Abortion proponents see every pro-life measure as authoritarian. The Left experienced a major defeat when Roe v. Wade was struck down. However, that pro-life victory did not establish a life-affirming culture. That continues to be a goal for those who are pro-life whether they are in Congress or not.
It is in that vein that the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed Act or MOMS Act is created. Unsurprisingly, the Left views it through a nefarious lens.
Sens. Katie Britt (R-AL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) introduced the legislation on Thursday, right before Mother’s Day. According to Britt’s press release, “This legislation would provide critical support to women during typically challenging phases of motherhood — prenatal, postpartum, and early childhood development — and bolster access to resources and assistance to help mothers and their children thrive.”
A section-by-section handout linked in her press release indicates three different areas of focus. They include a “Federal Clearinghouse of Resources for Expecting Moms,” “Improving Access to Pre-and Post-Natal Resources,” and “Unborn Child Support.” There is nothing wrong with the legislation in terms of its focus and organization.
In fact, there is every reason to applaud access to resources for mothers both before and after they give birth. For years, pro-life members of the public have been treated as if they only care about the survival of the baby and not the health and thriving of the mother. While some activists have shamefully focused on the baby with little regard for anyone else, the vast majority of people in the pro-life movement equally value both child and mother.
As if on cue, the Left reacted to the MOMS Act legislation with horror as if it had come from The Handmaid’s Tale. It’s a tired response, but one abortion supporters continue to use. Treat anything pro-life as totalitarian, and abortion is only a valid expression of female freedom.
This time around, detractors have two main issues. Of the items included in the legislation, these stick out: barring new grant program recipients from anything related to abortion (performing, referrals, or counseling toward that) and the option for pregnant women to provide contact information and consent for further outreach.
According to leftists, clinics or programs that provide no referral opportunities for abortion are misleading and harmful. But women of childbearing age are well aware of the availability of abortion even now. Providing women with non-abortive counseling and resources is actual care. Furthermore, pushing abortion assumes women are incapable of carrying a new life and raising a child. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When it comes to the contact information portion, you can just guess. On X, former candidate for U.S. Senate from Kentucky Amy McGrath posted, “According to the GOP, America needs a national registry for pregnant women along with the federal government tracking women’s menstrual cycles. Folks, they are extreme and they want to use government to take us back 100 years. It’s real.”
McGrath and others, such as writers at Salon, prefer you think the MOMS Act is meant to monitor women and their sexual choices. In their minds, they want you to believe in a scary, GOP-controlled database that will bar women from entering a bedroom and making their own reproduction decisions. This is ludicrous. The legislation is about providing a centralized place for resources, information, and the possibility of qualifying for grants, among other things. America is not Gilead.
The MOMS Act, while positive, is not altogether necessary. The Left wishes to paint it as detrimental and extreme. But if anything, it’s redundant. There are a vast number of state and local resources already available for pregnant women.
Crisis pregnancy clinics are numerous, maternity homes exist, and there are programs and people nationwide who wish to help unsure mothers reach the end of their pregnancy with hope. Creating a culture of life is all about meeting mothers where they are and not offering condemnation. This is why supporting local crisis pregnancy centers and maternity homes matters.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The question is not whether women need pro-life options and resources. They absolutely do. Instead, the question is whether the federal government needs to spend time and money on such a project when those options and resources already exist and can be accessed elsewhere.
What isn’t fair, or even logical, is the reaction of abortion proponents to the MOMS Act. It has nothing to do with subjugation or control. But in the post-Dobbs world, fear is their go-to weapon.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.