Once again, a snippet of the population has decided to push for legislation that possibly takes power from the people and gives it to non-living entities with a history of doing more than toeing the line.

Recently, H.R.20, a bill introduced in January, passed the House of Representatives by a considerable margin on March 30. Titled the Mother’s Act, the bill provides $3,000,000 in funding “[t]o provide for research on, and services for individuals with, postpartum depression and psychosis.”

At first glance, it looks like a step in the right direction for women who silently suffer with this postpartum depression. And it probably would be a step in the right direction, but we have to look at who’s leading the charge and what they stand to gain.

One thing stands out after thoroughly reading the bill: vague terminology that leaves many questions unanswered. As it stands, this bill is set to march to the Senate, yet we’ve heard no public discourse or discussion of the full implications of this bill’s passage.

If and when educational programs are implemented, will they be mandatory? Will parents have the right to decline the “educational” program without facing undue pressure from the state, hospitals, etc.? What is the logical outcome of the educational program? What happens if a doctor, nurse, caseworker, etc., feels that a mother isn’t mentally stable enough to take her newborn home?

Such a bill, if passed, has the ability to disproportionately affect Black mothers, especially those who receive government assistance or have little understanding of laws and how laws affect them.

How long will this program simply be one of research and campaigns before it takes on a more sinister tone? One that gives free reign to opportunistic “care” providers in deciding the fitness of mothers and in which mothers are given little recourse to fight back?  

In America, a country that has one of the highest infant mortality rates of a so-called civilized nation, it seems ludicrous that government and lobbyists would attempt to convince us that somehow medical “practitioners” are better equipped to decide who is fit or unfit. It seems even more improbable that we would give them the leeway to do so. But, then again, it wouldn’t be the first time.

Nandi Asase Yaa