Gov. opposes pre-natal bill

LINCOLN — Gov. Dave Heineman on Thursday announced his opposition to restoring taxpayer-paid, pre-natal care for low-income, expectant mothers who are in the U.S. illegally.

The “key issue,” the governor said in a statement, is his opposition to granting taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal immigrants.

But state money could be saved by denying Medicaid coverage to about 2,800 pregnant women a year — an estimated $14.5 million over the next three years.

“This is a difficult issue,” Heineman’s statement said. “And we know that there is disagreement among well-meaning people.”

The opposition by the governor, who is seeking re-election this year, puts him at odds with every major health-care and pro-life group in the state, as well former U.S. Rep. John Cavanaugh, State Auditor Mike Foley and Heineman’s former chief medical officer, Dr. Richard Raymond.

All testified Thursday that restoring pre-natal care would prevent birth defects and premature births, and save the state millions in later health-care expenses.

Such coverage is warranted, supporters argued, because the unborn children — regardless of their mother’s immigration status — automatically become American citizens upon birth.

“Why would we not want that child to be healthy?” asked State Sen. Kathy Campbell of Lincoln, sponsor of the pre-natal bill.

Those testifying in support of her bill said the lack of pre-natal care can double or triple the rate of premature deliveries, and increase taxpayer-supported health-care costs by five- to seven-fold.

“The Nebraska taxpayer will be the loser in the end, along with the mother and the child,” said Raymond, who now lives in Colorado.

“It is outrageous that some will oppose this just to make a cheap political statement about illegal immigration,” said Dr. Kristine McVea, medical director of One World Community Health Centers, which offer free and cut-rate health care at clinics in Omaha, Lincoln, Norfolk, Columbus and Gering.

Heineman did not testify during a packed public hearing on the bill before the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee. His chief executive of the Health and Human Services Department, Kerry Winterer, did, reading the governor’s statement.

Winterer, in comments to reporters later, said the decision was based more on policy than money.
“I don’t think we’re contesting the value of pre-natal services. That’s really not the issue,” he said. “It’s who should be paying for that.”

In comments outside the hearing room, Allen Black of Bellevue, a member of Nebraska Advocacy Group, an anti-illegal immigration group, said that private charities, pro-immigration advocates, families or possibly even the Mexican government should be paying the bill.

“Try sending pregnant Americans to Mexico and see what happens,” Black said.

The issue reared its head last month, after it was revealed that federal Medicaid officials had informed Nebraska that it could not continue offering pre-natal services to about 6,000 pregnant, low-income women in the ways it had for more than two decades.

The officials, however, suggested that the state could continue offering the services if it was done through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) rather than Medicaid.

Fourteen states have such CHIP coverage for unborn children, though Tennessee’s program does not cover illegal immigrants.

Campbell introduced LB 1110 to establish a CHIP program in Nebraska. It would provide coverage to the children of illegal immigrants because they will become U.S. citizens.

A fiscal analysis of LB 1110 indicated that the state would spend about $4 million less over the next three years in a CHIP program instead of the current Medicaid program. That’s because the state’s matching expenses in CHIP are lower.

While health care and pro-life advocates said that providing such coverage — even for the unborn children of illegal aliens — was the morally, medically and fiscally responsible thing to do, some questioned why all states didn’t offer such coverage.

If there are so many benefits to pre-natal care, Louisville Sen. Dave Pankonin asked, why don’t 35 states offer that coverage? And why don’t any neighboring states? he asked.

“My answer is, we’re getting it right,” said Jennifer Carter of the Appleseed Center, an advocacy organization for the poor.

Cavanaugh, executive director of the Omaha-based school improvement effort, Building Bright Futures, said dropping pre-natal care for poor women was probably the most “destructive” public policy step for the goals of that program, which seeks to close the achievement gap between impoverished and wealthy students.

“This comes at a time when Nebraska is showing leadership in early childhood care and development,” he said.

Winterer told the committee HHS had reviewed cases of 6,321 pregnant women who were going to lose pre-natal services as of March 1, and 4,655 had been determined as eligible to resume that care. More information is being sought in 115 cases.

Another 709 legal residents were found to be ineligible for government-funded services, primarily because their incomes were too high, he said.

That left 842 pregnant women here illegally — at this point in time — that would lose their services March 1, Winterer said.

After the hearing, the Health Committee took no action.

LB 1110 includes an emergency clause, which means passage would require the votes of 30 of 49 state senators — the same number of votes needed to override any veto of the bill.

Campbell, who made LB 1110 her priority bill, said she remains undaunted, despite the governor’s opposition.

“I never underestimated how tough it would be,” she said.

« Metro/Region

Share