Late last year, the Biden administration proposed the Strengthening Temporary Assistance for Needy Families as a Safety Net and Work Program, a rule that would defund pregnancy centers on the basis that “the connection to preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies is tenuous or non-existent.” The focus on out-of-wedlock pregnancies is a crucial issue, but is a red herring coming from a party that builds marriage penalties into its tax plans. 

House Republicans saw through it and passed a bill as a direct counter to the Biden rule, intending “to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from restricting funding for pregnancy centers.” It awaits Senate approval.

The Supreme Court validated Republican pushback against attempts to defund pregnancy centers when it ruled against Harris’s bids to regulate pro-life operations. The act in question violated free-speech rights by “impermissibly compelling” and discriminating against pregnancy centers. Clearly, the goal is to limit any pro-life activity, no matter how injurious to mothers.

Democrats want pregnancy centers to change their rhetoric or shut down, because the issue is not “women’s choice.” The fight is about agenda and public persuasion. There does not have to be a deep-state scheme for the Democratic Party to be ill-intentioned and dishonest about why it pushes abortion: It has concerns that outweigh the dignity of life, and misguided women are just about the easiest voter base to maneuver.

All of the Democrats’ best efforts have to go toward concealing the very palatable reality that abortion could be the wrong decision. Ethical dialogue, such as is the aim of pregnancy counseling, will open the mind to the destructiveness and excessiveness of abortion. Ironically, the point is for in-need women to freely choose a route. The concept is pretty straightforward, so the opposing side must avoid giving it a chance.

For whatever reason, the Democratic preference for shutting out options other than abortion comes down to fundamental anti-religion, certainly anti-viewpoint diversity, commitment. It is a desire for control, as well as a severely polluted perspective on life. 

The next victim of this strategy seems to be maternity homes. Different from crisis pregnancy centers, they house women who have chosen life. Various providers mean various approaches, many of which come from religion-focused organizations. It is a valid criticism that some of these homes may be overly strict and distrustful of their residents. Still, they do not operate without pursuing what they think is best for the mother and child, as well as being harmless. 

Women take shelter at maternity homes voluntarily and generally find the move a net positive. Rather than supporting this choice, the Left looks to restrict the homes because of their religious and rehabilitative characteristics. If many are too hard on their residents, the problem is a lack of options. Legislative support for pro-life options would increase resources for things such as maternity homes, and more variation in providers would arise. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But the argument against maternity homes says that demands of reform should not be placed on mothers, because it makes a normative statement about lifestyle. It is part of the anti-choice stance that wants to narrow the realm of possibility for poor women. Maternity homes that are effectively homeless shelters would do little to support their lives long-term.

The one-choice side, the Democratic Party, does not want to erase the “need” for abortion; it wants to erase its consequences.