The Democrats Hate Pregnant Women, Infants, and Mothers
By Adam Graham (10/19/07)
The above title is harsh, demagogic, and unkind. It fits perfectly with the conversation that's been started by National Democrats over SCHIP, and I do have an actual reason for this audacious title.
As has been reported by the Washington Times and other outlets, an anti-pork Amendment was actually passed by the US Senate. The Amendment (passed on Roll Call vote 377) eliminated $1 million that was supposed to fund a Woodstock museum in New York State. This greatly disappointed backers of the earmark who gave $29,000 in campaign contributions to New York Senators Clinton and Schumer and still failed to get the million dollar return on their money.
The Amendment, authored by Senators Coburn (R-OK) and Kyl (R-AZ), was supported by 47 Republicans and 5 Democrats. What has not been covered anywhere is what the money goes to. The Coburn Amendment proposed taking this million dollars and redirecting it to “additional care for pregnant women, mothers, and infants”
While their House colleagues pontificated and demogoged, given the choice between supporting health care for women, mothers, and infants, or preserving parochial pork that celebrated the self-indulgence of the ‘60s, the vast majority of Democrats chose the pork.
This is an accurate description of the Democrats’ vote unlike the constant harping we’ve heard on the SCHIP veto from liberals, who pretend the SCHIP vote was against health care for America’s poorest children. The truth of the matter is that had Democrats reauthorized the program as it was, America’s poorest children would be covered and Republicans would have supported the bill.
The bill vetoed by President Bush is about extending coverage to children whose parents can afford health insurance, as well as adults into their 20s. In addition, while the program’s initial outlays will be covered by a cigarette tax increase, this revenue will be insufficient to continue to pay for the program, unless there are 22 million new smokers in the next ten years, so either higher taxes or more deficit spending will be required to make up the shortfall.
Instead of having a debate about the Democrats’ desire to expand the program, we’ve had an utterly dishonest spectacle, based on hurling personal attacks at principled Republicans and the President. We’ve had the bogus allegation that this is about serving the best interest of big tobacco, when cigarette taxes are not paid by the tobacco companies, but by smokers (who are far more likely to be poor than the general population.) The truth of the matter is that the health care industry, particularly Big HMOs—which administer SCHIP in the states and would reap the benefits of millions of new enrollees—spent $227 million on lobbying the first half of this year, much of it for this legislation. And why not? If you can reap billions in benefits from the government, a $227 million investment is not a bad deal.
It’s time to tell the truth about the charlatans in Washington who preach to us about the need to take care of children, while voting to put the needs of children and their mothers second to the needs of big campaign contributions.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Adam Graham
