John Whitehead's Commentary
Compassionate Conservatism Is Giving Low-Income Mothers a Choice
According to a March of Dimes study entitled "The Distribution of Health Insurance Coverage Among Pregnant Women, 1990-1997," approximately 465,000 women who gave birth in 1997 were uninsured. In the years since, it is doubtless that the numbers have changed much, especially as the economy continues to weaken and an increasing number of Americans find themselves out of work.
So the news that the Bush administration will offer expanded prenatal health-care services to low-income women under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) should be applauded by all who claim to care about the health of women, children and the poor.
Finally, in some instances, "compassionate conservatism" seems to be more than just a campaign slogan. It's about time, too, if what Campbell Gardett, spokesman for the Human Health Services, says is accurate.
According to Gardett, until the 1970s and '80s, poor pregnant women actually qualified for federal social welfare and Medicaid. But Gardett claims the language and eligibility qualifications were removed because of conservatives' concerns that poor women were having children just to get welfare or Medicaid.
Yet the news that this Republican administration is now reaching out to impoverished women in need is not pleasing many in the women's rights movement. Rather than acknowledging the large numbers of women who will benefit from quality health care as a result of this program change, abortion rights advocates are accusing the Bush administration of playing politics and attempting to weaken abortion rights.
Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation, sees this policy change as being another example of the Bush administration "showing that they have no regard for women and they're more concerned about placating the religious right than they are about women's health."
So why are these so-called women's rights advocates so outraged? Because in qualifying these low-income expectant mothers for prenatal care, the Bush administration is redefining eligible participants in the program as "children from conception to age 19," thus defining fetuses as actual unborn children.
The concern, of course, is that the unborn child may gain more legal rights than the mother. However, in a debate that has become highly politicized since the Supreme Court sanctioned abortion in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, it is particularly ironic that the very groups that have claimed to have a concern for the "health" of women are now the same ones protesting legislation that would provide greater health care to expectant mothers.
For 30 years, abortion rights advocates have emphasized the rights of women to make their own health-care choices. Suddenly, however, close to 500,000 women are going to be able to do just that--and few women's rights advocates are cheering.
Yet it is a known fact that pregnant women without health insurance often face high risks during their pregnancy. Women who do not receive prenatal care or who begin care late in their pregnancy are twice as likely as women who receive early prenatal care to deliver a low-birth-weight baby. And treating and caring for a premature or low-birth-weight baby is one of the most costly reasons for hospitalization in America today.
Obviously, the danger to women posed by the lack of prenatal insurance should be of concern to all. Yet abortion advocates seem immune to the dangers, focused as they have been on their "right to choose" agenda--the right to choose to abort a baby; the right to choose one's course of health. But the so-called right to choose, in some cases, endangers women's lives. Now we have impoverished women being given a choice in how to care for themselves and their unborn children, rather than being forced to suffer through malnutrition and life-threatening situations. And few pro-choicers are celebrating. Is it perhaps because these women are choosing to keep their babies?
At a time when politicians and special interest groups alike are lobbying for health care reform and a way to reach out to the large numbers of uninsured Americans, it is indeed disheartening that few women's groups can disengage from their political diatribes long enough to acknowledge the good that might come from this new change.
That's because it is a good change. According to the March of Dimes, if every state covered income-eligible pregnant women over the age of 19 under CHIP, 99 percent of all pregnant women in the U.S. would have access to health insurance coverage.
Imagine that. Ninety-nine out of every 100 pregnant women would be assured health coverage. With more than 42 million Americans who can't afford to get sick due to lack of health insurance, surely this signals a step in the right direction.
So, in spite of all the mud thrown at the Bush administration over this new program, let me be one of the first to congratulate them for making a humane and compassionate decision--and for showing that smart governing is possible.
After all, isn't it time we commend our government leaders for making the right decisions--and stop politicizing issues that have more to do with simple human decency than anything else?
So the news that the Bush administration will offer expanded prenatal health-care services to low-income women under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) should be applauded by all who claim to care about the health of women, children and the poor.
Finally, in some instances, "compassionate conservatism" seems to be more than just a campaign slogan. It's about time, too, if what Campbell Gardett, spokesman for the Human Health Services, says is accurate.
According to Gardett, until the 1970s and '80s, poor pregnant women actually qualified for federal social welfare and Medicaid. But Gardett claims the language and eligibility qualifications were removed because of conservatives' concerns that poor women were having children just to get welfare or Medicaid.
Yet the news that this Republican administration is now reaching out to impoverished women in need is not pleasing many in the women's rights movement. Rather than acknowledging the large numbers of women who will benefit from quality health care as a result of this program change, abortion rights advocates are accusing the Bush administration of playing politics and attempting to weaken abortion rights.
Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation, sees this policy change as being another example of the Bush administration "showing that they have no regard for women and they're more concerned about placating the religious right than they are about women's health."
So why are these so-called women's rights advocates so outraged? Because in qualifying these low-income expectant mothers for prenatal care, the Bush administration is redefining eligible participants in the program as "children from conception to age 19," thus defining fetuses as actual unborn children.
The concern, of course, is that the unborn child may gain more legal rights than the mother. However, in a debate that has become highly politicized since the Supreme Court sanctioned abortion in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, it is particularly ironic that the very groups that have claimed to have a concern for the "health" of women are now the same ones protesting legislation that would provide greater health care to expectant mothers.
For 30 years, abortion rights advocates have emphasized the rights of women to make their own health-care choices. Suddenly, however, close to 500,000 women are going to be able to do just that--and few women's rights advocates are cheering.
Yet it is a known fact that pregnant women without health insurance often face high risks during their pregnancy. Women who do not receive prenatal care or who begin care late in their pregnancy are twice as likely as women who receive early prenatal care to deliver a low-birth-weight baby. And treating and caring for a premature or low-birth-weight baby is one of the most costly reasons for hospitalization in America today.
Obviously, the danger to women posed by the lack of prenatal insurance should be of concern to all. Yet abortion advocates seem immune to the dangers, focused as they have been on their "right to choose" agenda--the right to choose to abort a baby; the right to choose one's course of health. But the so-called right to choose, in some cases, endangers women's lives. Now we have impoverished women being given a choice in how to care for themselves and their unborn children, rather than being forced to suffer through malnutrition and life-threatening situations. And few pro-choicers are celebrating. Is it perhaps because these women are choosing to keep their babies?
At a time when politicians and special interest groups alike are lobbying for health care reform and a way to reach out to the large numbers of uninsured Americans, it is indeed disheartening that few women's groups can disengage from their political diatribes long enough to acknowledge the good that might come from this new change.
That's because it is a good change. According to the March of Dimes, if every state covered income-eligible pregnant women over the age of 19 under CHIP, 99 percent of all pregnant women in the U.S. would have access to health insurance coverage.
Imagine that. Ninety-nine out of every 100 pregnant women would be assured health coverage. With more than 42 million Americans who can't afford to get sick due to lack of health insurance, surely this signals a step in the right direction.
So, in spite of all the mud thrown at the Bush administration over this new program, let me be one of the first to congratulate them for making a humane and compassionate decision--and for showing that smart governing is possible.
After all, isn't it time we commend our government leaders for making the right decisions--and stop politicizing issues that have more to do with simple human decency than anything else?
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
