Unborn babies declared 'unborn babies' Subscribe   
  From:  123four   2/1/2002 10:37 am  
To:  ALL   (1 of 7)  
 
  307.1  
 
I have read on another forum that 
unborn babies (fetuses) will be 
declared unborn babies so that 
the unborn baby can have medical 
coverage thru CHIPS, an medical 
plan of the gov't that covers 
children with medical care when 
the parents cannot afford it. 
This is wonderful that the little 
babies are getting some help now. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    2/1/2002 12:54 pm  
To:  123four   (2 of 7)  
 
  307.2 in reply to 307.1  
 
Hi 123four,

 

Tucked into the child in the womb debate is the well established Fact that children in the womb feel pain. The womb provides and excellent opportunity for certain corrective surgeries to take place and then the baby continues to develop after the corrective surgery.

 

But because the baby is often not considered a person in the womb, many doctors withhold pain relief from the baby, actually operating on the baby w/o any anesthesia. Studies and the experiences of the Doctors are now convincing the medical realm that the baby in the womb does need to be treated as the Person it is!

 

This is a great step for baby rights, look for these babies to receive proper medical attention especially in the womb.

 

Of course abortion is the cruelest of medical practices and it is administered w/o anesthesia of any kind.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  123four   2/1/2002 12:59 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (3 of 7)  
 
  307.3 in reply to 307.2  
 
Yes, the sucking out of the babie's 
brains, cutting off arms, legs, and 
or the saline which burns the baby 
is so horrible, can't think about it. 
These or at least one of these 
things happen as that is what abortion 
is-the killing of a little baby, who 
didn't asked to be born in the 
first place. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   2/1/2002 3:11 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (4 of 7)  
 
  307.4 in reply to 307.2  
 
David, 
When i was pregnant with my son, for various reasons i saw him on ultrasound at 9 weeks. He was a person! 

At 20 weeks, we were offered the "maternal serum test" to screen for down syndrome (which by the way is the best of about a bazillion syndromes) spina bifida (which does not affect intelligence) and trysomy 13 (ok, this one is bad). I asked what could be done anyway at 20 weeks to help, and the doctor explained that if my baby had one of these, they would inject him with saline, he would die and i would then "terminate". 

I refused all tests, because i knew there was NO WAY i could do that and thank God my son was healthy. BUT just down the hall, they fight to save the lives of 20 weekers born prematurely. 

Go figure



  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    2/1/2002 6:11 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (5 of 7)  
 
  307.5 in reply to 307.4  
 
Hi Karen,

 

Thank you for your inspirational posting.

 

I applaud you and everyone who makes the tough decisions in life and sticks with them.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   2/1/2002 6:13 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (6 of 7)  
 
  307.6 in reply to 307.5  
 
thanks David


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    2/3/2002 3:49 pm  
To:  ALL   (7 of 7)  
 
  307.7 in reply to 307.6  
 
From:  The Pro-Life Infonet www.prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject:   Bush Administration Promotes Health Coverage for Unborn
Children
Source:   Associated Press, Cybercast News Service, Pro-Life Infonet;
January 31, 2002

Bush Administration Promotes Health Coverage for Unborn Children

Washington, DC -- States may classify a developing baby as an ``unborn
child'' eligible for government health care, the Bush administration said
Thursday, giving low-income women access to prenatal care and bolstering
the arguments of pro-life advocates.

The plan will make an unborn child eligible for health care under the
State Children's Health Insurance Program. Because CHIP is aimed at kids,
it does not typically cover parents or pregnant women.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson cited well-established
data on the importance of prenatal care in explaining the proposal.

``Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of the
medical care every person should have through the course of their life
cycle,'' Thompson said in a statement. ``Prenatal services can be a vital,
lifelong determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make
this care available for all pregnant women.''

States, which administer CHIP, would have the option of including unborn
children in their programs. Doing so would make the mother eligible for
prenatal and delivery care.

"We applaud this Bush Administration proposal to recognize the existence
of an unborn child in order to allow the baby, and the mother as well, to
receive adequate pre-natal care -- a concept to which only the most
extreme pro-abortion ideologues will object," Douglas Johnson, legislative
director for the National Right to Life Committee, said in a statement.

Family Research Council President Ken Connor also applauded the Bush
administration decision.

"All human life should be valued and protected," Connor expalined. "That
includes the health and lives of unborn children.  Our nation's public
health care agencies should not discriminate against pregnant women and
their unborn children.  We applaud President Bush and Secretary Thompson
for setting right this past wrong and taking a significant step toward the
president's goal of building a 'culture of life.'"

Abortion supporters complain that there are other ways to include coverage
for pregnant women in CHIP. They see Thursday's action as a backdoor
attempt to establish the unborn child as a person with legal standing,
which could make it easier to make abortion illegal.

Said Laurie Rubiner of the National Partnership for Women and Families"
``I just have to believe their hidden agenda is to extend personhood to a
fetus.''

Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life, disagreed with
pro-abortion groups that criticized the Bush administration's decision.

"It is well-established that greater access to prenatal care can improve
long-term health outcomes for both mother and child," Foster explained.
"Allowing the states to provide for the health needs of pregnant women and
their unborn children through the Children's Health Insurance Program will
give many women who are not eligible for Medicaid the resources to deliver
healthy children," Foster said.

FRC's Connor also criticized the objections.

"It would be shameful for pro-abortion advocates to oppose this policy for
the sake of staking out political ground.  Unborn children deserve the
same health care benefits as all Americans," Connor said.

States may already cover pregnant women under the health program, though
they have to get specific permission from HHS since CHIP was designed for
children, not adults.

Thompson said automatically including the unborn child is the quickest way
to get prenatal services to the most women.

The waiver process ``would take longer than extending it this way,'' said
HHS spokesman Campbell Gardett.

Thompson said he also supports legislation pending in the Senate that
would allow states to automatically add pregnant women to CHIP, much as
poor pregnant women are eligible for Medicaid.

Administration officials said last summer that they were considering this
policy change. At the time, the National Governors Association cautioned
HHS that while some states would embrace the new option and some would
immediately reject it, other states would face divisive battles over
whether to go along.

NRLC's Johnson said the Bush administration's new classification isn't the
first of its kind, and no other rules that give "unborn children" legal
status have ever affected the legality of abortion. "There is already a
substantial amount of state law and some federal law that recognizes
unborn children as legal members of the human family for different
purposes," he said.

"The Supreme Court has decreed that it doesn't apply in the abortion
context, but they never said that the government can't recognize the
reality of unborn children for other purposes," Johnson added.

"It makes no sense that if a woman shows up at a clinic and says she wants
her child to be covered, and [the health care provider says], 'You don't
have a child yet. You're pregnant, but you don't have child. Come back
after you give birth and we will give you medical care,'" he said.

The new policy will not take effect until after it is published in the
Federal Register and the department considers public comments.

--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org For more pro-life




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
 
