SESSION OF 2024
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON HOUSE BILL NO. 2653
As Recommended by House Committee on
Federal and State Affairs

Brief*
HB 2653 would amend law regarding child support
guidelines established by the Kansas Supreme Court to
require the guidelines to include unborn children.
The bill would require the Supreme Court to adopt rules
that consider the direct medical and pregnancy-related
expenses for the mother of an unborn child and the unborn
child. Additionally, the bill would specify the maximum amount
of ordered child support of an unborn child is not to exceed
the direct medical and pregnancy-related expenses of the
mother of the unborn child, excluding any costs related to an
elective abortion.

Child Support Amount Determination
The bill would require determination of the child support
to be calculated from the date of conception of the unborn
child, and accruing interest would be determined by the
current statutory rate.

Definitions
The bill would define the following terms:
● “Elective abortion,” to mean an abortion for any
reason other than to prevent the death of the
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org
 mother upon whom the abortion is performed,
except that an abortion may not be deemed one to
prevent the death of the mother based on a claim
or diagnosis that such mother will engage in
conduct that would result in such mother’s death;
and
● “Unborn child,” to mean a living individual organism
of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage
of gestation from fertilization to birth.
Background
The bill was introduced by the House Committee on
Federal and State Affairs at the request of Representative
Howell on behalf of Kansas Family Voice.

House Committee on Federal and State Affairs
In the House Committee hearing on the bill, proponent
testimony was provided by representatives of Kansans for
Life, Kansas Family Voice, and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life
America. The proponents explained expenses for children do
not start at the birth, but at conception. The proponents
indicated the enactment of the bill would help ensure child
support court proceedings consider pregnancy-related
expenses.
Written-only proponent testimony was provided by a
representative of the Kansas Catholic Conference.
Opponent testimony was provided by a representative
of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes. The opponent
stated the bill does not provide further assistance to pregnant
Kansans or not set out any structure for child support
payments for a pregnancy that ends in miscarriage, adoption,
stillbirth, or abortion. The opponent concluded by stating the
implementation of the bill would strain the state budget and

2- 2653
resources, and provided a list of policy solutions that would
provide support to pregnant people and families in Kansas.
Written-only opponent testimony was provided by nine
private citizens and representatives of the American Civil
Liberties Union, Mainstream Coalition, Grace United
Methodist Church, Loud Light Civic Action, and Trust Women.

Fiscal Information
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on the bill, the Department for Children and
Families (DCF) indicated enactment of the bill would result in
additional State General Fund expenditures totaling $487,561
beginning in FY 2025 and continuing in future years.
Additionally, DCF contracts for child support services
and the average annual cost per case to administer is
$283.00. This calculation is based on expenditures totaling
$35.6 million as reported to the federal Office of Child
Support Enforcement and divided by 125,890, which was the
number of open cases at the end of 2023. New case
management costs are estimated to cost $245,361. In
addition, DCF would likely need to contract for in utero
genetic testing services for some of the cases, which cost on
average $1,400 per instance. If 20.0 percent of the 867 new
cases needed this testing service, it would cost $242,200.
The Office of Judicial Administration states enactment of
the bill would not result in any significant fiscal effect on
expenditures and would not have an effect on revenues to the
Judicial Branch or the State General Fund.
Any fiscal effect associated with enactment of HB 2653
is not reflected in The FY 2025 Governor’s Budget Report.
Children; families; child support; unborn children; date of conception; pregnancy;
pregnancy related expenses; birth related expenses


3- 2653


Statutes affected:
As introduced: 20-165, 23-2205, 23-3001