Governor Rounds Turns His Back on Low-Income Pregnant Women
by Shannon
Web Correspondent
South Dakota Community Organizer
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota
Early this week, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds presented lawmakers with the state's budget. However, that budget does NOT include an expansion of Medicaid coverage for low-income pregnant women. The Governor told reporters, "We certainly don't have the resources today to do that."
The recommendation to expand the program came from the Zaniya Task Force formed by last year's Legislature. It was charged with finding ways to assure that all South Dakotans have access to affordable health insurance. Right now, pregnant women in the state qualify for Medicaid if their income is 133% of the federal poverty level or less. The recommendation would raise the eligibility up to 200%. Governor Rounds says that would open the program to an additional 1,400 pregnant women. But, he also says it would cost $4 million.
I find this terribly ironic.
Governor Rounds has no problem calling himself "pro-life," and certainly didn't have issue with signing a bill that would've banned practically all abortions in the state. At the time, he didn't seem to care that in 2005, 25% of women who had abortions indicated they had the procedure because they couldn't afford the child. And, in 2004, 49% of women gave that same reason.
Instead of banning abortion, the Governor should work to make sure that women in poverty have access to the prenatal care they need to ensure healthier families.
Looking further down the road, this expansion would probably end up saving the state some money because these women and their children wouldn't be seeking as many health services in the future.
Anyone who cares about women and babies will see that this needs to be a priority and is the right thing to do.
This is a fiscally and socially responsible way to help our state. But, apparently, Governor Rounds doesn't see that this expansion would promote healthy women, healthy babies, and healthy families.
So, SD lawmakers don’t want to support the use of birth control to prevent pregnancy, don’t want pregnant women to get abortions and don’t want to make sure that the babies that are born to the women who couldn’t get birth control or abortions are healthy? Are they protecting life, sickly life at that, or are they trying to adapt the ‘puppy mill’ concept to humans?
By Kate on 04/07/2008
