Should you be allowed to draw an unemployment check now for a job you are maybe, probably going to lose in the future? Of course not. That would be ridiculous, and would lead to even more people trying to make a buck off being psychic, cause at least 95% of my friends would damn sure be able to predict losing their job by the end of this sentence, if that were current policy.
Less certain then, is whether or not children conceived after a parent's death are eligible for the Social Security survivor's benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court will take on the issue, a perfect example of 2011 technology outpacing a 1939 policy. The justices will weigh the case of Karen Caputo, whose twins were not conceived until about eighteen months after their father's death from cancer. Social Security did not question the paternity of the twins, but denied the benefit, going by Florida law, which states children not conceived at the time of a parent's death are not entitled to inherit property. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Caputo's favor, using that biological link as the basis for their decision.
I can see why the Appeals Court ruled as they did. I'm not completely heartless, and you definitely have a sympathetic plaintiff, but what kind of precedent does this set? There are currently around a hundred of these kind of claims pending at the Social Security Administration. How many of these claims, I wonder, have some kind of actual merit, and how many are the result of the kind of forward thinking normally reserved for a Law & Order rerun?
Bottom line, the Supreme Court can not allow this loophole to remain. The already semi-terminal state of Social Security could not possibly survive a body shot like this. Could you imagine every third moron in
this country banking semen? OctoDads from Beyond the Grave might be the third most awesome movie title ever I've cooked up in my own head, but not in real life, where it would drain money faster than a Real Housewife of (Insert City Here).