Of course, the underlying idea of forcing birth on women without offering any social safety net for mother and child post-birth is very much rooted in right-wing religious "values" of sanctity and morality. If you're pregnant, you had sex (or were provided with a "gift from God" via rape, if Santorum is consulted). If you had sex, you should have been happily married and making enough money to support a child, and you should probably have prayed about it first. If you had sex while happily married, middle class, and pious, then you're probably part of a church community, which--credit where credit is due--will indeed help members of the congregation if they are suddenly faced with something like $200,000 in medical bills for a child with a "God-given" heart defect. But, if you have sex outside of the mold where you're a churchgoing, married, middle class or above family, you'll either need to go get "saved" and hope for help from a Catholic charity or similar, or you can appeal to the doctors directly to write off the costs of care for your child, or apply to secular charities for help. Being liberal myself, I see this as a problem and contrary to the entire concept of government, in which, ideally, a system is set up that protects the weak from the tyranny of the strong and the minority from tyranny of the majority. Conservatives would probably see this as only fitting, and the proper way to encourage "personal responsibility" and discourage the use of children as a substitute for an income. (Never mind that there's no such thing as "welfare" anymore, and temporary assistance programs are so limited now that nobody can realistically just keep having kids and expect the government to pay for their upkeep.) Also on the theme of credit-where-due, my roommate recently had $17,000 of medical bills written off by a Catholic women's charity, even though she is not an active Catholic herself.