Dave Heineman, the governor of our fine state of Nebraska, has taken a public stance against a bill (LB 1110) currently before the legislature that would provide prenatal care to poor and undocumented immigrant women. According to this article, the bill would reestablish a 20 year-old program that provided prenatal care to all low-income mothers through Medicaid, which was stopped last year when the federal government had notified the state that it could no longer use Medicaid funds to provide care to women in the country illegally. The new program would fund the care through federal SCHIP funding, which is apparently allowed.
Heineman is quoted as saying, that “after a careful and thoughtful review of the various aspects of this issue” he is “opposed to illegal immigrants receiving taxpayer-funded benefits."
Supporters of the bill believe the governor to be trying to score political points in an election year. If this is true I am confused by his logic of valuing an expectant mother’s immigration status over her status as a human being, and as the mother of a future U.S citizen. He also seems to be betting on an anti-immigrant base of support to override the dismay of other groups who have endorsed him in the past, such as Pro-Life voters, who are angered at his disregard for the health of unborn children and mothers. The Catholic Bishops of Nebraska wrote a letter to Heineman last week that said, “denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity.”
This is a fascinating and timely issue for our class, Brian. Here's what I wrote about Heineman's position back at the beginning of February: http://tr.im/Rjq7
ReplyDeleteI have been following this story as well, and I have to disagree with Heinemann's stance. Legally speaking, these fetuses (sp?), or unborn children are technically American citizens are they not? I would expect a politician who is so pro-life to fight for the rights of these unborn children.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you Brian that the mother as a human being should be cared for. I do think that Heineman's political move to appeal to anti-immigrants, however, is smart in this political climate. Even though I find it morally wrong, I think many voters in the current economic climate will be concerned with immigration and perhaps look favorably upon Heineman come November.
Matt Yglesias gave Nebraska some publicity today when he mentioned this issue on his blog (http://bit.ly/adNYOV). I think Matt hits on an important point: even if you are opposed to illegal immigration, there are much better ways to combat this. By skimping out on pre-natal care before the fetus is *actually* a citizen, we are setting ourselves up for higher costs down the road once that fetus becomes a child and has higher medical costs.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it's apparent that this action, like many/most/all actions of politicians, is purely political.
I am very happy that you decided to right about this topic. Personally I am just appalled that the Govenor (as it appears) turned this into an anti-immigration issue instead of a health issue. I was also very disappointed that he backed up his arguement by saying that the "silent majority" agress with him, and in an issue of this magnitude that affects so many people I believe that a silent majority is not a good enough argument. I also agree with you Brian that it is strange that he would disagree with this legislation while being a pro-life supporter and that many of his biggest backers are the pro-life supporters in the state. Again thanks for writing about this topic it is very interesting and is a topic that should not be just dismissed by the citizens of the state of Nebraska.
ReplyDelete