Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Controversy over Classifying Developing Fetuses
Aired February 01, 2002 - 08:41 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: It is a move that's once again stirring the debate over abortion rights. The Bush administration wants to classify a developing fetus as an unborn child. The White House says it's about prenatal care for pregnant mothers, not politics. But abortion rights supporters say it's laying the legal groundwork to criminalize abortion.
More from White House correspondent Kelly Wallace.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Here we go. That's a good heartbeat.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It doesn't sound controversial at first, using extra federal dollars to provide prenatal care to low income pregnant women.
TOMMY THOMPSON, HHS SECRETARY: This is going to help poor mothers be able to take care of their unborn children and get the care that they absolutely, vitally need.
WALLACE: But here's where the debate begins. Tommy Thompson, the Health and Human Services Secretary, wants to change a federal regulation governing the state program that provides health care coverage to children. In a statement, his department said it wants to "clarify the definition of child," allowing states to provide health care to children "from conception to age 19." Currently, coverage starts after birth.
But abortion rights supporters argue this is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose.
KATE MICHELMAN, ABORTION RIGHTS ACTIVIST: This policy reveals this administration's real interest in having government make abortions illegal and this is an interim step. Granting personhood to embryos will help accomplish that goal.
WALLACE: Thompson fired back, saying this is not about abortion rights, but health care.
THOMPSON: This is not an argument for the pro-choice or pro-life movements. This is not an ideological argument. This is to take care of poor mothers. WALLACE: Bush advisers say there was no political calculation here, just a way to use some of the more than $3 billion that was available but not spent last year on children's health care. The move, though, is delighting abortion rights opponents, who call it a way to value and protect human life.
LAURA ECHEVARRIA, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE: From our viewpoint, we need to do everything we can to make sure that children are protected.
WALLACE (on camera): After a 60 day comment period, the new policy would take effect. States could choose to participate or they could opt out. And federal officials say there is a precedent here, saying until 1981, developing fetuses were covered under Medicaid.
Kelly Wallace, CNN, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: The reclassification of fetuses isn't the only policy that's raising concerns over issues of reproductive rights. Also included in the president's new budget is a $135 million proposal to add additional funding to programs that promote abstinence to curb teen pregnancies as opposed to those that also include the discussion of condoms and birth control as a way to prevent teenage pregnancy and AIDS. He is proposing a 33 percent increase in the abstinence-only funding for those programs.
Joining us now to talk about both these issues, from Little Rock, Arkansas, the former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, and from Washington, D.C., Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council.
Ladies, welcome, it's nice to have you on AMERICAN MORNING.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CAFFERTY: Genevieve, I want to begin with you, and I'd like to get your reaction to a statement that was made by the president of NOW, Kim Gandy, in response to this proposal by the administration that we were just listening to. "There's a pattern here to establish fetal personhood. At the point you establish a fetus is a person under the law, then even first trimester abortion becomes murder, and the Bush administration knows that."
What's your reaction to that? Is this an attempted end run around Roe v. Wade disguised as health care for single mothers?
GENEVIEVE WOOD, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: No, I think NOW has it all wrong on this one, Jack. I have to say, look, the fact is this is about making sure that children, all children, are protected with health care as we give in the CHIP (ph) program which is for low- income children, and that shouldn't just start the day they're born. As we all know, children who get good prenatal care are usually much healthier when they're two years old and three years old and so is the mother who's involved in that pregnancy. So I can't imagine that any women's organization, any human rights organization would come out and say we shouldn't be trying to extend more prenatal care for these women, absolutely not. That's something we should be doing, and I think the president was absolutely right in really making right a past wrong by not helping these women in the past.
CAFFERTY: Dr. Elders, this is something you've been in favor of, more health care for poor single mothers in our society, for your entire career. What's your reaction to the Bush administration on this proposal?
