Is it right or wrong to provide prenatal care for illegal immigrants?

[Corki]

Every woman should have pre-natal care.

Agree. But as far as I can tell, this bill doesn’t do that. It only provides pre-natal care to some women. My point is only that a program that excludes large groups of women is no more moral just because one of the groups it includes is illegal immigrant women.

Unless and until it includes all women, it’s still a flawed piece of legislation.

 

[PaulinVA]

Every woman should have pre-natal care.

Bob, I agree that prenatal care is essential to a good outcome in childbirth.

Is it moral to engage is sexual activity (even married sexual relations) when one will rely of the largess of private groups or the state to provide prenatal care and eventually food and lodging for the baby?

I ask this because the morality question is always directed towards the people who would be obligated to provide the care in this case. Shouldn’t the morality question start at the person creating the need?

 

[estesbob]

Bob, I agree that prenatal care is essential to a good outcome in childbirth.

Is it moral to engage is sexual activity (even married sexual relations) when one will rely of the largess of private groups or the state to provide prenatal care and eventually food and lodging for the baby?

I ask this because the morality question is always directed towards the people who would be obligated to provide the care in this case. Shouldn’t the morality question start at the person creating the need?

We cant punish the child for the sins of the parents.

 

[PaulinVA]

We cant punish the child for the sins of the parents.

Is doing nothing when someone else has created a need for government intervention neutral or is it punishment?

Are we as Christians obligated to search high and low for opportunities to dole out government money to people?

I am struggling with the conundrum of helping people in need and the help given increasing the need by more people coming along who put themselves in need.

 

[tbcrawford]

Our brothers and sisters who are ‘illegal immigrants’ are still our brothers and sisters.

We are commanded to love our neighbour.

Therefore we should help everyone who needs prenatal care.

All humans are created in the image of God with infinite worth and great potential

We are all immigrants and sojourners in the world. As Christians, our primary allegiance is to God and to God’s kingdom. We are first and foremost all citizens of God’s earth.

We need to love others, regardless of their legal status.

I plan to love and welcome anyone and everyone, regardless of legal status. My allegiance is first and foremost to the Kingdom of God, and in God’s government acceptance is preeminent. Join me in loving immigrants and learning from them as we hope for immigration reform that results in a more just and equitable treatment of all people in the world.

" I do not want to belittle the issue of undocumented migration. But as Christians we need to look at the log in our eye before we can remove the mote in the eyes of the undocumented. The undocumented desperately need fair and just immigration reform. But this will not solve the problem of undocumented migration into the U.S., no matter how much is used for border enforcement. As Christians we need to ask difficult ethical questions about the immigration issue. But let’s address the issues we have created, not only those raised by the weakest members of our society, the undocumented"] Juan Martinez teacher at Fuller Theological Seminary .

patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/illegal-immigration-seeking-a-christian-perspective/

Illegal Immigration: Seeking a Christian Perspective.

A recent column for the National Catholic Reporter similarly posited that Mary and Joseph, with Baby Jesus, were akin to today’s illegals by “seeking posada, or shelter” but finding no room at the inn. “The Christmas season should remind us of how Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus also represented migrants and refugees who were rejected like today’s immigrants,” the columnist suggested. “What if those we turn away today include Mary, Joseph and Jesus?”

 

[EasterJoy]

…So is it wrong for a government to provide prenatal care for illegal immigrants? I know this probably is morally ambiguous, but it seems as if this legislator is using his Catholic beliefs to justify it, and he is hardly a social justice type…

Of course it is not immoral to provide medical care for a person without regard to whether they have committed an immoral act, but particularly not for an unborn child. Even a convicted criminal must be given medical care, provided it is practically possible and it can be done without endangering the providers. We don’t even withhold medical care for violent criminals on the grounds that someone might commit a violent crime in order to get medical treatment! That is human decency, and a doctor does not have to be a policeman. The only questions are whether it is immoral to know that someone is doing something illegal without reporting them to the authorities and whether it provides a near occasion of sin to provide a service that might lure someone to break the law.

Take the second first: I don’t think anyone in a foreign country is likely to illegally immigrate to Nebraska in order to get free prenatal care when they wouldn’t do so for other reasons. Therefore, providing prenatal care does not provide a near occasion of sin to the point that you’d deny medical care to anyone, particularly an unborn child, in order to avoid it.

