There is nothing pro-life about withholding health care coverage for poor Kansans

Nothing says “pro-life” like blocking health care for low-income Kansans.

Yet Catholic bishops in the state have announced that they will oppose expanding Medicaid health insurance to 150,000 more low-income adults and children in Kansas unless lawmakers first pass new anti-abortion legislation and a constitutional amendment that says abortion is not a right protected under the state constitution.

Such a constitutional amendment wouldn’t even be on the ballot for another year, so if lawmakers listened to this advice, some Kansans would as a result go without health care for at least that long.

And then they continue to wonder why critics accuse them of being not so much “pro-life” as “pro-birth.”

Kansas, which has one of the most restrictive Medicaid programs in the country, now covers only about 400,000 disabled, elderly, pregnant and poor Kansans. Even the Trump administration has found Kansas too restrictive in trying to impose a three-year lifetime cap.

Under Govs. Sam Brownback, Jeff Colyer and now Laura Kelly, Republican state lawmakers have used a variety of strategies to keep from expanding the program to include those who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive the insurance subsidies that would make it affordable.

In 2020, despite GOP promises to the contrary, it still may not happen, though expanding Medicaid will once again be at the top of the agenda for Kelly, who herself is Catholic.

Asked about the highly conditional support of Kansas bishops, Kelly said in an email via her spokeswoman that “bringing Medicaid expansion into the discussion” of anti-abortion laws “is nothing more than an attempt to block 150,000 working Kansans from having access to affordable health care.”

Chuck Weber, of the Kansas Catholic Conference, testified to a joint House and Senate committee last week that bishops in the state will only support expansion in return for new legislation.

First, they are asking for a new law explicitly blocking Medicaid expansion from also expanding access to abortion.

They also want conscience protections for institutions and individuals. We support such protections and are not persuaded by the argument that health care workers, say in an emergency room, might if afforded conscience protections refuse to treat a woman suffering from complications from an abortion or from taking birth control.

But the Catholic Church also wants the Kansas Constitution amended to say that contrary to a recent decision from the Kansas Supreme Court, there is no right to an abortion in the state. Earlier this year, the court’s majority said that, “This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.”

We supported that decision, but have also argued that it ought to be up to both Kansas and Missouri voters to decide on abortion law directly.

Kelly, in a Sunday email via her spokeswoman, said she opposes the proposed constitutional amendment. “I disagree with its premise,” that there is no such right, “and want to be clear in that Kansans’ individual rights shouldn’t be subjected to a popularity contest. While I don’t see enough legislative support for the proposed constitutional amendment to pass, I wouldn’t have the ability to veto it if it does.”

Whatever you think of either abortion rights in general or such an amendment, though, linking these to Medicaid expansion is wrong.

Because if that happens, Kansans will suffer. Some of those without health care in the interim will even die as a result; that’s what happens when you skip medical visits, which is why expanding coverage is such an urgent issue.

Weber, of the Kansas Catholic Conference, testified that, “The Catholic desire of authentic affordable health care for all people, regardless of socioeconomic status, is inspired by the example of Jesus, the great physician.”

But the example of Jesus does not argue for a bunch of conditions on authentic affordable health care.

“I was sick and you cared for me” mentions no exceptions or prerequisites.

The joint House-Senate committee immediately approved a motion in keeping with the bishops’ argument. The motion said Medicaid could only be expanded if it does not improve access to abortion and includes conscience protections.

“They usually follow the pro-life mantra, whatever that may be,” Democratic state Sen. Barbara Bollier, who is running for the U.S. Senate, said of her Republican colleagues in an interview.

Only, there is nothing pro-life about withholding health care coverage that would prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve maternal and child health and significantly expand the mental health and addiction services that Republicans keep saying they favor over gun regulation.

The separation of church and state doesn’t need to keep religious groups from trying to convince lawmakers that they’re right.

But Catholic conditions on the expansion that should have happened years ago are inconsistent with their own stated interest in “effective, scientifically and ethically sound solutions.” And in this case, they’re not right.

This story was originally published November 18, 2019 at 5:00 AM.