It is unclear what rationale Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania employed when he threatened to terminate a program that has benefited 350,000 women across the Commonwealth. This decision appears to be at odds with public opinion, as the program has been perceived as a “Bud Light” of bureaucratic decisions. The “PA Brand” has traditionally been associated with initiatives designed to assist pregnant women in challenging circumstances. The program has garnered bipartisan support over the years. In fact, Democrat Governor Robert Casey, Sr. allocated funding for the innovative venture in the state budget during the 1990s. A Cabinet member during Democrat Ed Rendell’s administration also lauded the program.
A review of the literature indicates that pregnancy resource centers enjoy considerable public support. The rationale behind this phenomenon is unclear. The comprehensive counseling and material aid offered by these centers to women during their pregnancies and beyond is a significant contributing factor to their popularity. These centers actually result in savings for states because the women they serve are far more likely to seek prenatal care and well-baby care, thereby preventing the kind of negative outcomes that can be costly for taxpayers.
The Pennsylvania Pregnancy and Parenting Support Services program provides funding for a range of services, including those provided by pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies. Consequently, those who advocate for the termination of the program are espousing a perspective that is both misogynistic and anti-adoption.
It is imperative that we do not abandon these women at a critical juncture in their lives. It is imperative that our voices be heard, not only in the Governor’s Office, but also in the offices of our state representatives and state senators.
To express immediate support for Pennsylvania’s award-winning program, please visit https://www.paprolife.org/blog/help-pregnant-women-now.
It is imperative that the Governor of Pennsylvania be made aware of the state’s readiness, willingness, and ability to advocate for pregnant women facing challenging circumstances.
The decision to eliminate Real Alternatives is deeply troubling on multiple fronts, as it not only undermines support for women facing unplanned pregnancies but also diminishes resources for those considering adoption. Real Alternatives has long been a vital organization providing valuable assistance and guidance to women in need, offering a range of services from pregnancy counseling to parenting classes and adoption referrals.
By eliminating Real Alternatives, we are effectively depriving women of a crucial support system during a vulnerable time in their lives. This decision is undeniably anti-woman, as it removes an essential resource that empowers women to make informed choices about their pregnancies and futures. Without access to the comprehensive support provided by Real Alternatives, women may feel abandoned, isolated, and without options, ultimately leaving them more vulnerable to making uninformed decisions or feeling coerced into abortion.
Furthermore, eliminating Real Alternatives is also anti-adoption, as it reduces the avenues available for women considering adoption to explore this option fully. Adoption can be a loving and life-affirming choice for both birth mothers and adoptive families, offering hope and opportunities for all involved. Real Alternatives plays a critical role in facilitating the adoption process, connecting birth mothers with adoption agencies and providing emotional support throughout the journey.
By depriving women of access to Real Alternatives’ services, we are not only limiting their choices but also potentially denying children the opportunity to be welcomed into loving homes through adoption. This decision undermines the value of adoption as a positive alternative to abortion and sends a harmful message that adoption is not a viable or supported option for women facing unplanned pregnancies.
In conclusion, eliminating Real Alternatives is both anti-woman and anti-adoption, as it deprives women of essential support and diminishes resources for those considering adoption. This decision not only undermines the autonomy and dignity of women but also denies children the chance to thrive in loving families. It is imperative that we advocate for the reinstatement and support of organizations like Real Alternatives that provide vital assistance to women and promote positive alternatives to abortion.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
