On Wednesday, Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) filed the “Unborn Child Support Act,” which would amend the Social Security Act to enable women to demand child support from their babies’ biological fathers starting from conception.
The proposed law appears to be in direct response to abortion proponents who demand that pro-lifers allow these payments to occur prenatally, if the unborn child truly does carry as much value as one who is born.
It seems that any time the pro-life movement achieves a major victory on abortion, there is a cacophony of voices that repeat something to the effect of: “If life begins at conception, so does child support.”
As it turns out, pro-lifers agree, as Rubio’s efforts illustrate. Each time progressives attempt to make fun of the movement by advocating such policies, they are met with resounding approval from their political opponents.
We saw a similar situation in Texas recently, when a pregnant woman was pulled over for driving in the HOV lane, which legally counted as driving alone. She told the officers who gave her a ticket that she should be allowed to drive in the lane, because Texas homicide law counts unborn babies as people.
I believe National Review’s Kevin Williamson spoke for many pro-life people when he wrote that her case “seems obvious enough” and that unborn children should be counted as legal persons in laws regarding both murder and traffic.
None of these policies are the “gotchas” that abortion proponents think they are. Unlike the straw men the progressives usually attack in the debate, pro-lifers truly believe that the unborn child is just that, a child who is entitled to the same rights and privileges as a born one.
That is why we oppose their murder, and that is also why we are receptive to proposals that would give them other protections enjoyed by people who who live outside their mother’s wombs. For that reason, let’s put all these great suggestions from abortion proponents into action. Child support, HOV utilization, you name it!
Pro-lifers are obviously game for these, but are abortion proponents? Of course not. Ja’han Jones of MSNBC has already published a column calling Rubio’s bill “nothing but a gimmick” meant to cover up Republicans’ “refusal to back social welfare policies that help pregnant people.”
After the story of the pregnant driver in Texas gained national attention, Jill Filipovic published a lengthy piece for CNN, arguing that proponents of abortion should not be trying to let pregnant women drive in the HOV lane.
Doing so, she said, would help the pro-life movement pass laws guaranteeing fetal personhood, taking America to “farcical ends.” Under that precedent, pro-lifers would do such things as ban abortion, in vitro fertilization, and abortifacient birth control, she argued.
The efforts of Jones, Filipovic, and other progressives to discredit these types of protections for the unborn reveal that counterarguments hiding behind child support and the rest are not serious.
Nevertheless, we should still listen to them. We agree with the scientific truth that says life begins at conception and with the philosophical one that affirms the dignity of the unborn. We may, however, not always act consistently with this belief, so it is sometimes good to let the other side hold us accountable.
In the end, we know that we will protect the unborn in more contentious issues such as abortion, as well as in more lighthearted ones such as HOV controversies. The challenge is getting progressives to work with us to do the same.