Providing prenatal care helps fetuses and women

By Serrin Foster / Special to The Detroit News - 02/13/02

A recently proposed improvement in access to health care for low-income women should be celebrated. Instead, it is being opposed by individuals and organizations who say they have women's interests at heart. What's really going on here?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed a change to an existing program to allow states to expand prenatal care, labor and delivery services for women who are uninsured but not eligible for Medicaid. An estimated 10.9 million women of childbearing age do not have health insurance. This change to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) will enable states to provide for the health needs of pregnant women who might otherwise not receive care.

It is well documented that prenatal care can improve the health outcomes for both mothers and children. Yet the United States has high rates of infant mortality, premature delivery and low birth weight compared with other developed countries. How are we different? Here, most uninsured women lack access to prenatal health care because they cannot afford the out-of-pocket expenses.

Feminists for Life believes no woman should be denied essential health care simply because she is pregnant and poor. It has long advocated replicating New York state's implementation of SCHIP, which includes prenatal care. The proposed change by HHS is a quicker, more comprehensive means to that end.

The current version of SCHIP allows states to provide health care coverage to targeted low-income children under the age of 19. With the change, states could provide coverage for children starting from conception. This is consistent with the policies of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which states that the "physical and psychosocial growth, development, and health of the individual begins prior to birth when conception is apparent and continues throughout infancy, childhood, adolescence and early adulthood. ... The responsibility of pediatrics may therefore begin with the fetus and continue through 21 years of age."

The expanded SCHIP would give many women who are not eligible for Medicaid the resources to deliver healthy children. Equally important, pregnant women at risk of complications would receive the medical treatment they need and deserve.

Sounds like a great thing for women, right? Not according to pro-choice advocates on abortion, many of whom would describe themselves as feminists. Their complaint is that because the proposed change recognizes the humanity of the unborn child, it threatens women's rights.

By this logic, anything that benefits a pregnant woman who chooses to give birth comes at the expense of women's rights. Prenatal care is not the only benefit that has fallen victim to this approach. Access to ultrasound technology and legal remedies for pregnant women who are injured or killed are two other examples.

A recent fund-raising letter for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), opposing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, said the act "would be the first federal law ever to recognize a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus as a separate person." The letter does not mention that opposing this legislation could deny grieving women legal remedies for the loss of their unborn children.

Pro-choice advocates have also opposed legislation that would give more women access to the benefits of ultrasound technology by providing funding for pregnancy care centers to purchase ultrasound equipment.

NARAL President Kate Michelman said, "It never fails to amaze me how little respect they have for women's capacity to understand what goes on inside our bodies. I faced a crisis pregnancy after having three children, and I didn't need anyone to tell me that my pregnancy would result in giving birth to a person."

If she did not wish to see her own unborn child, that was her choice. The issue is that NARAL seeks to deny other women access to this "window on the womb."

For years, pro-choice advocates have been pitting women against their unborn children, dehumanizing the growing child with clinical terms and obscure phrases like "blobs of cells" and "products of conception." Fetus is a Latin word meaning "young child" or "young one."

But in practice, the fetus is becoming a clinical, dehumanized term for an unborn child. Imagine if some group tried to deny medical care for gravidas. Once someone figured out that was the Latin word for pregnant women, the bewilderment would quickly shift to outrage.

Perhaps this semantic game is an effective strategy for promoting pro-choice abortion rights. But it also denies pregnant women information and resources they need and deserve to make a choice other than abortion.

Serrin Foster is president of Feminists for Life of America, a Washington, D.C. group. Write letters to The Detroit News, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, Mich. 48226, or fax to (313) 222-6417 or send e-mail to letters@detnews.com.