Members of both the Senate and the House have reintroduced a piece of legislation that would force all American taxpayers to fund abortions. It’s ironically called the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), though it only protects one aspect of women’s health care, abortion.

According to the Equal Access to Abortion Everywhere website, “WHPA protects the right to access abortion free from medically unnecessary restrictions and bans on abortion—including mandatory waiting periods, biased counseling, two-trip requirements, and mandatory ultrasounds.”

This effort is being led by Senators Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and U.S. Representatives Judy Chu (Calif.), Louis Frankel (Fla.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Veronica Escobar (Texas).

“Right now in states across this country, Roe v. Wade is under attack and millions of women are at risk of losing the freedom to make their own personal health decisions,” Baldwin said. “It is past time to stand up to these extreme threats to women’s constitutionally protected reproductive rights, which is why I’m championing the Women’s Health Protection Act. Every woman, regardless of where she lives, deserves the freedom to make her own, personal decisions about her health care, her family and her body.”

The bill itself reads like a wish list for pro-abortion politicians and seems to reflect the idea that the only health care that women need is abortion, which is rather ironic since progressive politicians have been trying to erase women as a separate sex.

It also makes some rather unique and somewhat illogical inferences about the supposed impact of pro-life restrictions on abortion.

One section of the bill states, “Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate commerce in numerous ways. For example, to provide abortion services, health care providers engage in interstate commerce to purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary goods and services.”

It’s doubtful that these abortion restrictions really have much impact on so-called “interstate commerce,” but it allows the pro-abortion movement to argue that pro-life laws are overly burdensome, even on the economy.

The bill even goes as far to say that: “Abortion-specific restrictions are even more compounded by the ongoing criminalization of people who are pregnant, including those who are incarcerated, living with HIV, or with substance-use disorders.”

How often are pregnant women victims of the criminal justice system? More often than not, a pregnant woman receives a fair amount of sympathy in the court system, unless her crime is quite serious.

It also argues that abortion restrictions are “a tool of gender oppression, as they target health care services that are used primarily by women. These paternalistic restrictions rely on and reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles, women’s decision-making, and women’s need for protection instead of support, undermining their ability to control their own lives and well-being.”

If abortion itself is “paternalistic,” then what about sex specific abortion, where a baby girl is aborted so the family can try again for a boy? That’s a form of “gender oppression” as well.

Of course, the biggest irony of the entire bill is that it focuses on “women.”

In a recent White House budget proposal, mothers are described as “birthing people.” If there are no women, then why is this bill even necessary? If there are no women, how can abortion be a tool of “gender oppression?”

President of Focus on the Family Jim Daly tweeted, “The proposed ‘Budget Of The U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2022’ uses the phrase ‘birthing people.’ I’m sorry, but they’re called MOMS or MOTHERS. The term ‘birthing person’ objectifies women to function. Only mothers give birth–but they also give so much more.”

The authors didn’t answer that.

Most frustratingly, this bill focuses entirely on protecting abortion and no other female specific health needs. What about breast or ovarian cancer? Shouldn’t the government protect women’s access to that treatment?

But no, apparently the only health care that is deserving of a separate bill is abortion.

Senator Joe Manchin, a notable swing vote, has said, “I’m going to support Hyde in every way possible.”

It’s unclear if he will stick to this pledge, but it’s clear that certain politicians are pushing for taxpayers to finally fund abortions.

That’s why it’s incredibly important for pro-life Americans to pray that the sanctity of human life is recognized and protected.