Recently, the Bush administration proposed a policy change to expand the number of poor women and children eligible for Medicaid. Rational thinking people might think that prenatal care for poor women would delight most people, including liberals and feminists. But where some rightly see compassion for the financially less fortunate, others only see a Trojan horse and threat to sacred golden cow.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson set forth a letter of the proposed changes to state healthcare officials. Under this new policy unborn children would qualify as "targeted low-income" children -- making them eligible for the federal government's Children's Health Insurance Program.
According to a Health and Human Services department spokesman, the goal of the proposal is to "increase access to prenatal care for pregnant women . . . [with] the ultimate goal being healthier babies and healthier children. It could help many pregnant women who are not eligible for Medicaid or the children's health program." Is this not a worthy cause?
Scarcely a week goes by that we don't see a public service announcement or news report about the importance of good prenatal care. It is vital to the health of the unborn baby. So, you would think that there would be an almost universal praise for Thompson's proposal to benefit these mothers and their babies. If so, you'd be wrong.
The ink on the letter was barely dry when Kate Michelman, head of NARAL, went into a declaim-and-denounce mode. She accused the president of "seeking to score political points with . . . those who want to criminalize legal abortion by any means possible."
Michelman wasn't alone in her condemnation. Laurie Robinson, of the National Partnership for Women and Families, called the proposal a "backdoor attempt by the Bush administration to perpetuate its opposition to abortion rights." She told the New York Times that the "real goal" of the policy "is to establish a legal precedent for granting personhood to fetuses."
Oh how jumpy these radicals are, who love to sacrifice babies to their god. Oh, not their own of course, but anybodies and everybody’s babies. It is what they live for. It is their religion. You could call it the religion of abortion and they will stop at nothing and leave no stone unturned to keep their abomination viable and well and destroy more lives to their god.
For years the reporters covering the abortion debate have given the impression that the extremists and fanatics are all on the pro-life side and that all the level headed rational and reasonable people are the abortionists. This controversy once again shows who the real fanatics are. For the pro-abortion crowd, the right to any abortion, any time, for any reason, trumps everything else – even things they claim are important as the health of pregnant mothers who want their babies and the health of those babies.
If expectant mothers and those with born children can't get healthcare for their children, so what? Better a woman go without prenatal care than expose the absolute god-given (by their god) right to an abortion to the slightest risk. Even to recognize the needs of unborn children for healthcare -- in the eyes of these zealots -- is to encroach on what they call their reproductive rights (which in actually would better be termed right to sacrifice unborn babies to Satan). Remind me again: Who are the fanatics here?
In standing up for the sanctity of life, it's not good enough to present Biblical standards or say what God has to say on the issue. We have to also deny the religious fanatics of abortion the rhetorical high ground it has falsely occupied. We must not allow them to masquerade as the champions of "reproductive health" while at the same time they oppose prenatal care for the poor. The abortion-rights lobby's irrational reaction to this compassionate step to help poor women and their babies once again exposes the dishonesty and hypocrisy of their position.
This is a good example, by the way, of how Christians must practice apologetics in this age. Force the other side to take the logic of their position to its ultimate conclusion. And when you do, the absurdity of their position is made obvious. And, in this case, we can force them to admit that a healthy unborn child in a healthy mother-to-be is a good thing, not a Trojan horse. Children that are born healthy because their mothers have received proper care will only bring about less medical costs later on. Prevention is cheaper than treatment and cure!