How About Pre-Natal and Birth Care for Pregnant Undocumented Women?

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:10:00 PM EST
Tags: undocumented residents, health care reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A child born in the U.S. is an American citizen, even if his or her mother is an undocumented resident. That's a given under the Constitution. Since anti-choicers and those willing to put extra restrictions on health insurance based on gender, like those who voted for the Stupak Amendment, believe life begins at conception, how can they justify a health care bill that denies coverage, particularly pre-natal care and birth benefits, to undocumented or out-of-status pregnant women?

Ideally, the final health care bill should not prevent benefits to the undocumented at all. No human being is illegal. But, since some form of denial is present in both the House and Senate bills, at the very least, an exception should be made in the final bill for those who are pregnant. [More....]

As I understand the bills, the House bill bars the undocumented from enrolling in the public option and from receiving subsidies for health plans. The Senate Finance Committee version is even stricter. It would prevent them from enrolling in the public exchange, even to buy insurance with their own funds.

The undocumented do pay taxes. They are also less likely to use emergency rooms.

Health care for all should include all those present in this country, whether they have proper papers or not. But for the sake of consistency, since children born here are citizens, their mothers, even if here without proper documentation, should be covered for pre-natal and medical care during pregnancy.

< Reconciliation: Lieberman Will Filibuster House HCR Bill | Supreme Court To Hear Death in Prison for Teens Cases >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

How About Pre-Natal and Birth Care for Pregnant Undocumented Women? | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Your logic is not sound ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by nyrias on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:03:24 PM EST

"But for the sake of consistency, since children born here are citizens, their mothers, even if here without proper documentation, should be covered for pre-natal and medical care during pregnancy."

A child is NOT a US citizen until he/she is born here. So before birth, even if you recognize the fetus as a human being, he/she is NOT a US citizen yet.

Furthermore, since no one can predict the future, it is not unreasonable to say that there is a chance the mother would be deported, or leave on her own free will. Thus, the unborn child has a chance that he/she will not be a US citizen.

Because if you push that logic, everyone in the world HAS A CHANCE to become a US citizen (since they can always apply). Do we cover them all?

: True, dat. (none / 0) (#31)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:06:08 PM EST

So there was a change since Friday (none / 0) (#1)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:29:26 PM EST

in the House bill? Still awaiting, on another thread, a link to evidence of that. As of Friday, it was reported that the 20 members of the House Hispanic Caucus were happy after meeting with Obama to express opposition to "any prohibition on the ability of illegal immigrants to use their own money to purchase health coverage in a new government-run marketplace."

"He listened to us. We listened to him," said Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "We made it very clear that 20 votes in the Hispanic caucus" depend on the language in the House bill.
Currently, there is no prohibition in the House bill against illegal immigrants buying insurance in the exchange. . . .

The report did say that the White House backs such a ban, and one exists in the Senate bill -- but also that the House Rules Committee Chair said that there would be no change to the House bill. So it was changed yesterday? When? By whom in the House? Which Dems went along with an amendment to exclude undocumented immigrants?

(We know which 64 Dems went along with extra exclusions for women among undocumented immigrants -- and among all women -- of course.)

I really would appreciate clarification on this, as it was implied here that I am a bigot because I must be for exclusion of undocumented immigrants. Of course, I am not -- I am for the inclusion of all Americans (as anyone who opts to reside here is an American to me). Nor had I said a thing about them, in a thread on another topic. Indeed, I argue for a far better bill for all Americans, including undocumented ones, than the bill for which the attacker is willing to settle.

Sounds like Obama gets to (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by MyLeftMind on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:14:38 PM EST

play both sides again. He can publicly declare the plan doesn't cover undocumented immigrants, but then tell the Hispanic Caucus the final bill will do exactly the opposite. Reconciliation, with the purchase of a big voting block on the side.

In the end, the middle class will be forced by law to pay for healthcare for themselves and the poor, and the wealth drain from the majority of America's workers to the upper class will continue.


I think, as I said (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:00:13 PM EST

the House bill bars the undocumented from enrolling in the public option and from receiving subsidies for health plans. The Senate Finance Committee version is even stricter. It would prevent them from enrolling in the public exchange, even to buy insurance with their own funds.

If you search the House bill for the term "alien" you will come up with what it bans. The Senate bans more. See House Bill, "Subtitle C--Individual Affordability Credits", "Sec. 347. No Federal payment for undocumented aliens."

