HB248 would create a new requirement in Kentucky law for a “family impact statement” to accompany proposed acts, resolutions, amendments, and committee substitutes introduced in the General Assembly. The statement would be prepared by the Legislative Research Commission or another state agency at the direction of the LRC director, and it would assess how a proposal may affect Kentucky families in areas such as housing costs, marriage rates, out-of-wedlock births, the cost of raising and educating children, parental control over education, children’s readiness for work, foster and adoption efforts, and care for extended family members.
The bill also requires the statement to be written, signed, filed with the clerk in the chamber where the measure was introduced, and attached to each copy of the measure. Most notably, HB248 would prohibit either chamber from voting on a bill, concurrent resolution, or joint resolution unless the required family impact statement has been prepared and attached. In effect, the bill would add a procedural gatekeeping step to the legislative process and make family-impact review a prerequisite for floor votes.
Impact
HB248 would amend Kentucky law by creating a new section in KRS Chapter 6 and imposing a mandatory pre-vote review process for legislation. It would expand the responsibilities of the Legislative Research Commission and potentially other state agencies, which would have to prepare family impact statements within seven working days when requested. The bill would affect the legislative process itself rather than private conduct, and it could delay or condition consideration of measures until the required statement is completed and attached.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text alone and the absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes, the available record does not show formal debate or a documented vote pattern. The bill’s framing suggests support for greater scrutiny of how legislation affects families, children, and household stability. At the same time, the mandatory nature of the requirement indicates it could be viewed as a significant procedural change, especially by those concerned about added administrative burden or delays in the legislative process.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to center on whether the family impact statement requirement is a useful policy tool or an unnecessary procedural hurdle. Supporters would likely emphasize family-centered policymaking and the value of evaluating effects on housing, marriage, childrearing, education, and caregiving. Opponents may object to the breadth and subjectivity of the required findings, the workload placed on the LRC and state agencies, and the fact that the bill would bar votes until the statement is attached, which could be seen as limiting legislative flexibility.