From classical philosophy through the American founding, a consistent principle emerges: a just society bears responsibility for protecting vulnerable human life. Aristotle argued that the purpose of law is to promote the common good and that political communities must safeguard those least able to protect themselves.1 This tradition was deepened by St. Thomas Aquinas, who taught that natural law requires the preservation of human life and obligates societies to defend the innocent.2 Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke carried this reasoning forward, asserting in the Second Treatise of Government that human beings possess natural rights prior to government and that no one ought to harm another in his life.3 These principles guided the American Founders as they structured the government. If the government exists to secure natural rights, foremost being the right to life, then public policy should favor institutions that materially support vulnerable mothers, children, and families.

​

 

The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act (H.R. 6945)4 reflects this longstanding moral and civic duty. Despite this duty, the legislation has hinged on the broader controversy surrounding pregnancy resource centers (PRCs). A careful review of the evidence shows that many criticisms of PRCs are overstated or incomplete and that restricting support for them risks harming the very women policymakers claim to protect. From these criticisms, there have been efforts to use federal funds against PRCs. In response to these efforts, H.R. 6945 further protects the organizations protecting American women and families, ensuring there is no discrimination in allowing funding to flow. The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act is strong legislation that follows America’s first principles in crafting a law that supports the nation’s most vulnerable. 

 

​

Pregnancy resource centers have operated in the United States for decades as community-based organizations offering material assistance, counseling, parenting education, and referrals. Their presence is large. The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act has a lengthy name, but it is necessary to showcase the reach of PRCs to so many Americans. A 2024 spatial analysis found that PRCs outnumber abortion facilities in the United States by roughly three to one.5 This ratio alone suggests that PRCs are a significant part of the nation’s provided resources for pregnant and parenting women. Utilization data reinforces this point. A 2025 multi-state study found measurable levels of PRC attendance among women in Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Jersey, with Arizona showing particularly high engagement among women who had been pregnant.6 While the states studied were limited, the findings demonstrate that PRCs are not fringe institutions; they are used by real women facing real needs. Qualitative research also indicates that public perceptions may improve with greater familiarity. A similar study concluded that increased awareness of pregnancy care centers tends to produce more favorable views regardless of prior abortion attitudes7. Taken together, the available evidence suggests that PRCs function as widely accessible, community-level support providers, even if debate continues about their messaging and regulatory status.

 

​

The current federal controversy centers on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a block grant program designed to give states broad flexibility in supporting low-income families. Because TANF funds are intentionally structured to allow state-level discretion, disputes over eligibility often reflect broader ideological disagreements. During the Biden administration, a proposed rule raised concerns that states could be prevented from giving TANF funds to pregnancy resource centers. This rule was met with severe backlash. Representative Michelle Fischbach took this opportunity to introduce the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act to ensure that states retain the option to fund PRCs if they determine such programs advance TANF’s statutory goals. Importantly, the legislation does not require states to fund PRCs, instead it preserves flexibility. The bill aligns with the original federalist design of TANF. Despite not becoming law, the administration heard the outrage and backed down. Under the current pro-life administration, there is not a risk of a similar rule change, but Representative Fischbach understood the role of Congress to protect these TANF funds from future administrative interference. H.R. 6945 was introduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House of Representatives. This legislation is currently waiting on a vote in the Senate. Even with pro-life majorities in the House and Senate, it is difficult to pass legislation that supports PRCs. Abortion advocates have branded them as exclusively pro-life institutions, making any support extremely controversial. 

 

​

A frequently cited 2018 content analysis examined PRC websites and suggested concerns about the completeness of sexual and reproductive health information.8 More recently, a 2022 literature review in the International Journal of Women’s Health characterized crisis pregnancy centers broadly as problematic.9 These studies contribute to the debate but have notable limitations. Most analyze website content rather than in-person services, client outcomes, or physical support provided. Website framing, while important, is an incomplete proxy for the full scope of services offered. The literature review approach also clumps all organizations, religious and secular, medical and non-medical, into a single category, which can obscure results. A more balanced policy assessment should distinguish between centers that provide licensed medical services and those that primarily offer material or educational support, rather than treating all PRCs as identical entities. With PRCs outnumbering abortion providers three to one, there is guaranteed to be a wide range of services provided across so many centers. 

