Pregnant Women Support Act

Submitted by Brady Swenson, RH Reality Check on June 15, 2009 - 2:11pm.

According to the text of the bill, The Pregnant Women Support Act would "provide for programs that reduce the need for abortion, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents." Representative Lincoln Davis (D-TN) first introduced the House bill in the Fall of 2006. In 2009, Davis re-introduced the bill in the House and Senator Bob Casey D-Pennsylvania introduced the Senate version. This bill was modeled after Democrats for Life ‘s "95-10 Initiative," which aims to reduce the U.S. abortion rate by 95% over the next 10 years.

 

The bill proposes to:

  • Increase women's knowledge about their pregnancy; provide free home visits by registered nurses for teenage or first-time mothers for education on health needs of infants;
  • Medicaid and SCHIP coverage of pregnant women and "unborn children," and the continuation of health insurance coverage for newborns;
  • Disclosing of information on abortion services and grants for collection and reporting of abortion data;
  • Services to patients receiving positive test diagnosis of Down Syndrome or other pre-natally diagnosed conditions;
  • Support for pregnant and parenting college students and teens;
  • Improving services for pregnant women who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking
  • Create a "Life Support Centers" Pilot Program.
  • Expansion of adoption credit and adoption assistance programs;
  • Increased support for WIC program and the Child Care and Development Block Grant program; Nutritional support for low-income parents.

 

Links:

 

House and Senate Versions of the Bill:

Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments
Published under:
Coverage of prenatal and delivery costs

The discussion about whether abortion is 'moral' or 'immoral', a 'tragedy' or a 'horrible necessity' will probably never end, but I would bet we could get 100% agreement between all parties on the common ground that no woman should ever be put in the position of having to choose abortion because it is CHEAPER than remaining pregnant. A lack of access to prenatal care not only risks the woman's health, it raises the chance of the fetus having a birth defect. A lack of access to medical professionals for delivery not only risks the woman's life, it raises the chance of stillbirth.

If we as a society actually do 'value life', providing FREE prenatal and obstetric care to any woman who requests it, no matter what her (or her partner/parents) income level, would likely cause a large drop in abortion rates even if nothing else whatsoever is changed.

Unfortunately, all too often the only way financial assistance can be accessed is for the woman to commit early in the pregnancy to giving the baby up for adoption, and that is totally unacceptable. Withholding medical care unless there's a quid pro quo is extortion.

Submitted by crowepps on June 16, 2009 - 1:50pm.
When did extortion change

When did extortion change from being forced to pay some other (for “fire insurance” or the other’s medical care) to refusing to paying for the other’s medical care?

Submitted by Anonymous on July 3, 2009 - 10:40pm.