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Section 1786: "Prohibitions on Federal Medicaid and CHIP payment for undocumented aliens"

Nothing in this title shall change current prohibitions against Federal Medicaid and CHIP payments under titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Nothing changed (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:21:49 PM EST

A lot of people like you forgot to be outraged about it.


no one said it changed (none / 0) (#21)
by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:39:25 AM EST

My first point is there are differences between the House and Senate version and the House version is less onerous on this issue (not requiring proof one is documented) and the second point is the hypocrisy of Republicans who claim to be pro-life but would deny medical and prenatal care to the undocumented mother of an American fetus when that fetus, which they claim to be a life from conception, is an American citizen.


Wouldn't it depend on whether the (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:41:57 AM EST

child was conceived w/i U.S. or outside U.S.?


I was not referring to you (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:49:10 AM EST

but to the attackers I have seen for 2 days.

They accused us of being misinformed on whether undocumented aliens were covered by subsidies and the public option in a wild attempt to accuse some of us of not understanding the importance of the Stupak Amendment.

I made my point - they did not care about undocumented aliens, by their logic, cuz they are not Latino.


We care (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by itscookin on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:34:56 AM EST

We would like all undocumented women to have good prenatal care and good infant care for their children. But not enough to fight for it. It's something we're willing to bargain away if we need to. We can add them back in later when we do the incremental changes as time goes by. Eventually, it will happen if they're patient. I don't think anyone wants women to die in childbirth or babies to not get good care. It's just not the most important issue to us right now, but we'll get there someday. Maybe when we have majorities in both the House and the Senate and a Democrat in the White House.


: "women to die in childbirth" (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Andreas on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:23:40 PM EST

I don't think anyone wants women to die in childbirth or babies to not get good care.
The vote demonstrates that there are quite a few Republicans and Democrats who want precisely that.

They've been justifying that hypocrisy for 35+ yrs (none / 0) (#2)
by Ellie on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:55:07 PM EST

And never having to address it bluntly and directly. Yesterday's enshrinement was a big step for anti-health profiteers to be able to add, out loud and proudly, a Cheneyesque "So?" if confronted with the cruelty of that pre-natal/post-partum denial to mother and child.

: Jeez, there are pregnant moms and babies (none / 0) (#33)
by MyLeftMind on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:59:05 PM EST

all over the world that need our help. What's so special about those who manage to sneak into this country? Why are they a priority over those who can't make it here?

Also see the House's Mythbuster sheet (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:05:17 PM EST

here:

ELEVENTH MYTH: THE HOUSE BILL PROVIDES HEALTH BENEFITS FOR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
FACT: Taxpayers will not fund health care for undocumented workers. The House bill explicitly states that "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

The Senate Finance Bill says (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:11:24 PM EST

``SEC. 2232. QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL EMPLOYERS; ACCESS LIMITED TO CITIZENS AND LAW
FUL RESIDENTS.
``(c) ACCESS LIMITED TO LAWFUL RESIDENTS.--If
an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire plan year for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence,
or an alien lawfully present in the United States--
``(1) the individual shall not be treated as a
qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health benefits plan in the individual market that is offered through an exchange;

The same section that excludes the undocumented also excludes prison inmates (unless they haven't been convicted and are just in pretrial detention.)

And I ought to have said (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:47:00 PM EST

of course, thank you for this digging into it, this evidence, these links (i.e., not unfounded and ad hominem attacks). If this bill is just getting worse and worse as we find out more like this, I don't see how some here can continue to support it. It really is so Republican in privileging mainly white men.


So the Hispanic Caucus caved, too. (none / 0) (#7)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:44:17 PM EST

Well, that certainly is not being clarified or covered anywhere else, that I could find. And that certainly is interesting in itself.

I wonder if there will be ramifications for these 20 members?


I don't think they caved (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:29:07 PM EST

They wanted access to the exchange so aliens could purchase with their money. They are blocked from the public option and subsidies/credits though. I think the key is "no tax dollars". What happens down the road and which one stands is another issue.

You would think they would want them to buy through the exchange if that is the only way they could afford to buy. "Buy" being the operative word here. More money into insurers pockets . . .


And if they don't or (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:46:53 AM EST

can't buy, who ends up paying when they are forced to make use of emergency services?


Well, if I were Hispanic (none / 0) (#12)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:40:11 PM EST

I imagine that I would see it as caving. But I'm not, so I guess I'm supposed to see it as fine. But it's not. So -- well, at this point, I guess there is an upside to none of my members of Congress being Hispanic, so I don't need to sort out this when going to the polls, too.

But one of my members of Congress is a woman. . . .


in her comment (none / 0) (#13)
by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:55:08 PM EST

she said they wanted access to the exchange and they have it in the house bill, so technically, no cave to her comment. That's all I was saying :)

She's actually my Rep. for now . . . she won with almost 80% iirc.


