Skip to Content

Reevaluating the Generosity of Extending Pro-life Advocacy Beyond Birth

Conservative lawmakers are sometimes criticized for their stance on pro-life issues, particularly after birth. However, this assessment may be too lenient.

Unborn infants are being neglected due to recent policy decisions at both state and federal levels that have exacerbated the challenges in accessing prenatal healthcare.

For example, a new law in Florida supported by Governor Ron DeSantis requires hospitals receiving Medicaid funding to inquire about patients’ immigration status. This has deterred undocumented women from seeking necessary care, especially during pregnancy. As a result, fewer immigrant women have been attending medical checkups and prenatal appointments since the law was implemented. Some pregnant women are hesitant to seek emergency care for fear of repercussions related to their immigration status.

Even if the state disregards the well-being of foreign-born women, it should show some concern for their developing U.S.-citizen children.

Many states are also facing issues in providing care for new mothers and infants, often due to budget constraints. Texas, for instance, mistakenly cut funding for women’s health programs last year.

Moreover, the impasse and obstructionism in Congress have negatively impacted the availability of essential maternal and fetal healthcare services.

Cases of syphilis have surged, reaching levels not seen since the 1950s, posing risks to both adults and infants. Congenital syphilis, transmitted from mother to baby, can result in severe consequences such as stillbirth, bone damage, anemia, and nerve issues leading to blindness or deafness in infants. Early detection and treatment are crucial, yet funding cuts have hindered efforts to address this public health concern.

Additionally, the ongoing budget disputes have affected critical programs like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Adequate funding for WIC is essential for improving birth outcomes and reducing infant mortality rates. However, without increased funding, eligible individuals may face delays in receiving vital nutritional support.

The reluctance to enhance funding for these programs lies not solely with Congress but with certain political factions that have opposed such initiatives.

Furthermore, the restrictive abortion legislation advanced by conservatives has not only led to more unintended pregnancies carried to term but has also jeopardized planned pregnancies, complicating access to obstetric care. The fear of legal repercussions and constraints on medical practices has deterred experienced obstetricians from providing comprehensive care, resulting in a decline in applicants for OB/GYN residencies in states with abortion bans.

While there have been some positive developments, such as states opting for federal programs to expand healthcare coverage, there is still room for improvement in supporting individuals at all stages of life, including prenatal care. Investing in maternal and infant health not only aligns with pro-life principles but also yields long-term benefits by reducing the need for extensive government services.

These crucial considerations are often overshadowed by the actual policy decisions made by lawmakers.