Then address the first: Is it illegal for the State of Nebraska or the health care providers it employs to fail to inform the United States Government when it becomes aware of illegal immigrants in the state? Regardless of the restrictive limits placed on other benefits administered by the states, local governments, or the federal government, by federal law the access to the following services and benefits is to be provided to all US residents, regardless of immigration status: emergency medical care, short-term, in-kind disaster relief, immunizations and treatment of communicable diseases, in-kind services provided at the community level for the protection of life and safety, and certain types of housing assistance. So, no, it is not illegal to provide medical care without reporting the immigration status of those given the care. Because the US government does not require this cooperation, it is not immoral to fail to provide it. Remember, the rules that surround the US and her sovereign borders belongs to the government. The government has the moral authority to release her citizens from any duty to report crimes against the country’s sovereign borders, and it can easily be argued that the government is morally bound to do this in order to achieve ends that are a higher good than keeping the borders strictly enforced.

The truth is, I think a case could be made that moral law requires the citizens of Nebraska to provide such humanitarian aid as they can–that is, care such as they would feel bound to tender to Christ–even if federal law made it a crime to do so. As it is, the law of the United States does not even attempt to keep the State of Nebraska from extending this humanitarian care. Federal law–and the federal government has sovereign authority over the borders of the United States–allows the care to be provided and allows the state to do so without reporting any illegal immigrant who avails herself of such care. If the care of the pregnant woman is an emergency, in fact, the states are required by federal law to provide it to her! Therefore, it is in no way immoral to provide prenatal care to illegal residents. I can easily see how a devout Catholic lawmaker could feel morally bound to vote for such care.

 

[EasterJoy]

Bob, I agree that prenatal care is essential to a good outcome in childbirth.

Is it moral to engage is sexual activity (even married sexual relations) when one will rely of the largess of private groups or the state to provide prenatal care and eventually food and lodging for the baby?

I ask this because the morality question is always directed towards the people who would be obligated to provide the care in this case. Shouldn’t the morality question start at the person creating the need?

You have to be very very careful about how you word your question. The desire to avoid the possibility that one might put an undue burden on others is merely a grave enough reason for a married couple to elect to avoid sexual relations. Nevertheless, marriage is a natural right and marital relations are the right of the married. No, poor people are not morally obliged to avoid marriage. No, poor people are not morally obliged to avoid having children because they are poor. No, the rest of us do not have the right to expect others to refrain from marriage and marital relations on the chance that they might have a child and expect charity out of us as a result. When we ask these questions, then, we have to be careful not to imply what we do not mean to imply!

I mean really: “No, I expect you poor people to stay unmarried or to get married and not have sex because you might have a child and I might have to help you to support it.” A person with no means might examine himself or herself and freely decide to avoid being a burden to others, but we have no place to insist that there anyone is morally bound to make that kind of sacrifice in order to avoid obliging us to proffer more charity than we want to offer. That is too much.

Now, we can say this: “You are an able-bodied adult. What is more, you took on the responsibility to marry and have children. You, therefore, have an obligation to do such work as you are capable of doing in order to support yourself and those who have the right to your support.” We in society can absolutely insist that those whom we help do what they can to help themselves. That, we can morally expect, yes, and I’d go so far as to say we are morally bound to expect it, for the sake of the dignity of those being helped.

 

[PaulinVA]

Nevertheless, marriage is a natural right and marital relations are the right of the married. No, poor people are not morally obliged to avoid marriage. No, poor people are not morally obliged to avoid having children because they are poor. No, the rest of us do not have the right to expect others to refrain from marriage and marital relations on the chance that they might have a child and expect charity out of us as a result. When we ask these questions, then, we have to be careful not to imply what we do not mean to imply!

I was not implying anything. I actually said it. Marital relations are a natural right. Creating a situation where you live off of the charity of others is not.

I mean really: “No, I expect you poor people to stay unmarried or to get married and not have sex because you might have a child and I might have to help you to support it.” A person with no means might examine himself or herself and freely decide to avoid being a burden to others, but we have no place to insist that there anyone is morally bound to make that kind of sacrifice in order to avoid obliging us to proffer more charity than we want to offer. That is too much.

Why is that too much? Why is asking someone to live within their means too much? I have to live within my means, give to charity, and leave enough left over to pay taxes to provide for others as well. You are saying that people have no moral obligation to live within their means. That does not sound right.

Now, we can say this: “You are an able-bodied adult. What is more, you took on the responsibility to marry and have children. You, therefore, have an obligation to do such work as you are capable of doing in order to support yourself and those who have the right to your support.” We in society can absolutely insist that those whom we help do what they can to help themselves. That, we can morally expect, yes, and I’d go so far as to say we are morally bound to expect it, for the sake of the dignity of those being helped.

I think your two paragraphs are in conflict. You say people are morally obligated to help themselves, but they are not morally obligated to live within their means. Which is it?

As a note to this discussion - this is a discussion. I am not a heartless person who believes we should not help those who need help. I am exploring what the obligations of those being helped is.

 

[Aggie414]

I’ve hesitated in commenting on this topic because it is such a sensitive issue.

I think that this issue has to be provided into two divisions: Private charitable contributions and tax payer resources.

