Source: White House Leaning Toward Pregnant Women Support Act

June 10, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

Congressional sponsors of the Pregnant Women Support Act, which aims to reduce abortions by providing assistance to economically distressed pregnant women, are growing more optimistic about prospects for White House support. The bill is backed by antiabortion groups like the Southern Baptist Convention and the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and by Democratic groups like Democrats for Life.

It was introduced this year by Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey and Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis, both Democrats.

Planned Parenthood opposes parts of the bill that are designed to influence women to decide to forgo abortions; the group says it wants to inform pregnant women of options but not influence them either way. But Planned Parenthood has not officially come out against it.

The White House won't comment on its view of the Pregnant Women Support Act. Obama aides are still working up what they say will be a common-ground policy plan on abortion and related reproductive issues. But a congressional source close to the legislation E-mailed me this status report:

Earlier this year, the White House office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships reached out to our office at the staff level for information on the Pregnant Women Support Act to begin what would become a larger dialogue on the issue of abortion reduction. Since then, we have had ongoing correspondence with their office, and a meeting is scheduled in the coming weeks between White House Administration staff and Congressional staff to discuss the issue further. I don't want to get in to reading the tea leaves on the White House's position or strategy for this issue, but I would call their interest in the Pregnant Women Support Act significant.

The recent appointment of former Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good President Alexia Kelley to lead the faith-based office at the Department of Health and Human Services—which drew criticism from some abortion-rights supporters—is another potential sign of White House support for the bill, according to this source: "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has shown support for the Pregnant Women Support Act under Ms. Kelley in the past."

It seems more likely that the White House could incorporate less controversial parts of the bill into its own plan around abortion; I doubt President Obama would back legislation that would trigger objections from abortion-rights groups.

Tags:
Obama administration,
abortion,
pregnancy,
White House

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I'm aware that DFLA, FFL and other progessive prolife groups are trying to be tactful in attempts to bring the President along, but at some point the rubber must meet the road. Someone must ask him point blank, yes or no, do you Mr. President support PWSA? This is the ultimate test as to whether "common ground" is for real or just talk, and whether any self-respecting prolifer can consider pulling the lever for a Democrat in the future. The law doesn't do anything to take the "choice" any from women, so the only legitimate objection must come from those who secretly think abortion is the right decision for these women. I understand the President is feeling pressure from all sides, but at some point, he must be pressed to commit.

Kevin Degidion of NY 10:04AM June 11, 2009

have been back-stabbed, kicked, punched and spit upon by this administration, and now a bone is getting thrown their way for betraying their Catholic faith and giving him their vote. Hope it tastes good - was it worth it?

Ended the war? NOPE

Social justice? NOPE

Economic justice? NOPE

U.S paying for international abortions? YEP

Federally funding embryonic stem cell research? YEP

The Whole World Loves U.S.now? NOPE

Alienating Israel? YEP

Getting the deficit and spending under control? NOPE

Closed Gitmo? NOPE

Nuclear-free world? NOPE, and not gonna happen!

Anybody REALLY believe these answers will be different by 2012? If so, you're living in a dream world - wake up!!!

Donna of TX 11:21PM June 10, 2009

Will they support them for 18 to 21 years needed to bring-up a child? Or do they just want them to have the child then see ya.

Tina of FL 9:17PM June 10, 2009

God & Country

Dan Gilgoff covers religion for U.S. News & World Report. He is the author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War, and is a former politics editor at beliefnet. E-mail Dan at godandcountry@usnews.com.

advertisement