Virginia's federal lawmakers want to make childbirth free
Childbirth can cost thousands of dollars, with certain conditions also posing extra costs for parents-to-be who have private health insurance. New legislation proposed by Virginia's Capitol Hill lawmakers and their colleagues could prevent cost-sharing for prenatal, childbirth, neonatal, perinatal and postpartum care, keeping families from being saddled with big bills after birth.
U.S. Rep. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, remembers the stress and fear of dealing with placenta previa, a life-threatening maternal condition, when carrying her second child, Samantha. Her placenta wasn't in the right position, placing her and her fetus at risk and spurring a cesarean section birth and neonatal intensive care unit stay for the baby once it was born. She also remembers the extra medical costs that were associated with managing the condition to keep both herself and her daughter alive.
The condition is rare but tricky if it develops later in pregnancy as McClellan's did, and exemplifies how costly maternal care can be, especially if there are complications or emergencies. Bipartisan and bicameral legislation she helped create would provide birth-related benefits similar to the ones offered by Medicaid to Americans who are covered by private health insurance.
Reducing out-of-pocket costs like copays can help more families stay on top of monitoring conditions to prevent crises and be better able to respond when they do arise, McClellan said.
'The idea here is this will help get more people in for prenatal and preventative care so that hopefully you will have fewer emergencies,' McClellan explained.
U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, said if the measure becomes law, it would represent a big shift in maternal health care for the country.
'Childbirth should be free in the United States, and that's a big idea,' Kaine said , who is a co-patron of the Senate version of the bill.
That's already the case in some countries, while in others like Finland, France and Great Britain, costs are curbed for expecting families and efforts to reduce maternal and infant mortality rates have proven successful.
Applying the concept to America is something that Vice President J.D. Vance (who also serves as president of the Senate) has previously been on board with, Kaine said.
Last year, Kaine workshopped the idea with then-Sen. Vance before he was tapped to be President Donald Trump's running mate. Kaine then connected with Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Mississippi, Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, to introduce the bill this year.
'Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt,' Hyde-Smith said in a statement announcing the legislation. 'By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood.'
The House and Senate versions of the bill can unify the 'left and the right, the 'pro-choice' and the 'pro-life,'' Kaine said, adding that the measures could fare well in the nation's legislative branch and end up on Trump's desk.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gastonia resident and RNC Chair Michael Whatley expected to launch bid for Tillis' seat
Michael Whatley, a Gastonia resident and the chair of the Republican National Party, is expected to seek the seat held by U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, who announced he would not seek re-election voting against advancing President Donald Trump's " big, beautiful bill," Republicans' massive domestic policy legislation. Whatley, one of the driving forces in the GOP today, would likely face former Gov. Roy Cooper in the race. The Democrat, whose final term as governor was bookended by the COVID-19 pandemic and Tropical Storm Helene, is expected to soon launch a campaign, according to reporting from Axios. Whatley began his climb in the GOP more than 2 decades ago. He served as chair of the Gaston County Republican Party from 1999-2001. In 2019 he was to picked to lead the North Carolina Republican Party, and in 2024 he became chair of the Republican National Committee. He has served as a senior official in the George W. Bush administration, and as chief of staff for former Sen. Elizabeth Dole. Politico reported this week that Whatley has the backing of Trump, whose daughter-in-law Lara Trump had also been rumored to be considering a bid. In a July 24 social media post, Lara Trump confirmed she would not be seeking the Senate seat. 