I'm curious to hear the "other side" on this pro-life site article

[Spearman87]

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3248.html

I don't spend much time listening to commentary in the Choice/Life debate. But I post on a private sports board of my alma matar, and I saw this article while looking at the political forum there(conservative). The article implies that a bill favored by pro-choice legislators would fund healthcare for the mother, but deny it to the unborn baby. Is that even possible? Well, technically I suppose you could fund healthcare except for prenatal care, but I doubt that's what is really going on. I suspect it's more a battle over control of the language: Pro-lifers want language that lends personhood to the unborn baby, pro-choicers want no part of that. Anyone familiar with this legislation and any petinent history behind what's happened now?

[peacebird]

1. The easy way to cover prenatal care, is to cover the mother when she is pregnant.

That way the baby is protected. Allard wanted to change the wording to cover the fetus only, not the mother. I believe it was written in such a way as to convey legal status to the fetus, thus chipping away at the legality of abortion - or so it was feared. If the fetus is granted "personhood" then its life is deserving of equal protection under the law.

After the defeat of his amendment I believe the anti-choice crowd refused to vote for the bill because they said that covering the pregnant woman meant she could use coverage to get an abportion.....

At least I think that's what went down......

[Spearman87]

2. I suspected something like that had to be a component

These battles are never "just" about today anymore, they are always about the future and gaining incremental change or fighting incremental change.