SCHIP, "Pro-Life," and "Prudence"

Thanks to Rick for posting Ryan Anderson's article on SCHIP.  I agree that whether to support the SCHIP expansion is a question with significant elements of prudence and should not be a litmus test for whether one is a "good Catholic" or a "good Christian."  But that doesn't mean there aren't moral and policy reasons why pro-lifers and Christians, among other citizens, should exercise their judgment in favor of this bill to make children's health care available to more modest-income families.  (Like Mr. Anderson, I'm not an expert on this; my comments are based on general knowledge and on learning from the nonpartisan website factcheck.org and links from it.)

First, Mr. Anderson's statement of the SCHIP issues largely reflects Republican characterizations, some of which are inaccurate or misleading and to which Factcheck has correctives that are worth reading.  Second, it's really too much to hear the President oppose the expansion on the ground that it may benefit some families with incomes up to $83,000 in one or two states, when his own coverage proposal -- a fixed income-tax deduction for a family at any income level who buys health insurance -- "would disproportionately increase coverage among higher income groups," according to the consulting-firm report that the administration itself quotes (see near the end of the Factcheck.org page).  According to that report (see Figure 3 at that link), the percentage increase in coverage among families making more than $100,000 a year (38.6 percent) will be double or greater the increase among families making less than $40,000 (19.1 percent for incomes in the 30s, less for lower incomes) -- yet the President criticizes the congressional bill for not "focus[ing] on serving children from families below" the $40,000 level!  As is usually the case, the choice of a tax deduction as the means to deliver benefits disproportionately helps those in higher tax brackets.  By contrast, under the congressional bill, according to the Urban Institute study quoted in Mr. Anderson's article, SCHIP will still preserve 70 percent of its benefits for children in families under $41,300 yearly income (figuring a four-person family) -- hardly "a welfare program for the middle class" as Mr. Anderson claims.  In the light of this contrast, I'm not so confident as Mr. Anderson that everyone in the debate is focused on helping the poor.  Where is the administration proposal that focuses on expanded coverage for the modest-income family?

Finally, Mr. Anderson raises a colorable concern that the term "pro-life" will be diluted if it is applied to more than just "opposition to legalized abortion coupled with support for mothers facing crisis pregnancies."  But there are of course colorable (at least colorable) arguments the other way, which he ignores: that expanding the range of policies in a "pro-life" agenda will recognize the various economic and social factors and conditions that affect women's decisions whether to abort, and that the broader view can increase the credibility of the pro-life position among those not already committed to it.  At the least, Mr. Anderson should not, in a post calling for tolerance of opposing viewpoints, accuse those who adopt the broader pro-life view of "charg[ing] to eviscerate" the term pro-life.

Tom