Photo on Unsplash
On January 3rd, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-5) introduced House Resolution 7 in the 119th Congress, titled “Recognizing the importance of access to comprehensive, high-quality, life-affirming medical care for women of all ages.” Despite appearing to support women’s healthcare, the wording, particularly “life-affirming,” raises significant concerns.
The phrase “life-affirming medical care” isn’t as neutral as it sounds. It’s a term often used by anti-abortion groups to promote policies that prioritize fetal rights over women’s bodily autonomy. Although the resolution does not mention abortion explicitly, its language aligns with terminology commonly used by organizations that oppose abortion access.
To understand what’s at stake, we need to place this resolution in America’s larger context of reproductive rights. Legislation such as H.Res.7 comes at a time when access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare is under relentless attack. Bills framed as supportive often carry hidden agendas. For example, the bill explicitly states that women’s healthcare should “address the needs of men, families, and communities as they relate to women’s healthcare.” However, it does not clarify why or how these groups are connected to providing women’s health services, leaving this inclusion unexplained.
The resolution expresses support for Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers, which promote “spiritual care” and do not provide abortion or contraception services. Critics note that the organization’s model aligns with an ideological framework that may conflict with evidence-based reproductive healthcare. The exclusion of abortion and contraception from their services has raised concerns among healthcare advocates who warn of potential misinformation and gaps in care, particularly for marginalized communities.
What’s more, restrictions on reproductive health disproportionately harm marginalized communities, including low-income women, women of color, and those living in rural areas who already face systemic barriers to healthcare. For instance, Black and Indigenous women in the US experience maternal mortality rates 2 to 3 times higher than their white counterparts. Additionally, states with restrictive abortion policies often have higher rates of maternal and infant mortality, exacerbating existing health disparities. The promotion of Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers, which critics often refer to as fake clinics, puts these communities at an even higher risk as they may not be able to access to care they need.
Reproductive justice, a term coined by women of color, goes beyond abortion. It’s about the right to have children, the right not to have children, and the right to parent in safe and supportive environments. This resolution is falling short of addressing these needs, instead favoring a narrow, ideologically driven view of women’s healthcare.
While it may not have an immediate legislative impact, the introduction of this bill reflects a part of a broader pattern of policy efforts that, critics argue, may limit individuals’ reproductive autonomy and access to comprehensive healthcare. This resolution must be understood, not as a harmless statement, but as part of a larger push to control women’s bodies and diminish their ability to make personal healthcare decisions.