 

​

While there are a wide number of services provided across a vast network, another criticism is that each PRC shares the same ideological goal. It is true that pregnancy resource centers were founded explicitly to provide alternatives to abortion. Their mission orientation is not hidden. The relevant policy question, however, is whether mission-driven organizations that provide material assistance to low-income families should be categorically barred from participating in broad federal funding grants. Opponents sometimes argue that because PRCs are not “neutral,” they should be excluded from public funding streams. Yet many government-funded social service providers across healthcare, education, and counseling operate with defined philosophical or institutional missions. The standard historically has been compliance with funding rules and nondiscrimination requirements, not viewpoint neutrality. Supporters of abortion providers cannot ask for their services to receive federal funds, while pushing PRCs to the back. 

​

 

Today’s current pro-life fight on the federal level is centered around funding. While the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act was being debated on the floor, pro-life advocates were continuing the push to defund big abortion providers that started with the passage of H.R. 1,10 which removed federal funding from all abortion providers for one year. A central question in the current policy fight is whether it is inconsistent for pro-life advocates to oppose taxpayer funding for abortion providers while supporting TANF eligibility for PRCs. The answer depends on the underlying principle. For nearly fifty years, federal policy under the Hyde Amendment has drawn a distinct line between funding general health services and specifically funding abortion procedures. Many policymakers across party lines have supported this distinction. From that perspective, funding organizations that provide material support, parenting education, and prenatal assistance falls within traditional TANF goals, while direct funding of abortion procedures has been treated differently under federal law. Critics may reject this distinction, but it is logically consistent with the framework of federal appropriations in place for decades. Abortion supporters have argued that abortion providers should receive federal funding because they provide crucial support for women besides abortion. This argument continues to fall flat when abortion supporters then argue that federal funding should not be given to PRCs, organizations that provide the exact same services as abortion providers, without providing abortions. It becomes increasingly clear that the argument is not about creating laws that protect the most vulnerable, but instead there is an active effort to fund abortion without regard to historical precedent. 

 

​

The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act sits at the intersection of natural law, American federalism, and modern social policy. The tradition is clear: governments exist to secure pre-political rights, beginning with the protection of human life and the support of the vulnerable. Within that framework, community-based organizations that provide material assistance to pregnant and parenting women play a meaningful role. Following precedent, a nation committed to supporting women and families should preserve a wide network of service providers while enforcing clear, neutral standards of accountability. The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act advances that goal by maintaining state flexibility and ensuring that aid reaches women who need it most.

​

---------------------------------------------------------

1.  Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.

2.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros., 1947), I-II, q. 94, a. 2.

3.  Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Edited by C. B. Macpherson. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980.

4.  Congress.gov. "H.R.6945 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act." January 26, 2026. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6945.

5.  Swartzendruber, Andrea, Nicole Luisi, Erin R. Johnson, and Danielle N. Lambert. "Spatial analyses of crisis pregnancy centers and abortion facilities in the United States, 2021 (pre-Dobbs): cross-sectional study." JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 10, no. 1 (2024): e60001. https://publichealth.jmir.org/2024/1/e60001/PDF

6.  Yang, Teresa JK, Mikaela H. Smith, Megan L. Kavanaugh, JaNelle M. Ricks, and Maria F. Gallo. "Prevalence of crisis pregnancy center attendance among women in four US states." PLoS One 20, no. 6 (2025): e0324228. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0324228#sec010

7.  Mills, Ester. "Pregnancy Care Centers: The Unknown Resource for Emergency Pregnancies." PhD diss., Southern New Hampshire University, 2024. https://academicarchive.snhu.edu/items/905e4aa0-26e5-471d-80dd-196ba4eebeb2

8.  Swartzendruber, Andrea, Nicole Luisi, Erin R. Johnson, and Danielle N. Lambert. "Spatial analyses of crisis pregnancy centers and abortion facilities in the United States, 2021 (pre-Dobbs): cross-sectional study." JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 10, no. 1 (2024): e60001. https://publichealth.jmir.org/2024/1/e60001/PDF

9.  Montoya, Melissa N., Colleen Judge-Golden, and Jonas J. Swartz. "The problems with crisis pregnancy centers: reviewing the literature and identifying new directions for future research." International Journal of Women's Health (2022): 757-763. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/IJWH.S288861#abstract

10.  Congress.gov. "H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): An act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14." July 4, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1.

​

​