|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
Politics
& Pregnancy By
NR Editors |
|||||||||
  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. |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
