Pregnant Women Support Act

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:

Back to "On Common Ground" section...

0
crowepps Coverage of prenatal and delivery costs June 16, 2009 - 1:50pm

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.

0
Anonymous When did extortion change July 3, 2009 - 10:40pm

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?