Conservatives Debate Merits of Making Childbirth Free » The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator

A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate last week would make childbirth free. This follows a recent proposal by the Trump administration to provide $5,000 in financial assistance to young families. The bill is inspired by a 2023 white paper released by Americans United for Life in partnership with Democrats for Life of America. Prior to being introduced in Congress, the policy had received influential support, including from JD Vance and the National Catholic Register.

The Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act was introduced by a group of otherwise politically divided senators. Democrats Tim Kaine of Virginia, once Hillary Clinton’s running mate, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a progressive among Democrats’ many 2020 presidential candidates, joined Republicans Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi and Josh Hawley of Missouri, a noted populist leader. Hyde-Smith’s office touted the bill as preventing “cost-sharing requirements for prenatal, childbirth, neonatal, perinatal, or postpartum health care” for mothers with private insurance. 

In practice, this means that the bill would amend the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) to reclassify childbirth as “essential healthcare,” therefore requiring private insurance to cover 100 percent of childbirth-related costs, including prenatal care, without any copays or deductibles. The Niskanen Center estimates a $30 annual cost to Americans for this expansion of coverage. In a show of Obamacare’s weakness in supporting families, “essential” treatments insurers have been mandated to pay for include birth control, but provide no support for having children.

CBS reports that half of Americans cannot afford a surprise $1,000 medical expense. Women are also significantly more likely to have medical debt than men, with 48 percent of women and 34 percent of men carrying such debt. Additionally, the typical out-of-pocket cost of maternal care and childbirth for mothers with private health insurance is approximately $3,000. One in six mothers pays over $5,000 out-of-pocket for these services. In extreme cases (such as mothers without insurance facing complications), these costs can be as high as $24,000. (RELATED: Rage Against the (Healthcare) Machine)

Thus, Hawley connected his support of the legislation directly to his pro-life principles, declaring that “being pro-family means fostering an economy that makes it feasible to raise a child.” Hyde-Smith made a similar connection, stating that she hopes that through this bill, “more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood.” 

Neither Democratic senator introducing the legislation made wider references to the importance of building families, instead focusing narrowly on the value of lowering costs. Perhaps notable, however, is that Gillibrand’s statement referenced “women.” This represents a departure from past statements from her office that, despite Gillibrand’s emphasis on claims of being a feminist, have made use of the term “birthing people,” erasing women by sacrificing motherhood on the altar of woke language.

The bill has drawn a wide array of support, Vox reported, from both pro-life organizations, including Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, and Live Action, to typically left-leaning groups, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs. No official statements have been released by the Trump administration, but then-Sen. JD Vance has in the past praised the idea, including in a 2023 X post.

Several small pro-abortion organizations have even weighed in positively, such as the organization Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity. Nonetheless, Planned Parenthood and other leaders of the anti-life movement have declined to endorse the bill. Elizabeth Bruenig, a pro-choice writer who nonetheless carries moral qualms about abortion, authored an article in The Atlantic proposing free childbirth. Vox reported that Bruenig quit X after the degree of personal vituperations she received from left-wing activists.

There has also been some debate in conservative circles over the particulars of free birth. 

The Institute for Family Studies ran two articles covering each side after the 2023 policy white paper was released. The piece arguing against covering childbirth and prenatal care cited the potential for worse bureaucracy and instead argued for cash-focused support for new families outside the bureaucratic structures of health insurance.

A critical editorial in National Review argued that expanding free healthcare to childbirth would harmfully promote “socialized medicine” that can “quickly melt down.” The Heritage Foundation also opposes the proposal, arguing that it would lead to worse service by weakening market mechanisms and constitutes an “unjust wealth transfer.” Further, it notes that many countries with free childbirth, such as Japan and Norway, have still suffered from rapidly declining birth rates.

Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute responded to this point in a paper earlier this year. Levin argued that free childbirth is a positive regardless of birth rates on the grounds that it represents an “achievable starting point for the next generation of pro-family policies.” 

With the Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act now introduced, it remains to be seen whether it will garner enough support for passage or even make it through the labyrinth of procedure to a vote. With debate on both the left and right, votes are far from certain.

READ MORE from Shiv Parihar:

Conservatives Seek to Reconquer Mainline Churches

Trump Down, Stalin Up in Moscow