- cross-posted to:
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- politics
The bill expands the use of existing federal money to be used to fight stillbirths. Lawmakers cited ProPublica’s reporting on the issue as key to adding urgency and building support for the measure.
The Senate on Tuesday passed legislation that, for the first time, expressly permits states to spend millions of federal dollars on stillbirth prevention.
The Maternal and Child Health Stillbirth Prevention Act, which passed the House in mid-May, now goes to President Joe Biden, who is expected to sign the measure into law.
ProPublica has spent the past two years reporting on the crisis around stillbirth, the death of an expected child at 20 weeks of pregnancy or more. Every year in the U.S., more than 20,000 pregnancies end in stillbirth. Research shows as many as 1 in 4 stillbirths may be preventable.
The bipartisan bill, which does not allocate any new money, amends the Social Security Act to add stillbirth prevention and research to the programs that can use existing Title V funds dedicated to improving the health of mothers and children.
If women aren’t allowed to abort when they learn that their pregnancy is unlikely to be successfully carried to term, isn’t the result of that more failed pregnancies in later weeks?
I want to know exactly which “pro-life” Republicans voted against this bill (apparently unanimous in the Senate last time it went up for a vote, but it went back to the house for changes).
This appears to be the bill.
The House vote had 3 Nays (surprise, surprise, all Republicans)- Foxx
- Massie
- McClintock
The Senate passed it via Unanimous Consent. So, no roll call vote.
I read the bill, it’s very short and to the point, and just makes some very small, seemingly uncontraversial additions to the bill. I am curious what possible justification they have for opposing it?
That a Democrat sponsored it maybe? Their finger slipped?Edit: a Republican sponsored it. I understand even less.
Thanks!