MOMS Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 7, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to expand support services for pregnant women and new mothers, focusing on alternatives to abortion and enabling child support for unborn children, while explicitly excluding abortion-related entities from receiving federal funds or being listed as resources.
What it actually does
The "More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed Act" (MOMS Act) establishes a federal website, pregnancy.gov, to serve as a clearinghouse of resources for pregnant and postpartum women, explicitly excluding entities that perform or refer for abortions. It creates a grant program for states to aggregate these resources. The bill also establishes a new grant program for "Positive Alternatives for Women" to support pregnancy and postnatal care, again excluding abortion providers. It provides grants for telehealth equipment for prenatal and postnatal care in underserved areas, with similar exclusions. Finally, it amends the Social Security Act to allow for child support enforcement on behalf of unborn children, with the mother's consent.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill empowers women by providing comprehensive resources and support throughout pregnancy and after birth, ensuring they have positive alternatives to abortion. They contend it fills critical gaps in access to care, especially in rural and underserved areas, and strengthens parental responsibility by allowing child support for unborn children. They emphasize the importance of directing federal funds away from organizations involved in abortion.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend the bill restricts access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare by excluding abortion providers and referrals from resource lists and grant programs, potentially limiting options for women. They argue that the focus on "alternatives to abortion" is ideologically driven and that the child support provisions for unborn children could create complex legal and practical challenges, potentially infringing on women's autonomy and privacy regarding pregnancy decisions.
The bill is moderately complex with multiple titles and significant policy changes, requiring a dedicated reading to understand its full scope and implications.
Title I, Sec. 101
Establishment of Pregnancy.gov Website
This section mandates the creation of a federal website, pregnancy.gov, within one year, to help pregnant and new mothers find resources like medical care, financial aid, housing, and mental health services. The website will allow users to search for resources by ZIP Code and will offer follow-up outreach. Crucially, it explicitly bans any organization involved in abortion services or referrals from being listed on the site or receiving related grants, defining such as a "prohibited entity."
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides a vital, unbiased resource for women seeking support during and after pregnancy, ensuring that federal funds and platforms are not used to promote or facilitate abortion. They believe it empowers women to choose life by making non-abortion alternatives easily accessible.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that by explicitly excluding abortion providers and referrals, the website becomes a biased resource that limits comprehensive reproductive health information for women. They argue it restricts women's autonomy by not providing a full spectrum of options and could make it harder for women to find all available healthcare services.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of providing support for pregnant women with the ideological stance against abortion, leading to a curated list of resources that excludes certain healthcare providers.
Title I, Sec. 102
National List of Licensed Child Placement Agencies
This section amends the Social Security Act to require states to submit annual lists of private child placement agencies that are licensed, in good standing, and tax-exempt. The Secretary, through the U.S. Children's Bureau, must compile and maintain this national list on the new pregnancy.gov website. States failing to comply with this reporting requirement will lose eligibility for federal adoption and legal guardianship incentive payments.
Title I, Sec. 103
List of Funding Opportunities Available to Pregnancy Support Centers
This section directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to compile and maintain a publicly available list on the pregnancy.gov website. This list will detail federal funding opportunities specifically for nonprofit and healthcare entities that offer pregnancy support services, provided they offer or provide "relevant resources" as defined in the bill (which excludes abortion-related services).
Title II, Sec. 201
Positive Alternatives for Women Grant Program
This section establishes a new federal grant program for eligible nonprofit organizations. These grants are intended to support, encourage, and assist women to carry their pregnancies to term and care for themselves and their babies after birth. Grantees must provide information and referrals for a range of services, including medical care, nutritional services, housing, adoption, education, employment, childcare, parenting education, and substance abuse counseling. Organizations that perform, induce, refer for, or counsel in favor of abortions are explicitly ineligible for these grants.
Title II, Sec. 202
Improving Access to Prenatal and Postnatal Telehealth Care
This section authorizes grants and cooperative agreements for eligible entities (healthcare providers in rural, frontier, medically underserved areas, or Tribal jurisdictions) to purchase equipment necessary for at-home telehealth visits for prenatal and postnatal care. The goal is to improve maternal and infant health outcomes and reduce maternal mortality by enhancing access to care. Similar to other provisions in the bill, entities that perform, induce, refer for, or counsel in favor of abortions are explicitly ineligible for these awards.
Title III, Sec. 301
Child Support Enforcement on Behalf of Unborn Children
This section amends the Social Security Act to require state child support plans to establish and enforce child support obligations for the biological father of an unborn child. Payments can begin from the first month of conception (if the mother requests) and can be collected retroactively. The payment amount is determined by a court in consultation with the mother. Paternity establishment requires the mother's consent and must not pose any risk of harm to the unborn child. The bill defines "unborn child" as a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, carried in the womb, and limits states' ability to waive these new requirements.
Defines "prohibited entity" as an entity, including its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics, that performs, induces, refers for, or counsels in favor of abortions, or provides financial support to any other organization that conducts such activities.
Sec. 101(g)(3)
Why it matters:While standard legislative practice to define terms, this specific definition is highly consequential for the bill's intent and impact, as it dictates which organizations are explicitly excluded from the pregnancy.gov website and all new grant programs. Its placement ensures a comprehensive and legally binding exclusion.
Case for: Proponents argue this definition is essential to ensure that federal funds and platforms are not inadvertently used to support or promote abortion services, aligning the bill's resources with its stated purpose of supporting alternatives to abortion.
Case against: Opponents contend that this definition is a deliberate attempt to restrict access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare by excluding a broad range of providers and information, thereby limiting women's choices and potentially creating a biased resource environment.
Estimated impact: This definition has a national impact, determining the eligibility of thousands of organizations for federal funding and inclusion on a national resource website.
Defines the term "unborn child" for purposes of child support enforcement as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
Sec. 301(a)(5)
Why it matters:While technically phrased, this broad definition of "unborn child" is highly consequential, establishing a legal personhood framework for child support purposes that could have wider implications. Its placement might make it less immediately apparent to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue this definition provides clarity and consistency for establishing child support obligations, affirming the legal status of the unborn child from conception and ensuring fathers are financially responsible from the earliest stage of life.
Case against: Opponents contend that this definition is an ideological statement on fetal personhood that could create significant legal and ethical challenges beyond child support, potentially infringing on women's autonomy and privacy regarding pregnancy decisions.
Estimated impact: This definition has a national impact on family law and child support enforcement, potentially affecting millions of individuals and setting a precedent for the legal status of unborn children.
These clauses specify that any measure to establish the paternity of a child (born or unborn) shall not be required without the consent of the mother, and any measure to establish the paternity of an unborn child shall not be taken if the measure poses any risk of harm to the child if unborn.
Sec. 301(a)(4)(E) and (F)
Why it matters:These clauses are important limitations on the new mandate, intended to protect the mother's autonomy and the unborn child's safety. Their placement ensures they are part of the operational instructions for states, but their significance might be missed by a casual reader focusing on the main policy change.
Case for: Proponents argue these clauses are essential safeguards, ensuring that the mother's consent is paramount in paternity establishment and that no action taken for child support enforcement jeopardizes the health of the unborn child, addressing potential ethical concerns.
Case against: Opponents might argue that while seemingly protective, these clauses could create practical loopholes or challenges for effective child support enforcement, particularly if a mother is unwilling or unable to consent, or if the definition of "risk of harm" is broadly interpreted, potentially undermining the intent of the unborn child support mandate.
Estimated impact: These clauses will impact the practical implementation of unborn child support across all states, influencing how paternity is established and enforced in potentially sensitive cases.