Administration officials declared last week that a developing fetus should be eligible for government-funded health insurance for low-income children.

Ordinarily, the $40 billion, 10-year State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) program, which began in 1997, covers children from birth to age 19.

Although Medicaid covered developing fetuses of welfare mothers before 1981, the proposed rule change will mark the first time a federal program has tried to define childhood as beginning before birth. In fact, this change will cover them to the point of conception.

The move appears to have more political than legal significance. No matter what the federal rule says, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of fundamental rights like the determination of when childhood legally begins. So far, it has not seen fit to offer the unborn quite as many rights as it does to the born, especially in the early trimesters of development.

So, why, one wonders, has the administration chosen this politically charged way to expand health care to improve healthy childbearing among pregnant mothers?

Administration officials assure us with a straight face that this is not a ploy to create new grounds for outlawing abortion.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said the plan "is going to help poor mothers be able to take care of their unborn children and get the medical care they absolutely vitally need." Any other interpretation of its goal "is just stretching," he said.

Right. And, if you believe that, they probably have a few shares of Enron stock to sell you, too.

Congress can expand S-CHIP to include more pregnant women without changing the legal definition of a child. Several members say they will do so soon in order to render the Bush move moot.

Also, states already can extend coverage to pregnant women by obtaining a federal waiver, as New Jersey and Rhode Island did last year.

No, it is not a "stretch" to believe the Bush White House is trying to score some points with social conservatives. It's traditional politics. No smart politician forgets his or her base.

But, to the rest of us, this sly move sends a message that the anti-abortion movement usually tries to dodge — that it cares more about the unborn than it does about the born.

Since some of my best friends oppose a woman's right to choose abortion for a variety of reasons, I know that abortion foes don't always care more about the pre-born than they do about the born.

But what do you say about a government policy worded in a way that all but ignores the woman carrying the newly eligible fetus, as if she's just a biological chauffeur?

To women who want to believe their bodies belong to them, this policy says, "Think again, sister!"

But, I will take the Bush administration at its word. If the President truly is interested in expanding health care, I eagerly wait to see what he plans to do for the estimated 40 million Americans, including 10 million children, who lack health insurance, according to the American Medical Association.

In his State of the Union address, Bush called for passage this year of a Patients Bill of Rights, credits to help uninsured workers buy health care, a boost in health care spending for veterans and expansion of Medicare to pay for prescription drugs.

Those are good, much-needed proposals in a country that already has the best health care, but the most cobbled-together health care coverage in the industrialized world.

But the president did not make clear how he plans to pay for all of this plus his proposed boost in defense spending and still keep his cherished 10-year tax cut plan on schedule.

However he plans to fund his wish list, I hope he doesn't forget uninsured workers. Post-born people have health needs, too.

Copyright 2002 The Daily Camera

###