The Hill: The most cost-effective way to save a life depends how you define saving a life
Rebecca Oas, associate director of research at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam)

“…Given the stated purpose of the bill, it is not surprising that the Reach Act, both now and in its 2015 iteration, received a great deal of bipartisan support from lawmakers who believe that mothers and babies around the world deserve the chance to survive and thrive. But while ambitious goals and soaring rhetoric may serve to gather support, it is the definitions and metrics that ultimately determine whether legislation can succeed. … Given that no less than a third of this bill’s child beneficiaries are phantoms of statistical convenience, such dubious accounting should not form the basis of an accountability framework, much less be used to determine the best use of funding from the American taxpayer. … Ultimately, the determination of what is the most cost-effective way to save the most lives hinges on how you define saving a life. The definitions undergirding the goals of this legislation are, simply put, quite a reach” (10/1).