Anti-choice ploy disguised as a health-care proposal - WRITE LETTERS BEFORE MAY 6, 2002

On Tuesday, March 5, 2002, the Bush Administration took a giant step towards its ultimate goal of making abortion illegal. On that day, the Bush Administration published a proposed rule designating embryos and fetuses as "children"; eligible for medical benefits under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). (67 Fed. Reg. No. 43, pp. 9936-9939). Importantly, the pregnant woman herself is notconsidered the patient.

Under the joint federal/state SCHIP program, states provide health care to low income children who are not covered by the Medicaid program. Currently, both SCHIP and Medicaid laws allow states to cover more pregnant women than would otherwise be eligible under the programs' general rules. This is an essential point, because it proves that the Administration's move - which they claim will expand access to prenatal care - is unnecessary. If the Administration were truly interested in enhancing health care for pregnant women, it would simply encourage states to do so through their existing authority.

PLEASE WRITE LETTERS NOW - DON'T WAIT - THE ANTI-CHOICE CROWD WILL WRITE LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSED RULE. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE OUR VOICES ARE HEARD TOO!!!!! Tell the Bush Administration that there are better ways to promote prenatal care and the health of newborns, and that we emphatically oppose this stealth strategy to give embryos and fetusesformal legal rights.

To convey your views to the Bush Administration, send comments by May 6, 2002. One original and three copies should be addressed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attn: CMS-2127-P, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8016. Please refer to the talking points below when crafting your letter.

For more information on the SCHIP program, please goto http://www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/chip_points.html.

For more information on the SCHIP program, please goto http://www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/chip_points.html.


Key points to articulate in any forum regarding thisrule are the following:

* NARAL has long supported initiatives to provide prenatal care for pregnant women; indeed, the millions of uninsured deserve comprehensive health care.

* Yet the Administration's proposal is designed with a different goal in mind - establishing an embryo or fetus, from the moment of conception, as a separate beneficiary of government programs.

* The Administration's clear long-term goal is to have the government make abortion illegal. An interim step is to establish that embryos are persons under the law. This proposal does just that - it makes embryos persons under the law for purposes of eligibility forthe SCHIP program.

* If the Administration were sincere about providing health- insurance coverage for pregnant women, it would not need to promulgate new regulations defining embryos as children. Rather, it could simply accomplish the goal by approving state “waivers” under SCHIP's existing statutory framework. Its failure to take this established course reveals that the true intent behind the Administration's proposal is not to expand health-care coverage to a vulnerable population, but to undermine a woman's right to choose. In sum, this is an anti-choice ploy disguisedas a health-care proposal.

* The proposal is further troubling because it could actually do harm to women by pitting them against the program's “patients” - the embryos. The effects of many prescription drugs on pregnancies have not been studied - under this proposal, a woman's treatment might be denied, including potentially life-saving radiation treatment or chemotherapy, in favor of the embryo or fetus. If a woman were carrying an embryo or fetus covered under this new proposal and she had a miscarriage, there would no longer be a “beneficiary” for the SCHIP program. Would the government then refuse to pay for her follow-up care? The administration's failure to address the many practical problems with implementing this proposal indicates that this is not serious health-care policy; it is a political statement instead.