'I am deeply grateful for the encouragement and support I have received from the people of my home state whom I love so much,' she wrote. Whatley did not respond to a July 24 request for comment from the Asheville Citizen Times. A White House spokesperson also did not respond to a request for comment on the president's reported endorsement. On the Democratic side, Axios first reported Cooper's intentions July 23. When reached by the Citizen Times, Morgan Jackson, a longtime political adviser to Cooper, declined to confirm Axios' reporting, but said the former governor 'would be making his intentions known in the coming days.' Cooper, who served two terms as North Carolina's governor, is a likely frontrunner to win his party's primary. Former Congressman Wiley Nickel is also vying for the seat, currently held by Tillis, who annnounced in June that he would not seek a third term in office. A matchup between Cooper and Whatley will likely be a high-stakes, expensive election that could determine whether Republicans can maintain control of the Senate. The race could prove to be 'as close to a toss-up as exists in American politics,' Chris Cooper, a professor of political science and public affairs at Western Carolina University, told the Citizen Times on July 24. Cooper, who is not related to the former governor, said both are 'heavyweight candidates with access to deep pockets and networks.' But neither Roy Cooper, nor Whatley, have outsized personalities that have often dominated politics in recent years. 'I think people who are expecting a barn-burner campaign driven by candidate narratives may be surprised,' Cooper said. Sarah Honosky contributed reporting. Jacob Biba is the Helene recovery reporter at the Asheville Citizen Times, part of the USA TODAY Network. Email him at jbiba@ This article originally appeared on The Gaston Gazette: Gastonia resident and RNC chair Michael Whatley may campaign for Tillis' seat
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
In the US, a factual National Archives still exists — but for how long?
When I arrived in New York City two years ago — a Russian journalist fleeing my country after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine — I was routinely asked: 'Do all Russians support Putin?' A good question, perhaps, but I'm unable to provide a fact-based answer. When a regime like Russia silences the press, takes control of all branches of government and installs loyalists to oversee historical records, the truth quickly disappears, becoming accessible only to the ruler's inner circle. Since Trump's inauguration, conversations in the U.S. have changed. Now, when I meet Americans, they rarely mention Russian politics outside of the Ukraine war. Instead, they share their anxieties about their own country, often with a nervous laugh. I recognize that laugh. In Russia, independent journalists and human rights activists spent years laughing over worst-case scenarios — until every single one of them came true. My Ukrainian friends have become masters of gallows humor. Then Americans ask: 'What should we do? What advice do you, who have seen this happen in your country, have for us here in the U.S.?' This again makes me laugh, given we weren't exactly successful in stopping our own dictator. Still, hindsight does provide some clarity, and while I don't have immediate solutions, I do have two urgent suggestions: Safeguard your independent media and defend your national archives. The war in Ukraine shows how, without a strong independent press and by employing a warped version of history, a dictator can act however they please. While outsiders struggle to understand how Russians accept Putin's justification for the invasion as a mission to 'de-Nazify' Ukraine, a country led by a Jewish president, or as the reclamation of historically Russian territory (a claim that quickly unravels under serious historical scrutiny), the reality is that within Russia these narratives are now embedded in the national story. This is the result of a deliberate reshaping of the historical narrative by the government. Putin's first steps in controlling Russia's narrative was dismantling the post-Soviet independent media. It began with television, shuttering the independent NTV channel under the pretense of a business dispute. He then tightened his grip on the media through laws, including the ' foreign agent ' designation, jailing reporters he disagreed with. Three days after invading Ukraine in 2022, he imposed military censorship, forcing over 1,500 journalists into exile. Today, it is illegal for journalists to contradict the government's version of events. This is why, in 2023, a few fellow exiled journalists and I launched the Russian Independent Media Archive: to preserve the fact-based journalism the Kremlin was so intent on erasing. Today, the archive holds 3.5 million documents from 131 (and counting!) independent national, regional and investigative outlets dating back to Putin's first years in office. Designed to resist takedowns and censorship, with a powerful search engine, the Russian Independent Media Archive is open to all, empowering readers, researchers and historians to challenge propaganda about a particular era with truth, and to answer questions with verified facts. Others are better placed than I to say if a similar closing down of free speech and independent media is possible in the U.S.. The signs are certainly there in the Trump administration's accelerated book banning campaign, ending federal funding for NPR and PBS and shutting down Voice of America. Beyond that, Trump has unleashed a wave of chaotic actions that have directly harmed innocent people and disrupted businesses both in the U.S. and around the world — from mass deportations and abrupt firings to sweeping tariffs and threats of international conflict. Amid this endless barrage of harmful actions, one seemingly benign yet potentially