Politics & Pregnancy
The White House moves to expand prenatal care. Pro-choicers are livid.

By NR Editors
From the February 25, 2002, issue of National Review

ontempt for the poor" — that's what New York Times columnist Bob Herbert accused the Bush administration of, in the wake of its decision to alter terms of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Is the administration cutting back on the program, which subsidizes medical care for low-income kids? To the contrary, Bush is expanding it, changing its definition of the word "children" to include the unborn children of the poor. This move was, naturally, attacked as a backdoor assault on Roe v. Wade. "Cynical!" fretted the Washington Post, lecturing the administration that "politics and pregnancy don't mix." We look forward to the Post's advancing that line in defense of the next Supreme Court nominee who comes under Democratic attack for his pro-life views. And we anticipate with pleasure the campaign-season spectacle of pro-choice Democrats explaining to poor women — many of whom are "minorities" — why Bush's decision to pay for their babies' prenatal care is a contemptible thing.