickly embraced by the business community: a Senate-side push to make corporate tax deductions permanent around things like interest payments and new capital investments. But a less popular idea is the survival of the so-called revenge tax that would allow the government to levy new duties on foreign nations and their businesses. That idea was introduced in the House version and sparked fears of reduced foreign investment. The version released last Monday pares back the tax but doesn't eliminate it entirely, as corporate lobbyists had asked. Specific industries also have plenty at stake from Senate changes if they make it into law. Businesses that work in clean energy will have more time to adjust to the phase-out of Biden-era credits. Restaurants and gig economy companies have more limited tax breaks for tips and overtime. Healthcare providers will also have to adjust to even steeper cuts to Medicaid's provider tax structure — perhaps the most surprising and significant overall change in the Senate version. What the Senate version of the bill doesn't appear to have — as Elon Musk and others had pushed for — is a significant change in the final price tag. Both versions are expected to add trillions of dollars to the debt. The Senate version also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, compared with $4 trillion in the House version. The bill does have one clear cost-saving measure: slashing the annual deduction for individual state and local taxes (SALT) from $40,000 to $10,000. But that provision is described even in the bill's official summary as "the subject of continuing negotiations," with defenders of the deduction pledging to restore the full credit forthwith. The Senate version earned a quick flurry of Republican pledges — from fiscal hawks to defenders of those SALT deductions to those who object to the Medicaid cuts — to vote no if the final version isn't changed to their liking. "We're not seriously addressing our long-term deficit and debt," Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters soon after the unveiling, reiterating that he remains a no. The back and forth comes just weeks ahead of Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said sticking to that timeline means Senate passage by the end of this coming week. Ed Mills of Raymond James offered in a note that "we continue to view the July 4 target as ambitious" — suggesting that SALT and Medicaid provisions in particular could be under continued debate in the days ahead. Here is a closer look at some of the major business world changes being proposed by the Senate: A key focus for business owners is a series of tax deductions that will reinstate credits for corporations around things like property depreciation, capital investments, new factory construction, interest expenses, and research and development costs. These provisions were present in the House version but only temporarily. Permanency was a key Senate priority once they took over, even as it is expected to increase the price tag. The bill "powers the economy by permanently extending critical pro-growth provisions and introduces new incentives for domestic investment, providing certainty for American job creators to spur domestic economic activity and invest in their workers," offered Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo as he unveiled these provisions. The Senate version also enhances credits for "opportunity zones," which provide tax relief in rural and distressed communities. The bill also includes Trump's campaign promises of no taxes on tips and overtime, but in a more limited form. Employees would be able to deduct up to $25,000 annually for tips and overtime, in contrast to the House's approach of 100% deductibility under certain income limits. The Senate blueprint also includes a rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles. The changes in the Senate would make that phaseout slower — zeroing out some key credits by 2028 — but with a bottom line that Republicans across the spectrum are united in eliminating these benefits entirely. Amy Hanauer, executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reacted to the released proposal by saying that "the emerging clean energy economy will be curtailed and for what?" "Our communities will be worse off as a result of this legislation,' she added. On the fossil fuel side, the Senate bill continues to include changes to make permitting less laborious, open up new lease sales, and reverse a fee on excess methane emissions. The Senate bill also includes a controversial plan to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate's provisions are less airtight, stopping short of the outright ban proposed by the House, but are expected to remain a point of contention and potentially an issue for the Senate parliamentarian, given the Senate's complex reconciliation rules. Other changes in the bill appear to cut against business interests at least slightly. The Senate bill makes permanent the so-called pass-through deduction — formally called a 199A deduction for small businesses — but at the current rate of 20%. The House version also had permanency, but at a higher rate of 23%. Meanwhile, a clear focus of business lobbyist ire has remained in the bill, but in a slightly diminished form: the so-called revenge tax. This idea would allow a president to punish companies and countries if they adhere to foreign laws that policymakers find objectionable. In Trump's case, things like the digital services taxes that often hit tech companies overseas. The Senate version, in a nod to the flurry of concerns, set a maximum rate of 15% and delayed implementation until 2027 but kept the concept intact. In addition to that tax, the SALT and Medicaid changes are likely to be most in focus in the days and weeks ahead. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research noted Tuesday morning that "SALT changes underscore the reality that this is another step forward in negotiations, not the final answer." He added that "we still view late July as the real deadline." This story has been updated. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
