S-1630-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by Katie Britt (R-AL)
What it does
The MOMS Act would create a federal pregnancy.gov website listing resources for pregnant, postpartum, and parenting women, including a ZIP-code-based search tool and a national directory of licensed child placement agencies. It would establish grant programs for nonprofit pregnancy support centers and for telehealth equipment in rural and underserved areas to improve prenatal and postnatal care. It would also amend the Social Security Act to allow states to establish and enforce child support obligations on behalf of unborn children, beginning as early as the month of conception, at the mother's request.
Who benefits
Pregnant and postpartum women seeking information on support services, particularly those in rural, frontier, or medically underserved areas. Nonprofit pregnancy support centers that would gain access to federal grant funding and a centralized list of available federal funding opportunities. Prospective adoptive families who would benefit from a national directory of licensed child placement agencies. Mothers of unborn children who seek prenatal child support from biological fathers. Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations in whose jurisdictions telehealth equipment grants would be available. Women who speak languages other than English, as the website must provide multilingual access. Telehealth equipment vendors and rural healthcare providers who would receive grant funding.
Who is hurt
Healthcare providers and organizations that perform, refer for, or counsel in favor of abortion — including large networks like Planned Parenthood — would be explicitly excluded from receiving any grants or appearing on the pregnancy.gov website. Women who rely on such organizations for prenatal or postnatal care may find those providers absent from the federal resource directory. Biological fathers could face child support obligations beginning before a child is born, potentially including retroactive payments. States would face a new compliance requirement tied to adoption incentive payments, creating an administrative burden. Taxpayers would bear the cost of new appropriations and grant programs. Organizations that provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare, including abortion services alongside prenatal care, would be categorically excluded regardless of the scope of their other services.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that millions of women facing unplanned pregnancies lack easy access to information about financial, medical, housing, and adoption resources, and that a centralized federal clearinghouse directly addresses that gap. They contend that extending child support obligations to the prenatal period recognizes the real financial costs of pregnancy — including medical care, lost wages, and housing — and gives mothers a concrete legal tool to secure support before birth. They further argue that telehealth grants targeting rural and underserved areas address documented maternal mortality disparities, as the CDC has found that rural women face significantly higher rates of pregnancy-related death than urban women.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's categorical exclusion of any entity that performs, refers for, or counsels in favor of abortion — including from the federal resource website — effectively uses federal infrastructure to steer women away from a full range of legal healthcare options, including providers who also offer prenatal care. They contend that extending child support to unborn children from the moment of conception embeds a contested legal definition of personhood into federal law, potentially creating precedent that could affect other statutory frameworks. They further argue that tying state adoption incentive payments to new reporting requirements imposes unfunded administrative burdens on states without adequate flexibility.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to create grant programs and condition federal funding rests on the Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). Under NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), spending conditions are permissible unless so coercive that states have no genuine choice; tying adoption incentive payments to a new reporting requirement could face scrutiny under this standard, though the condition here is relatively modest. The bill's definition of "unborn child" as beginning at conception, embedded in the federal child support statute, may raise questions about whether Congress is using its spending power to establish a legal framework with implications beyond the program itself.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (HHS Secretary) gains new administrative authority to operate the pregnancy.gov website, award grants, and set eligibility criteria; Congress retains oversight through mandatory reporting requirements, and states retain discretion in recommending resources and implementing child support provisions.
Historical precedent
The Pregnancy Assistance Fund (2010), created under the ACA, similarly provided grants to states to support pregnant and parenting students and women, though it did not include the abortion-provider exclusions or prenatal child support provisions present in this bill.