Legislators’ Dilemma Alleviated On Prenatal Care Issue
The Nebraska Legislature is a remarkable institution. That’s not only
because of its uniqueness as the sole unicameral among all the states, or
the fact it makes both public policy and history on a regular basis. It’s
also because it assembles 49, elected citizen-legislators and facilitates
and coordinates much of their public-service, encompassing their
personalities, principles, ideas, political concerns and judgments. It is
more than a process; it’s the unique sum of unique parts. It has its own
existence, role and influence.
The role and influence of the Legislature as institution were on display
recently. It happened on the controversial and emotionally charged issue of
reinstating governmentally supported prenatal care services for unborn
children of impoverished families, regardless of the mothers’ federal
immigration status. After 30 years or more of having such a policy, relying
upon the federally established Medicaid program, Nebraska was suddenly told
by federal officials that its policy was impermissible and no longer
qualified to receive federal funding. The reason? Medicaid never has
recognized the unborn child as the recipient of benefits in his or her own
right, as a separate individual. What’s more, if the unborn child’s mother
is an unauthorized immigrant, she is ineligible.
What all happened next has been documented by generally good reporting and
numerous editorials. Once it became definite that administrative action to
overcome this “surprise” development was not going to be implemented, even
though it was possible to do so, enough legislators cast a procedural vote
to suspend the Legislature’s rules to allow for late introduction of
remedial legislation.
LB 1110 proposed to reinstate prenatal care services for all unborn
children of impoverished mothers using the specific unborn-child option of
another federal program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
What’s more, due to its higher federal-funding share, exercising this option
likely would have meant continuation of the policy at less cost than had
been the case. The CHIP unborn-child option also offered obvious cost
savings from the preventive effects of prenatal care services on the
longer-term health and well-being of the babies, who, once born, become
eligible for health care coverage under Medicaid.
After a public hearing, the Health and Human Services Committee voted 6-1
to advance LB 1110 to the full Legislature and designated it as a priority
bill.
Unless something unexpected and dramatic takes place in the final eight
days of the session, the report on LB 1110 will be that it never had much
chance for enactment, at least in a thorough, logical version that would do
the most good for at-risk unborn children. For one thing, once the bill
“reached the floor,” the Governor’s opposition to providing
governmentally-funded prenatal care services for unborn children of “illegals”
was firmly set, imposing a dark cloud over the prospects. Correspondingly,
the political winds of “the immigration issue” blew chilly throughout the
legislative chamber.
In its full form, LB 1110 never had a vote. The issues at stake, such as
the health and well-being of children in utero, the social, health and
fiscal repercussions of not having access to prenatal care services; and the
separate, individual existence of unborn children, never had a thorough
debate on its own substance. This is where the institution of the
Legislature had an impact.
Legislative leadership, including the Speaker, the chairman of the Health
and Human Services Committee and the introducer of LB 1110, assessed the
voting sentiments of their colleagues and concluded that there were not
enough votes to invoke cloture on a filibuster (33), to override an
anticipated veto by the Governor (30) or even to advance and pass the bill
(25). Their assessment led to a decision to withdraw LB 1110 from further
consideration. Apparently, for the sake of the institution it was deemed
better not to debate and vote on LB 1110, regardless of the outcome, then to
have debate and a vote that would put legislators on record on a highly
contentious and politically divisive matter, one involving in one way or
another, whether logical and appropriate or not, both pro-life and
immigration issues. In essence, the institution protected its members.
Numerous legislators, including several whose religious affiliation is
known to be Catholic, undoubtedly welcomed and appreciated the quiet demise
of LB 1110. Otherwise, they would have faced a real dilemma in casting a
vote (or perhaps abstaining) that would have pitted fundamental pro-life
principles against the real or imagined political consequences of appearing
to be soft on the federal issue of illegal immigration. The collective
exhale of relief surely must have been detectible throughout the capitol.
And finally….
It was both good and inspiring to see Senator Rich Pahls back at the
Capitol last week. Not long after the current session began, the legislator
from District 31 experienced a dire health emergency, which resulted in many
days of hospitalization, including an extensive period of intensive care.
You can contact Jim at the
Nebraska Catholic Conference, 215 Centennial Mall South
Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508;
jrcncc@neb.rr.com