NOW President Sees Clear Agenda in Bush Decision to Classify Fetus as an "Unborn Child"

NOW ^ | Feb. 2, 2002 | Rebecca Farmer, NOW Press Office

[Exigence]

Subj: news-releases NOW President Sees Clear Agenda in Bush Decision to Classify Fetus as an "Unborn Child"
Date: 2/1/2002 11:20:44 AM Central Standard Time
From: press@now.org (NOW Press Department)
Sender: news-releases-owner@now.org
Reply-to: press@now.org (NOW Press Department)
To: news-releases@now.org

NOW Press Office
202-628-8669 Rebecca Farmer, x 116
202-785-8576 (fax)

NOW President Kim Gandy Sees Clear Agenda in Bush Decision to Classify Fetus as an "Unborn Child"

January 31, 2002

"Today George W. Bush took yet another step toward reversing women's right to abortion under Roe v. Wade," said NOW President Kim Gandy, responding to Bush's decision to allow states to classify a fetus as an "unborn child" under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), purportedly to cover prenatal and delivery services. "This is a transparent ploy to grant legal 'personhood' to embryos and fetuses."

"Coverage of prenatal care is an absolutely critical women's health issue. I'm appalled that George Bush is using the very legitimate needs of poor women to make an end run around Roe," continued Gandy. "If Bush wanted to allow states to cover pregnant women under this program, he'd make it easier and faster for states to receive waivers -- he would make it automatic. Bush's guy at Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, said that he would support legislation currently pending in the Senate that would allow states to automatically add pregnant women to CHIPs. So why doesn't Bush put his weight behind getting that legislation passed?"

"Bush has made his agenda quite clear in recent weeks," said Gandy. "He declared Jan. 20 as 'National Sanctity of Human Life Day' saying that 'unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law.' He even made a not-so-subtle comparison of legal abortion to the events of Sept. 11."

Gandy also added that Bush made a point of delivering a speech via phone to the March for Life participants on Jan. 22, the 29th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. In his remarks, Bush again stated that "our nation should set a great goal" to protect unborn children "in law."

"NOW challenges the White House and Bush supporters in Congress to mandate health coverage of low-income pregnant women," said Gandy. "But the health and livelihood of poor women and their families doesn't appear to be Bush's goal." Gandy noted that President Bush's budget last year sought to cut the Maternal and Child Health Block Grants that provide health care to women before, during and after pregnancy, and to freeze the Healthy Start program, which has been shown to reduce infant mortality and morbidity.

"Endowing a fetus with more rights than a pregnant woman is more than a back door attempt to restrict abortion rights," Gandy said. "It's also a slap in the face to women everywhere."

###

[Exigence]

What? Truth telling?

Oops! There's your mistake. You are assuming that NOW wants anyone to tell the truth -- ever.

Remember how in Love Story that love meant never having to say you're sorry? Well, NOW means never having to tell the truth. *g*

[Exigence]

Interesting that we have a president who finds ways to change hearts and minds, which is the only real way to end abortion.

I absolutely agree.

[Prerunner]

This is from their site. I like #7, a non-partisan org.

4. How many members does NOW currently have?

NOW is the largest feminist organization in the nation, with more than half a million
contributing members. NOW has more than 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

7. Is NOW affiliated with any one political party?

No, NOW is a non-partisan organization. Candidates of all political parties are eligible
for endorsement by NOW/PAC and by state and local NOW Political Action Committee.

[eaglebeak]

Hate to burst the bubble here, but this is politics, pure and simple. Bush is pandering to prolifers, period. Ultimately this is up to individual states.

[MrB]

Ultimately this is up to individual states.

Yes, but current law says that the states cannot pass laws against the practice. Therefor, the current law is unconstitutional.
Step 1, return the decision to the state level where it belongs.
Step 2, work in your state to get the law to uphold the rights of the individuals who are not born yet.