The pre-filed bill would force a conversation in South Carolina—and hopefully nationwide—about whether anti-choice lawmakers who fancy themselves “pro-life” are actually that.

If lawmakers are going to force pregnant people to carry pregnancies to term, and if they are going to deem the development of an unborn embryo as more important than the life and rights of pregnant people, then South Carolina should compensate pregnant people for acting as a gestational surrogate for the state of South Carolina.

Christopher Penler / Shutterstock.com

Trending Today

This Week Archive Select September 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 August 2017 July 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014

If South Carolina lawmakers are going to ban abortion after six weeks’ gestation and force every pregnant person to carry their pregnancy to term, the state should damn well pay for the costs associated with giving birth to and raising that child.

That’s the premise behind a bill called the South Carolina Pro Birth Accountability Act that state Sen. Mia McLeod pre-filed Wednesday, and boy howdy!—it is a barn burner.

The bill, SB 928, demands that anti-choice lawmakers in South Carolina who have proposed banning abortion at six weeks into pregnancy put their money where their mouth is: If lawmakers are going to force people to carry their pregnancies to term, and if they are going to deem the development of an unborn embryo as more important than the life and rights of pregnant people, then South Carolina should compensate them for acting as a gestational surrogate for the state of South Carolina.

The law points out that given the surrogacy market, a pregnant person’s uterus is not unlike a rental property: People who commission surrogates pay that surrogate to carry a fetus to term and to give birth to a child. So why should South Carolina be permitted to force its citizens to act as surrogates for the state without compensating them?

According to SB 928, South Carolina shouldn’t, and the legislation hammers this point home by making several key points:

That from a medical perspective, there is no dispute that a six-week-old embryo cannot exist outside of the womb;

That South Carolina has deemed the development of a six-week old embryo governmentally more important than the life and rights of pregnant people; and

That the six-week ban will force pregnant people who otherwise could have elected an abortion to act as a gestational surrogate for the state of South Carolina, which—and this is my favorite part—cannot itself physically conceive or carry a child.

And here’s the kicker: “just as South Carolina may not constitutionally use a citizen’s rental property without just compensation, it may not constitutionally require a woman to incubate a child without appropriate compensation.”

Whew.

Finally, someone said it.

The compensation suggested in the legislation includes reasonable living, legal, medical, psychological, and psychiatric expenses that are directly related to prenatal, intrapartal, and postpartal periods. In addition, upon detection of a fetal heartbeat, a pregnant person may claim the fetus as a child for purposes of federal or state income tax credits or deductions.

But it gets even better: Compensation also includes automatic eligibility to participate in a program that would pair a pregnant person with a specially trained nurse to provide home visits from early pregnancy through the child’s second birthday. Can you imagine? (By the way, this is de rigueur in countries like Sweden that actually give a shit about new parents.) Pregnant people would also be automatically eligible for any public assistance like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), and WIC, and the law would prohibit reducing or suspending those benefits until the child is 18 years old.

But wait! There’s more!

If the pregnant person becomes disabled as the result of carrying the fetus to term, then the state must cover all medical expenses associated with the disability. Similarly, if the child is born with a congenital abnormality or disability, the state must cover all medical expenses associated with that disability for the rest of the child’s life.

Also, South Carolina would be required to cover all costs associated with health, dental, and vision insurance until the child turns 18. And if the biological father of the child is unknown or unable to provide support, then the state must provide child support in the biological father’s stead.

I KNOW!

And then the grand finale: South Carolina must fully fund a college savings plan for the benefit of the child.

Inject this legislation directly into my veins.

In order to obtain compensation from the state under this law, a pregnant person would be required to file an affidavit with the Department of Social Services indicating that, but for South Carolina’s six-week ban, they would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy and not given birth to the child.

This is a groundbreaking law for two reasons. First, it gets to the heart of why anti-choicers are, by and large, hypocrites in their concern for fetuses but utter disregard for children. Far too many anti-choicers would gleefully force a pregnant person to give birth but then, once that child is born, want nothing to do with any programs or assistance that would enable new forced parents to raise that child.

But more importantly, this law is drafted from a decidedly reproductive justice framework. (I don’t think it is a coincidence that McLeod is a Black woman.)

Remember, reproductive justice places equal importance on a pregnant person’s right to raise a child in a safe and healthy environment as it does on a pregnant person’s right to terminate a pregnancy. And considering that, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the top three reasons that people choose abortion are: (1) negative impact on the pregnant person’s life; (2) financial instability; and (3) an unwillingness to be a single parent, forcing pregnant people to give birth to children that they cannot pay for—and which will inevitably sink them further into poverty—is cruel.

The Pro Birth Accountability Act likely has no chance of passing given that Republicans have a stranglehold on South Carolina’s legislature, but the law will force a conversation in South Carolina—and hopefully nationwide—about whether anti-choice lawmakers who fancy themselves “pro-life” are actually that. Or whether, as I have suspected for some time now, these lawmakers are simply pro-birth.