"Unborn Child Rule" Could Stymie SCHIP
Insurance for Children
The State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) will expire December 14 unless
a short-term extension or a long-term solution is found. First begun in 1997,
the program ensures health care for approximately 6.6 million children whose
families are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford or
do not have health insurance. President Bush and the Medical and Religious
Right have blocked bipartisan Congressional proposals to renew the program
and extend it to another 3.3 million children. Easter
Seals and other children's health advocates are firmly behind renewing
and expanding the program.
Most public discussion of SCHIP has been about whether the expansion will cover children who are not truly poor, will lead to universal healthcare, or will cost too much. Behind the scenes, however, another issue simmers and hypercharges the debate. It has to do with extending healthcare to fetuses and further establishing what the Religious Right calls the “unborn child rule.”
Several influential Medical and Religious Right groups that claim to speak for families are against SCHIP unless the “unborn child rule” is written into the law.
The “unborn child rule” refers to a new definition of “child” adopted in 2002 by President Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson to include “the period from conception to birth.” Previously, prenatal care had been provided under SCHIP by covering pregnant women,.Covering fetuses, rather than pregnant women, brings the Medical Right a step closer to one of its most important goals: elevating the status of the fetus.
The new proposals in Congress to reauthorize and expand SCHIP did not incorporate the changed definition of a child. This has become a bone of contention for the right-wing. CitizenLink, a publication of Focus on the Family, claimed the president would veto the expansion of SCHIP because it did not include “coverage for certain unborn children and their mothers and numerous other issues.” As early as July, a White House Statement of Administrative Policy complained about weakening “the current option available to states to cover unborn children,” according to the Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report.
An amendment to make the “unborn child rule” into a permanent fixture of the law was proposed by Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) but was defeated by one vote, 50-49. The right-wing lobbying group Concerned Women for America sent out a legislative action alert, saying that the Allard amendment “respects the sanctity of all human life.” Without it, “at the close of the Bush Administration, then, unborn children may lose this important protection and coverage.” The National Right to Life Committee felt so strongly about the matter that that it designated the vote as one of six to be included on its electoral “report card,” a key rating for anti-abortion politicians.
Family Research Council demanded a “no” vote on the House version of the SCHIP legislation for the same reason. An action alert began: “This bill will FORCE YOU to pay for children’s health insurance that undermines coverage of unborn children, and for ‘family planning’ services that will fund Planned Parenthood.” The message continued: “The new House bill changes the SCHIP program to cover health insurance for a ‘pregnant woman,’ rather than cover the child in the womb. This would undermine the ‘unborn child rule.’” Even though the law expressly prohibited use of the funds for abortion services, FRC argued SCHIP funds could free up state monies to be used for abortions.
In September, the right-wing Heritage Foundation, a consistent opponent of
the legislation, issued a four-page report, “Why Families Should Be
Concerned about SCHIP.” The top reason was, “Changing the Status
of the Unborn.” The report complained that the Senate version permitted
states the option of covering “the unborn child” but did not “command
it,” while the House version permitted states to cover pregnant women
but “is silent on the unborn.” The alarming conclusion: “While,
under a pro-life president, this ‘unborn child’ policy would likely
continue, under a non-pro-life president, it would probably not.”
Some religious groups supported the SCHIP legislation, including the Religious
Coalition for Reproductive Choice and the PICO National Network of 1,000 religious
congregations. Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association
of the United States, called upon the president to sign SCHIP as “responsible,
bipartisan legislation.” Catholic Charities USA lobbied for a Congressional
override of the presidential veto.
Unable to override the veto by the two-thirds vote needed, Congress worked to pass new legislation, which the president said he would veto again. The Family Research Council continued to attack the program. Its Washington Update on November 9 started: “SCHIP: Clinically Insane” and decried problems including “inflated costs, rejection of a codification of the unborn child rule, and a provision that could create state-based health clinics using federal funds.”
Families who are trying to meet children’s health care needs will be the real losers if SCHIP expires in the wake of anti-abortion politics. Easter Seals, which helps the disabled and is a strong supporter of the latest SCHIP legislation, said that it is “one sure way” to “promote healthy, happy and productive lives for all children.”
Cynthia Cooper
December 11, 2007
Specific ways you can help fight back against the Medical Right:
Make a donation NOW to support our “Medical Right” Watch.
Join our activist network to share your views about the “Medical Right” with opinion leaders and elected officials and to stay updated on the latest developments.
Email us if you see organizations from our Rogue’s Gallery in the media or actively working in your community.
Download the Medical Right report
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice • 1413 K Street NW • 14th Floor • Washington, DC 20005
P: (202) 628-7700 • F: (202) 628-7716 • E: info@rcrc.org • Our Privacy Policy