Oh, I know it's not caving now (none / 0) (#14)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:13:07 PM EST

as the caving would have occurred before she made that comment. But I guess that if she's glad to see her ethnic group as well as her gender tossed the crumb of getting to pay more, it's her call.

It just sure wouldn't be mine. I do hope, though, that you're otherwise happy with her and can drag yourself to the polls to re-elect her.


In the past she has been good (none / 0) (#15)
by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:30:59 PM EST

I'll have 3 addresses to choose from in 2010 {grin} Doubtful she'll need my vote as she pulls down a pretty high percentage (80ish iirc) My vote might count more at the cabin where the district could go blue . . . .


Or if she is such a shoo-in (none / 0) (#16)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:25:41 PM EST

you actually could opt out and let her know why.


I must say (none / 0) (#17)
by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:49:57 PM EST

I'm curious to hear her reasoning. Her office is just 9 blocks from me. Perhaps I'll take a stroll with the Dot . . .

Hadn't thought of opt out and letting her know. Thanks. My brain is a bit of a jumble. I need to check the reg laws in CA and what's going on in the district I'm moving to. Last yr I was backing a candidate that had closed his previous gap pretty decently. Single payer/pro-choice/anti war etc ER Dr. He might have a good chance this time around if he goes again. Nydia will still vote "correctly" a majority of the time. She's not a blue dog.

It never ends . . . .


: That's what I opted to do last year (none / 0) (#18)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:59:01 PM EST

in a state that was such a shoo-in for Obama. (It was a relief after being in the closest state for so long, actually -- and it is again, as that was just a fluke in a state that also prides itself on being so trendy . . . while also being among the most racist. I just can't partake in such games).
I think it is important to still go to the polls, lest the lack of votes for any candidate be construed by such candidates and pundits as just lazy and apathetic voters, etc.; you know the usual drill that allows Dems to evade realities.
I still will go to the polls every time. I must; I owe it to those who got me entre at all. But I now will be much more selective in who gets elected thanks to me, or gets to think it means that I approve all of their behaviors.
Imagine the potential impact if millions of voters did show up at polls but did not vote for certain offices. Oh, wait, we saw that already -- all of the cool Nu Dems who only filled in the blank at the top of the ballot and left the rest blank.
The Dems approved of that, so it's perfectly okay to just do the same in reverse or in other ways.

You won't find fauxgressives bashing other NGO's (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Ellie on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:32:58 PM EST

... and activist groups with the same medieval zeal they have for burning their favorite pro-choice witches at the stake.

And genuine thanks, also, to Jeralyn for that topic-specific info from the other versions.


Also in the Senate Finance bill (none / 0) (#6)
by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:18:49 PM EST

``(e) RULES FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--If any individual for whom
the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section
151 (relating to allowance of deduction for personal
exemptions) for the taxable year is an undocumented
alien--
``(A) no credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any portion of any
premium taken into account under clause (i) or
(ii) of subsection (b)(2)(A) which is attributable
to the individual, and
``(B) the individual shall not be taken into
but the individual's modified gross income shall
be taken into account in determining household
income. account in determining the family size involved

Definition:

``(A) The term `undocumented alien'
means an individual who is not, or who is rea8
sonably not expected to be for the entire taxable
year, a citizen or national of the United States,
an alien lawfully admitted to the United States
for permanent residence, or an alien lawfully
present in the United States."

The Senate, but not the House bill, requires proof one is not undocumented:

``(B) IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.--An
individual shall be treated as an undocumented
alien unless the information required under sec16
tion 2238(b)(2) of the Social Security Act has
been provided with respect to such individual.

I think there was pressure to amend the House bill to also require proof and it did not succeed. (Yet.)

So, as we are being told (none / 0) (#9)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:05:51 PM EST

to stop being angry about all this and just buck up and be proud of our Dems, I have decided to find the silver lining in this part of the bill.

Let's not think that this is about Congress actually encouraging higher maternal and infant mortality, in this country already ranks so poorly in that measure of a civilized society.

Instead, let's look at it the way Congress does, with the focus yesterday on abortion. Gosh, isn't it great that Congress is encouraging the growth of the Hispanic American population?

All is good. Dems are good. Just keep voting for them, because they really do care about you.

"Just lie back and enjoy it" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by jbindc on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:11:34 PM EST

We are going to be one bunch of sick folk (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:47:11 AM EST

here. Very high immigrant population. Not all are legally here.


: Same here in swine flu central (none / 0) (#26)
by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:09:22 AM EST

in part, as the spread was tracked, owing to a lot of travel back and forth to families and work in Texas, to the point that for decades now, many families here have second homes there. (A recent research project of mine to read more from primary sources finally being archived now re the evolution of the community that has redefined "migrant" -- they still are, but with their success, they now are more like our long-upscale snowbirds.:-)