After the reversal of Roe v. Wade, some pro-family legislation is starting to come in.

The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade reversal last month placed the issue of abortion back to the states, and many states, including Oklahoma, have passed laws either outright banning abortion or severely limiting abortion options.

In response, at least at the federal level, some of the pro-life and anti-abortion-choice lawmakers are submitting proposals aimed at helping pregnant women financially.

Oklahoma Republican U.S. Sen. James Lankford and several others have proposed a law that would make child support available to pregnant mothers almost immediately instead of having to wait for the birth of the child.

Of course, this will have some logistics to work out, such as court orders and paternity testing, but it is a step in the right direction in also holding fathers accountable for pregnancies.

U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, has introduced a proposal that would issue up to $350 monthly checks per child to most American families. He did this as an effort to revive interest in helping families during this painful stretch of inflation; however, this type of legislation would help with the issue of childhood poverty, which is the most prevalent of the adverse childhood experiences that impact vulnerable children and families long-term.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., released legislation that would combine previous proposals he has advocated, including making the adoption tax credit fully refundable, further expanding the child tax credit, including making it available for parents of an unborn child, as well as his New Parents Act, a proposed bill he introduced with Romney that would allow new parents, including adoptive parents, to use up to three months of their Social Security benefits to finance paid parental leave.

So, while it’s good to see legislators thinking about the real issues that vulnerable moms will face now that Roe v. Wade is repealed, we have to wonder why these proposals are just now coming through?

These proposals are all pro-family and pro-child proposals that could make a huge difference between mothers and children living in poverty and being able to thrive. All of these proposals easily could have been proposed before Roe v. Wade was repealed. Why weren’t these lawmakers thinking about being pro-child all along as they were merely focused on pro-life?

Those same lawmakers who been so adamantly pro-birth also have been adamantly anti-nanny state. It will be interesting to see how well these proposals are received by the rest of their colleagues.

There will need to be more — much more — done to make sure that vulnerable pregnant women and children receive good care, compassion and, yes, financial help.

Click for the latest, full-access Enid News & Eagle headlines | Text Alerts | app downloads

•• The News & Eagle Editorial Board meets weekly to form the newspaper's stances on mostly local and state and occasionally national issues.

•• Submit your opinion for publication to editor@enidnews.com. Find out more about submitting letters to the editor at https://www.enidnews.com/opinion/.

Have a question about this opinion piece? Do you see something we missed? Do you have an editorial idea for the News & Eagle? Send an email to editor@enidnews.com.

React to this story:

0
0
0
0
1

Trending Video

Recommended for you