The Pregnant Women Support Act was sponsored by and introduced to the Senate and the House of Representatives in early 2009 by Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey and Tennessee Representative Lincoln Davis respectively. Although both of these men are democrats and Pro-Life, Rep. Davis stated that, "It's not about pro-life or pro-choice" it is about "what we can do to bring a reduction to abortions." Davis has emphasized, "Of the 1.29 million abortions performed annually, 73 percent of women seeking abortions list economic factors as contributing to the decision to have an abortion." Sen. Bob Casey has stressed that a decision on this issue should be shaped “by focusing on issues that united us, not the issues that divide us” (Hentoff, 2009). However, this bill is sponsored by Democrats for Life of America.
This bill is co-sponsored by Senators Ben Nelson [D-NE], Artur Davis [D-AL], Trent Franks [R-AZ], Robert Berry [D-AR], Victor Snyder [D-AR], George Radanovich [R-CA], Doug Lamborn [R-CO], Jerry Costello [D-IL], Daniel Lipinski [D-IL], Baron P. Hill [D-IN], Mark E. Souder [R-IN], Joe Donnelly [D-IN], Brad Ellsowrth [D-IN], Charlie Melancon [D-LA], Anh Cao [R-LA], Bill Cassidy [R-LA], Dale E. Kildee [D-MI], James L. Oberstar [D-MN], Collin C. Peterson [D-MN], Gene Taylor [D-MS], Travis Childers [D-MS], Jeff Fortenberry [R-NE], Christopher H. Smith [R-NJ], Mike MsIntyre [D-NC], Heath Shuler [D-NC], Larry Kissell [D-NC], Marcy Kaptur [D-OH], Timothy Ryan [D-OH], Steve Drihaus [D-OH], Tim Holden [D-PA], John P. Murtha [D-PA], Todd Russell Platts [R-PA], Christopher P. Carney [D-PA], Kathleen Dahlkemper [D-PA], James R. Langevin [D-RI], Marsha Blackburn [R-TN], Barton Gordon [D-TN], Zach Wamp [R-TN], John R. Carter [R-TX], Solomon P. Ortiz [D-TX], Pete Olson [R-TX], Rob Wittman [R-VA], Alan B. Mollohan [D-WV], Madeleine Z. Bordallo [D] GU. At this time, President Obama has given no indication that he will back the Pregnant Women Support Act.
The Pregnant Women Support Act was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have found approximately three out of four women who have an abortion had an annual income that could not support a child, which was one of their key reasons to abort. Overcoming poverty is an important step in supporting pregnant women. According to the U.S. Census Bureau the mean annual income for a female householder with no husband present is $33,369. Sixty-five percent of female householders with no husband present makes less than or equal to $34,000 annually. For a single individual this may be an adequate amount of money to live a comfortable lifestyle, but is not enough to raise and support a child. The USCCB stated, “According to the U.S. Census, a woman with a college degree has a median annual income ($31,309) double that of a woman with only a high school diploma. Access to information and resources while attending school or working, including nutrition assistance and child care, are needed to help women overcome poverty.”
A recent study was done to find out the reasoning as to why women have abortions. “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents,” (Lawrence, Frohwinth, Dauphinee, Singh, & Moore, 2005).
Similar to everyone else in America, pregnant or not, no access to health care and health insurance are other barriers that prevent many people from seeking medical attention. Numerous health insurance companies consider pregnancy a pre-existing condition, thus denying coverage for prenatal care for new enrollees. No medical care or expensive medical bills can place an individual just above the poverty line into poverty (Doerflinger & Saile, 2008). No medical insurance leads to a higher risk for medical problems resulting in expensive medical bills when needed.
Government objectives for the Pregnant Woman Support Act are as follows (Doerflinger & Saile, 2008):
Establishing a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support during and following their pregnancy;
Funding collection of accurate data on abortion;
Providing child care to low income and student parents;
Providing parenting education in maternity group homes;
Making the Adoption Tax Credits permanent;
Ensuring that pregnant women are not denied health care by insurance companies and that coverage is continued for newborns;
Codifying the regulation that extends coverage under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to low-income pregnant women and unborn children;
Improving services for pregnant women who are victims of domestic violence;
Providing services to parents receiving a positive test diagnosis for Down syndrome or other prenatally diagnosed conditions;
Increasing funding for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Nutrition Program;
Providing grants to institutions of high education to fund pregnant and parenting student services;
Providing new mothers with free home visits by registered nurses.
As stated in the previous section, the governmental objectives of the Pregnant Woman Support Act outline how this bill could potentially impact nurses, clients, and the health care system as a whole. First, nurses have a huge role in regard to the care of pregnant women in many different settings. As a result of this bill, nurses could have increased funding and improved resources to provide this necessary care. Registered nurses will be the professionals directly servicing the population of pregnant women and new mothers with parenting education, free home visits, and guidance for pregnant victims of domestic violence, as described by the bill. Nurses could be responsible for obtaining accurate data on abortion and possibly managing the toll-free number stated in the objectives.
As far as clients are concerned, the Pregnant Women Support Act would again significantly increase funding so that the current services can be improved and new services can be added for this specific population. A very important concern included in the bill regards health care being denied by insurance companies. The bill will ensure that pregnant women cannot be denied coverage based on a “pre-existing condition” and therefore their newborns will also receive coverage. With the current debate surrounding the American healthcare system, this is a vital point that is necessary to address. Another significant change from the bill will be increased funding for the WIC Nutrition Program, which will certainly directly benefit the health of pregnant women who cannot afford to feed themselves and their children properly.
In terms of the health care system collectively, this bill will, again, notably increase funding in many different areas of the care of pregnant women and their children. This increased funding will result in more resources and hopefully considerably better care for these clients. As mentioned previously, health care can no longer be denied to pregnant women and their subsequent newborns under the bill. Also, health care coverage will now be provided to low-income pregnant women and those unborn children. The Pregnant Women Support Act addresses a vulnerable population that can be helped tremendously by the objectives the bill proposes.
Works Cited:
Doerflinger, R., & Saile, K. (2008, February). The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from Department of Justice, Peace, and Human Development: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/200802pregnantwomenbck.pdf
Hentoff, N. (June 5, 2009). Mr. President, Here is Common Ground on Abortion. Zanesville Times Recorder.
Lawrence, F. B., Frohwinth, L. F., Dauphinee, L. A., Singh, S., & Moore, A. M. (2005). Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Perspective on Sexual and Reproductive Health , 110-118.
