Last month the state of Arkansas, at the direction of Republican governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, launched a new prenatal and pregnancy health program through a network of Arkansas Health Units. In an effort to improve prenatal health and reduce infant and maternal mortality, the state is now offering prenatal care and education at little or no cost to Arkansas women.
Sanders is a pro-life Republican, and her state of Arkansas has already banned most abortion. But government-funded prenatal care is a rare pro-life cause that has bipartisan appeal.
A few days after Sanders’ announcement, Maryland Democratic governor Wes Moore announced a new cash-assistance program for low-income expectant mothers in the state that is designed to improve maternal and child health.
“Welcoming a child is a moment of joy, but for many Marylanders, starting or growing a family can come with economic challenges that impact long-term health and stability,” an official at the Maryland governor’s office said. “Providing new parents with cash that they can use for everyday needs like groceries, rent, and baby supplies is proven to promote long-term economic mobility and lead to improvements in overall health.”
Abortion is legal in Maryland, and the Democratic governor supports that. But his goals in supporting healthy pregnancies align with those of many pro-lifers.
Expanding health care for low-income pregnant mothers has been a goal of much of the pro-life movement for more than 50 years. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, state pro-life organizations including Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life and the North Dakota Right to Life Association endorsed it.
Some pro-life organizations ignored or forgot about these proposals after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
Roe is now overturned, but the number of abortions has increased. In this new political environment, pro-life organizations are once again supporting legislation to reduce the expense of pregnancy and expand health care for pregnant women, with the goal to improve prenatal health and remove financial barriers that deter some low-income women from choosing life for their unborn children.
Forty-one percent of women who have abortions have family incomes below the federal poverty line, with 30 percent more classified as low income. Most already have one child and don’t think they can care for another. Eighty-seven percent are unmarried—which means most are already single mothers and especially likely to be poor. One study showed 40 percent of women who had abortions cited financial concerns as a reason.
Pro-lifers therefore have good reason to think that reducing the cost of childbearing for low-income pregnant women will save some unborn lives. Initiatives that reduce prenatal and infant mortality are also clearly pro-life.
That’s why last year two groups, Americans United for Life and Democrats for Life of America, both endorsed the bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, designed to make private insurance companies eliminate out-of-pocket costs for prenatal care and childbirth and provide postpartum medical care for up to a year after a child’s birth. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who support legal abortion, joined with pro-life senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Ms.) in sponsoring the legislation.
“Americans shouldn’t have to choose between starting a family and being strapped in debt,” Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) said when endorsing the bill. “Rising living costs on top of excessive hospital and health care fees after giving birth deter individuals from becoming parents.”
Despite bipartisan support, the Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act failed to get out of committee last summer. Congress has shown little interest in it since.
But the actions taken during the past month by the governors of Arkansas and Maryland suggest a bipartisan path to accomplish at the state level what the Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act might have achieved across the United States.
Pro-life and pro-choice politicians who disagree about whether abortion should remain legal can nevertheless unite on policies that will improve the health and economic well-being of pregnant women and their babies. Those initiatives can save unborn lives even in states where legal restrictions on abortion are not politically possible.
Daniel K. Williams is an associate professor of history at Ashland University and the author of Abortion and America’s Churches.
The post A Rare Bipartisan Opportunity to Protect Unborn Lives appeared first on Christianity Today.