Only 15 legislative days remain in the Nebraska Unicameral’s regular session for 2010. Some earlier-hinted speculation that legislators might not use all 60 working days allowed for this session now appears remote. A significant amount of prioritized legislation remains on the worksheet.
A bill sure to spark intense debate and likely, but lamentably, a showdown with the governor is LB 1110. It proposes to reinstate longstanding governmentally funded prenatal care and services for unborn children in impoverished families. Codifying the unborn-child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program will allow Nebraska to continue this medically-important coverage for all eligible unborn children in the state irrespective of the mothers’ immigration status.
What’s more, since the federal share of costs is greater under CHIP than under “regular” Medicaid, the state can continue the coverage and still have savings over what the cost would have been had such coverage under Medicaid been allowed to continue.
LB 1110 is a win-win: continuing the long-term benefits of prenatal care for unborn children from impoverished families at a cost lower than what it has been.
For those who are inclined to react to this as an issue of providing benefits to illegal immigrants, notwithstanding the reality that the true recipients of such benefits are unborn children, who are not illegal immigrants but presumptive U.S. citizens, reading both LB 1110 and its fiscal note would be a helpful, conscientious thing to do. Both documents are available through the Legislature’s website.
Those who maintain that churches and charities should step in and meet the prenatal healthcare needs of all those in the impacted category are naively or intentionally unrealistic about the scope and scale of these needs. They also may be ignoring the essential functions and social responsibilities of government.
By now it is well-known through media reports that Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop William Dendinger of Grand Island wrote to Governor Heineman, respectfully asking him to reconsider his announced opposition to LB 1110. The essence of the bishops’ message is the following:
“This is an important and urgent Pro Life matter, Governor. Obviously, the need for, and importance of, prenatal care and services only exist when a woman is pregnant, carrying an unborn child in her womb.... Denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity and Pro Life principles. It is a terrible injustice, which could do great harm to the lives of children at a very vulnerable stage in their development. What’s worse, the lack of access to coverage for such care could be a decisive factor in leading some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth, each time a tragedy.
“Assisting unborn children to have a healthier start to life makes abundant sense, not only from an economic standpoint, since healthcare needs are likely to be considerably greater without the benefits of prenatal care and services, but also from a human rights standpoint as well. The immigration status of their mothers should not be allowed to adversely affect the health and well-being of the unborn children. When balanced against the legitimate public-policy concerns about illegal immigration, caring for the unborn children should be the higher priority, as the right thing to do.”
The letter was hand-delivered to the governor’s office on March 2. As of March 15 there had not been a direct response. Nonetheless, comments made for media purposes suggest that his opposition to reinstating prenatal coverage for unborn children regardless of their mothers’ immigration status is firm.
The governor’s vigorous opposition significantly increases the challenge for enacting LB 1110, especially for legislators who desire to remain true to pro-life principles of respect for the sanctity and individuality of human life in the womb and safeguarding the health of these vulnerable lives.
In the face of political repercussions, is being pro-life a matter of commitment to fundamental principle or more a matter of lip-service? That’s a dilemma of conscience some legislators might have to face with regard to LB 1110. Politicians who tell voters they are pro-life, but turn their backs on an opportunity to support the unborn deserve to be viewed with skepticism.
To their credit, six of the seven members of the Health and Human Services Committee voted to advance LB 1110 to the full Legislature for floor debate and supported making it a priority bill. Appreciation and commendation are due these six: Senators Tim Gay (chairman), Kathy Campbell (introducer), Mike Gloor, Gwen Howard, Arnie Stuthman and Norm Wallman. The same is true for those who exhibited leadership by adding their names as co-sponsors of this important legislation: Senators Howard, Bob Krist, Colby Coach, Jeremy Nordquest, Ken Hear and Abby Cornett.
And finally…. according to at least three dictionaries, the word “illegal” is not a noun. Thus, referring to unauthorized immigrants as “the illegals” is incorrect. It is also inappropriate and dehumanizing.
-
Youth Protection +
-
Evangelization & Catechesis +
-
Catholic Schools +
-
Youth Ministry +
-
Family Life & Discipleship +
-
News & Media +
-
Directory, Maps & Mass Times +
-
Diocese Home +
