Well, Saturday's Washington Post has an editorial on the decision to expand health insurance coverage to unborn babies. In the past, I've done my best to follow Associated Press conventions (abortion-rights supporters/opponents) in addressing the abortion issue, because I think that the name-calling on both sides is destructive. I'm reconsidering my position after seeing the editorial. Editorials are not supposed to be unbiased, but I'm angry and disappointed by the Post's liberal use of "anti-choice" to describe those who believe that abortion is murder. Both sides of the abortion issue are really pro-choice, the dispute is over when the choice has been made.

The editorial, entitled "A Cynical, Political Act" begins:

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION has seized on the widely supported goal of extending prenatal care to score cheap political points with antiabortion forces. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson proposed a rule change under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that would make a developing fetus eligible for government-funded health insurance for low-income children. As a scheme to provide health care to more women during pregnancy, the HHS proposal is unnecessary. The SCHIP program already allows states to get waivers to use federal subsidies to care for pregnant women. As a scheme to undermine abortion rights by defining childhood as beginning before birth, however, Mr. Thompson's proposal is right on the mark -- and a sop to the anti-choice crowd.

So, the proposed rule change is unnecessary because states can get waivers (under a Clinton administration-era rule) to use the insurance for prenatal care. Well, let's look at this....the states can get a waiver. What if the state government doesn't want to get a waiver, yet there are women in the state that need the prenatal treatment? Well, they'd be outta luck.

The Post continues: "The HHS secretary, if his interest had been solely related to providing prenatal care, could just as easily have broadened rule coverage to explicitly include expectant mothers."

Well, if you read the first excerpt, the program is called the "State Children's Health Insurance Program." The program only covers children, not mothers, by statute. In order to extend the health coverage, they needed to expand the definition of "children."

Whatever your politics, this issue is really much ado about nothing as far as the abortion debate goes. As noted by lawyers and pundits shortly after the proposed rule change was announced, it has no effect on Roe v. Wade. No woman is going to be denied an abortion by the move.