extremely dangerous move risks slipping by unnoticed: Trump's bid to take control of the National Archives' leadership. Putin closed Russia's archives stealthily, cloaking his actions in language that maintained an illusion of transparency. In 2004, he signed a Federal Archives Law restricting access to anything labeled a 'state secret.' Today, that list includes 119 broad categories — enough to conceal almost anything from public view. As a result, we Russians no longer have access to a trusted record of our country's past. If Americans know the National Archives, it's usually as the home of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But it's much more than a home for documents. It safeguards billions of records vital to government transparency, public accountability, historical preservation, veterans' services and the integrity of elections. These documents hold facts upon which a great many important decisions are made. If access were restricted or content altered or erased, as is already happening on numerous government websites, truth, as in Russia, begins to disappear. For as Orwell presciently wrote in 1984, 'he who controls the past controls the future.' Covering tracks, destroying evidence, blocking websites, interfering in elections, distorting history — it's hard to say who does it better, Putin or Trump. But there's still a crucial difference between my country and yours: In the U.S., your institutions are intact enough that if I ask, 'Do all Americans support Trump?' you could still answer based on facts. The question now becomes: For how much longer?
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump order aims to make it easier to remove the homeless off the streets
President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order making it easier for cities and states to remove homeless people from the streets and get them treatment elsewhere. The order also calls on Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees that limit state and local governments' ability to commit individuals on the streets who are a risk to themselves or others,' according to a White House fact sheet. On the surface, it's framed as a solution — but underneath, it represents a troubling expansion of forced institutionalization, with few real answers about long-term care or housing. Trump's recent executive order on homelessness, which prioritizes forced relocation of unhoused people to treatment centers and penalizes open-air encampments, reads more like a campaign tactic than a compassionate or effective public policy. While public frustration around homelessness is understandable, this order channels that frustration in the wrong direction — targeting symptoms instead of causes, and people instead of systems. Framing homelessness as a threat to public safety rather than a humanitarian crisis is not only dangerous — it's inaccurate. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'By removing vagrant criminals from our streets the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe …' This kind of language paints unhoused people as violent offenders, despite studies — like one from the University of Central Florida — showing that unhoused individuals are typically arrested for nonviolent infractions like public intoxication or shoplifting, not for violent crime. In fact, research shows they are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Trump's approach to homelessness relies on institutionalization, encampment sweeps, and prioritizing states that crack down on outdoor sleeping. But it offers no real investment in building or preserving affordable housing — which experts across the political spectrum agree is the core issue. Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center said it best: 'Trump's expected actions are reckless, expensive, and make homelessness worse. … Real leaders focus on solutions, not on kicking people when they are down.' Supporters of the order argue that it gets people into treatment, but forced treatment rarely leads to long-term recovery — especially when it's divorced from stable housing. Research has consistently shown that Housing First, which prioritizes placing people in permanent housing before mandating treatment or sobriety, reduces homelessness by up to 88 percent and lowers costly emergency care visits. The problem isn't that Housing First failed — it's that we've underfunded and inconsistently applied it across the country. This order also disproportionately affects Black and brown communities, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities — groups who are already overrepresented in the unhoused population. And in cities like D.C., where Trump is directing federal agencies to evict people from public parks, the move will simply push people out of sight, further away from services and case managers. A few high-profile, tragic incidents involving homeless individuals should not dictate national policy. Fear should not be driving our response to poverty. If we want real results, we need real solutions: housing, mental health access, wraparound services — and most importantly, humanity. Homelessness isn't a crime. And treating it like one won't solve it.
