Bush moves for fetus rights
President Bush’s decision to allow a developing fetus to be classified as an unborn child eligible for government health care may be politically motivated, said Karrie Galloway, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Utah.
According to an Associated Press article on Jan. 31, the Bush administration said the decision to allow the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, to classify fetuses as unborn children gives low-income women access to prenatal care.
Yet, according to the Associated Press, “Abortion rights supporters complain that there are other ways to include coverage for pregnant women in CHIP,” and see this action “as a backdoor attempt to establish the fetus as a person with legal standing, which could make it easier to criminalize abortion.”
Galloway said, “It is essential for pregnant women to receive prenatal health care.”
However, Galloway also said the reasons behind Bush’s decision are unclear because pregnant women, of all income levels, already receive prenatal health care through health programs such as Baby Your Baby, community health centers and other state health care programs.
“I am certainly not opposed to women not eligible for health care getting all the care they need,” Galloway said. “[But] you have to wonder if [Bush’s decision] is politically motivated.”
Galloway said it is not possible for Bush to actually declare a fetus as a living person with rights because only the Supreme Court ruling to make an amendment to the Constitution can change such classifications.
Bill Wilcox, an associated professor of philosophy and social ethics teacher at Utah State University, also said Bush’s decision cannot change the overall legal status of a fetus.
“His decision simply allows more money to be available for health care.,” Wilcox said. “The motives behind his decision are not politically honest, because the practical implications of this are negligible. But it is still a good thing as it extends more health care to women.”
According to the Associated Press, Laurie Rubiner of the National Partnership for Women and Families said she believes the Bush administration has a “hidden agenda” to extend personhood to a fetus.
Galloway said one reason she cannot entirely agree with Bush’s action is because by saying a fetus in a pregnant woman has rights, “you have superseded the rights of the mother who is carrying it.”
She said if carrying a pregnancy to term has life-threatening risks then who is allowed to make the final decision, “the mother or a person with a political agenda?”
“You’ve opened not just a political debate, but an ethical can of worms,” Galloway said.
However, Wilcox said, “This particular decision has little to do with that moral debate and more to do with playing the game of the political arena.”
Alecia Fredrickson, a senior business administration major and founder of Families First, said she believes Bush’s action is “a step in the right direction, because by recognizing a fetus as a living human being … can help to strengthen the family.”