29 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press. Related Articles When Are July 2025 SNAP Payments Coming?Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid FundingNew York State Facing Lawsuit Over SNAP BenefitsSNAP Recipients Get Extra Money This Month in California 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
New York Post
33 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's support keeps growing while Democrats howl at the moon
California Sen. Alex Padilla recently crashed a press conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He deliberately wore no identification. He gave no advance warning that he would disrupt her briefing. Instead, Padilla barged forward to the podium, shouting about the deportation of illegal aliens. Advertisement Immediately, Padilla got his media-moment wish — once Secret Service agents, who had no idea who he was, forcibly removed him. Alex Padilla unsuccessfully attempted to push past law enforcement to reach Noem's lectern. AP Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently attempted a pseudo-filibuster, speaking nonstop for 25 hours straight — not to delay legislation, but to fixate on President Donald Trump. Advertisement South Carolina Democratic state Rep. Julie von Haefen posted on social media an image of a bloody guillotine. It bore the title 'In these difficult times, some cuts may be necessary' and was juxtaposed with an image of a hanging, beheaded Trump, who, a year ago, was the target of two failed assassination attempts. The more Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom scream at Trump for nationalizing the California Guard to stop LA's nightly violent anti-ICE protests, the more the two appear on the side of those who riot, destroy property and attack police. Yet who really wants to side with illegal aliens who spit on and burn American flags while waving Mexican flags? Former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, along with other prominent Democrats, mocked the recent Washington, DC, military parade commemorating the 250th anniversary of the army, comparing it unfavorably with their own concurrent 'No Kings' anti-Trump protests. Advertisement Those demonstrations — subsidized by left-wing billionaire donors — were utterly incoherent. No other president has faced more lower federal court injunctions blocking executive orders than Trump. People march down Fifth Avenue at the No Kings protest against Trump on June 14, 2025 in New York. Zuma / Indeed, dozens of cherry-picked, left-wing district judges — the real unchecked 'kings' — now routinely block almost every one of Trump's executive orders. Advertisement Why are opposition Democrats not offering alternative agendas and compromises? Could they partner with Trump to allow green cards to illegal aliens who have no criminal records, have not been on public assistance, are now employed and have resided in the United States for over five years? Could Democrats meet with the president to express bipartisan support for democratic Israel in its existential war with theocratic Iran? Instead, why do Democrats throw two-year-old temper tantrums to howl nihilistically at everything Trump says and does? One, exasperated Democrats lack all levers of political power — the Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. So, they take to the media and the streets. Two, Democrats are permanently frustrated that the more they scream and stomp, the more polls show radical declines in public support for their party. Three, their nemesis, 79-year-old Trump, seems impervious to Democratic lawfare, threats and smears. Advertisement Despite the hysterical attacks, he is still polling now about where prior presidents like George Bush and Barack Obama were at similar junctures in their second terms. The more Trump is smeared as a fascist or dictator, the more polls — like the latest liberal Economist/YouGov survey — show him gaining public support for securing the border and deportation. And the more the Left damns Trump as a racist, the more he wins unprecedented black and Hispanic support. Advertisement In recent Rasmussen tracking polls, Trump garnered 54% approval from black voters and 53% from Hispanics. Four, Trump proves a hard-to-hit, moving target for the frustrated left. He cannot quite be pigeonholed as a predictable right-wing bogeyman. Unlike the Left, when Trump weighs in on the Ukraine war, he first begins by deploring the tragic waste of over a million lives. No one is more pro-Israel. Yet he has offered a losing Iran a chance to negotiate its way out of total and humiliating defeat. Advertisement Trump talks nonstop about protecting the middle class. Unions like him; Wall Street mostly despises him. Trump wants to deport as many illegal alien criminals as possible. But he is willing to consider green cards for unlawful aliens who are working, crime-free and with long residence in the US. The Trump counterrevolution barrels ahead. The people cheer. And Democrats keep barking at the moon. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