JOYCELYN ELDERS, FORMER SURGEON GENERAL: My reaction to this, if they're really serious about extending health care for pregnant women, our -- and this -- you have to give the health care to the mother rather than to the unborn fetus, well then why not extend Medicaid? We already go up to 250 percent of poverty. I do not know of any women who is at 250 percent of poverty or less who do not -- is not eligible for prenatal care, so why we don't we use that? If we're talking about money leftover for poor children, why don't we provide the health care for the poor children?
CAFFERTY: So are you suggesting there's something cynical in this proposal by the Bush administration?
ELDERS: Absolutely. I would suggest that they should be about really taking care of children. I think that this is another way to undermine the rights of women.
WOOD: No, what this is about, this is program for low-income children, and all he's doing is extending it to all children. Why should we be discriminating against unborn children and not providing them the same health care that we give to others? It's absolutely...
CAFFERTY: But doesn't that get...
WOOD: This...
CAFFERTY: Doesn't...
WOOD: This is really about them taking...
CAFFERTY: Doesn't that get right to the heart of the -- of the old debate about whether a fetus is a child or not? I mean we're right back to square one the minute you start...
WOOD: Well,...
CAFFERTY: ... talking about unborn children from the moment of conception.
WOOD: Yes, but some of -- well, right, Jack, but some of these people, these women that are asking for health care or for prenatal care, these are women who want to have these babies, who want to have healthy children.
CAFFERTY: Sure.
WOOD: And why would we not want to help them with that? CAFFERTY: Dr. Elders.
ELDERS: There is no question that we are -- we do help them. We go up to 250 percent of poverty. I think that's about almost $40,000 a year. I realize that's not a lot of money, but I'm just saying that all women who have -- are low income are eligible for Medicaid and they can get care. And I don't know what this extension to unborn children, I don't know ...
WOOD: This is...
ELDERS: ... who you're planning to cover (ph).
WOOD: This is for...
CAFFERTY: All right, let me...
WOOD: This is for children...
CAFFERTY: Excuse me.
WOOD: ... that don't qualify for Medicaid.
CAFFERTY: All right, let me interrupt, because before we run out of time, I want to move you on to another subject here and that's the proposal in the president's budget to improve funding to abstinence- only sex education programs by 33 percent in the upcoming budget versus the sex education programs that include the use of birth control and contraceptives as a way to prevent teenage pregnancy and AIDS.
It seems on the surface, if you're a critic of the administration, as an obvious nod to the conservative wing of the Republican Party. On the other hand, 900,000 teenagers a year getting pregnant anyway in this country. They're saying why not give abstinence a try. Your thoughts on that.
Let's begin with you, Genevieve.
WOOD: Well all the president is doing here is trying to make abstinence funded programs get equal funding as all the other -- quote, unquote -- "safe sex programs" that are out there. The fact is is that, I think even Joycelyn Elders will agree with me on this, we know that the only 100 percent way to make sure that children and others don't get sexually transmitted diseases or that unwanted pregnancies don't occur is to promote abstinence. Abstinence...
CAFFERTY: All right.
WOOD: ... is the only way that you're absolutely going to have that happen.
CAFFERTY: Dr. Elders, (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
WOOD: And look, we've done the other for 30 years and it hasn't worked. CAFFERTY: I need a quick answer, Dr. Elders, we're almost out of time.
ELDERS: We are -- she's absolutely correct. I agree that abstinence is the only way. But we tried abstinence all these years, and I think it's time we try comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education.
WOOD: No.
CAFFERTY: All right. Ladies, I've got us...
WOOD: We've never tried abstinence funding at the rate of the other, never.
CAFFERTY: I've got to stop us because of the clock. It's a fascinating discussion, and I'd like to continue it with you both at some future time. Thank you very much for being with us.
WOOD: Thank you.
CAFFERTY: Dr. Joycelyn Elders, the former Surgeon General of the United States, and Genevieve Wood, Family Research Council Director from Washington, D.C.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
