Debate on classifying fetus as unborn child

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is backing a health-care proposal that would classify a developing fetus as an unborn child, saying the re-classification would help pregnant women receive more access to prenatal care.

But abortion rights supporters say such a policy would lay the legal groundwork that would lead to a ban on abortion, and is a back-door method of achieving that end.

CNN's Jack Cafferty moderated a discussion on the issue with former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Joycelyn Elders and Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council.

CAFFERTY: Genevieve, I'd like to get your reaction to a statement that was made by the president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, in response to this proposal by the administration: "There's a pattern here to establish fetal personhood. At the point you establish a fetus is a person under the law, then even first trimester abortion becomes murder, and the Bush administration knows that."

What's your reaction to that? Is this an attempted end run around Roe v. Wade disguised as health care for single mothers?

WOOD: No, I think NOW has it all wrong on this one, Jack. Look, the fact is this is about making sure that children, all children, are protected with health care as we give in the program which is for low- income children, and that shouldn't just start the day they're born.

As we all know, children who get good prenatal care are usually much healthier when they're 2 years old and 3 years old and so is the mother who's involved in that pregnancy. So I can't imagine that any women's organization, any human rights organization would come out and say we shouldn't be trying to extend more prenatal care for these women, absolutely not. That's something we should be doing, and I think the president was absolutely right in really making right a past wrong by not helping these women in the past.

Dr. Elders, this is something you've been in favor of -- more health care for poor single mothers in our society -- for your entire career. What's your reaction to the Bush administration on this proposal?

ELDERS: My reaction to this -- if they're really serious about extending health care for pregnant women -- if you have to give the health care to the mother rather than to the unborn fetus, well then why not extend Medicaid?

CAFFERTY: So are you suggesting there's something cynical in this proposal by the Bush administration?

ELDERS: Absolutely. I would suggest that they should be about really taking care of children. I think that this is another way to undermine the rights of women.

WOOD: No, what this is about, this is program for low-income children, and all he's doing is extending it to all children. Why should we be discriminating against unborn children and not providing them the same health care that we give to others?

CAFFERTY: Doesn't that get right to the heart of the old debate about whether a fetus is a child or not?

WOOD: Yes, but some of these people, these women that are asking for health care or for prenatal care, these are women who want to have these babies, who want to have healthy children. And why would we not want to help them with that?

ELDERS: There is no question that we do help them. We go up to 250 percent of poverty. I think that's about almost $40,000 a year. I realize that's not a lot of money, but I'm just saying that all women who have -- are low income are eligible for Medicaid and they can get care.

CAFFERTY: I want to move you on to another subject here and that's the proposal in the president's budget to improve funding to abstinence-only sex education programs by 33 percent in the upcoming budget versus the sex education programs that include the use of birth control and contraceptives as a way to prevent teenage pregnancy and AIDS.

It seems on the surface, if you're a critic of the administration, as an obvious nod to the conservative wing of the Republican Party. On the other hand, 900,000 teen-agers a year are getting pregnant anyway in this country. They're saying why not give abstinence a try. Your thoughts on that.

WOOD: Well, all the president is doing here is trying to make abstinence-funded programs get equal funding as all the other -- quote, unquote -- "safe sex programs" that are out there. The fact is that, I think even Joycelyn Elders will agree with me on this, we know that the only 100 percent way to make sure that children and others don't get sexually transmitted diseases or that unwanted pregnancies don't occur is to promote abstinence.

And look, we've done the other thing for 30 years and it hasn't worked.

ELDERS: She's absolutely correct. I agree that abstinence is the only way. But we tried abstinence all these years, and I think it's time we try comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education.

WOOD: We've never tried abstinence funding at the rate of the other, never.