If private charitable organizations wish to provide care of any kind to any person regardless of their status in the country, that is purely up to them – and I know lots of clinics offer that service. I do have a problem with any taxpayer money going to providing care for illegal citizens for one because they are intentionally breaking a law and two, quite frankly, this country is going broke; and if we do not get a rein in our spending, things are going to get ugly. You cannot tax people enough to dig us out of this hole.

 

[EasterJoy]

I was not implying anything. I actually said it. Marital relations are a natural right. Creating a situation where you live off of the charity of others is not.

Why is that too much? Why is asking someone to live within their means too much? I have to live within my means, give to charity, and leave enough left over to pay taxes to provide for others as well. You are saying that people have no moral obligation to live within their means. That does not sound right.

I think your two paragraphs are in conflict. You say people are morally obligated to help themselves, but they are not morally obligated to live within their means. Which is it?

As a note to this discussion - this is a discussion. I am not a heartless person who believes we should not help those who need help. I am exploring what the obligations of those being helped is.

No, let me clarify: I said that we are morally obliged to insist that those who can assist in helping themselves and that we do not have moral standing to decide whether or not a married couple engaging in the marital act is “within their means”. Can we say, “A prudent couple will ask themselves”? Yes. Can we say, “A prudent couple will come to thus and so conclusion that we believe we would come to in what we believe to be the same circumstance”? I am saying “not so fast”. There is a boundary around a marriage that other members of the faithful do not get to cross. That is what I am trying to get at.

 

[PaulinVA]

No, let me clarify: I said that we are morally obliged to insist that those who can assist in helping themselves and that we do not have moral standing to decide whether or not a married couple engaging in the marital act is “within their means”. Can we say, “A prudent couple will ask themselves”? Yes. Can we say, “A prudent couple will come to thus and so conclusion that we believe we would come to in what we believe to be the same circumstance”? I am saying “not so fast”. There is a boundary around a marriage that other members of the faithful do not get to cross. That is what I am trying to get at.

The natural right to marital relations is only between the spouses. You are right in that we can not tell them that they can’t have relations. We can’t tell them not to have children in a certain circumstance. But, that leaves us in the position that Bobestes mentioned downthread - they have a child they can’t take care of, and WE are then obligated to provide for it.

Something is not right in that. So, we come full circle around and the question is - should you be having a child, your natural right, when you know that the you will have to obligate others to provide care for him/her?

 

[EasterJoy]

The natural right to marital relations is only between the spouses. You are right in that we can not tell them that they can’t have relations. We can’t tell them not to have children in a certain circumstance. But, that leaves us in the position that Bobestes mentioned downthread - they have a child they can’t take care of, and WE are then obligated to provide for it.

Something is not right in that. So, we come full circle around and the question is - should you be having a child, your natural right, when you know that the you will have to obligate others to provide care for him/her?

I don’t see anything wrong with that. What do I have that is not from the hand of God? Nothing. If we were talking about parents who thought that it was the responsibility of others to provide for their family, and that it was not their work, that would be another thing. But if they work hard at decent work that needs to be done and cannot provide for a family out of that, I would not begrudge them help, if they were sent more children than they could provide for. How do I know that they did not conceive in spite of using moral means to avoid pregnancy? It’s not as if I expect poor people to have sex-free marriages, or that I don’t realize that sometimes being open to life means that life it will be, in spite of all we think we know about human biology.

Besides, how many illegal immigrants come here with the idea that they won’t have to work? How many do not do enough work to deserve a decent living? Taking immigrants and all the work they do, how much they are compensated for doing it, and particularly considering how much they do in the production of our food supply, for that matter, who is “providing for” whom? In that sense, immigrants are probably the last people we should resist when it comes to providing medical care. Taken as a group, most could not afford to buy it, in spite of the fact by virtue of the work they do, they absolutely deserve it.

 

[PaulinVA]

Easter Joy, I totally disagree with you. Totally.

I do agree that we are obligated to take care of people in need.

I disagree that people can morally put themselves in need when they have a choice. It doesn’t matter how much people contribute to anything. That’s an “ends justify the means” argument.

We all have an obligation to not create situations where other people take care of us. For some, that might be not crossing a border illegally for taxpayer-paid childbirth and birthright citizenship; for others it could be creating a situation where you are on welfare or food stamps or aid to dependent children. For others it might be not spending all your income every month so that you have no cushion.

It’s one thing to say, “Let’s have one more child. We can get rid of cable and tighten things up”, and quite another to say, “Let’s have another. There’s Medicaid, food stamps, more welfare, food pantries that will help us”.

 

[pnewton]

But no one has yet answered the question I posed. Is this free pre-natal care for everyone or only certain groups of women including illegal immigrants?

It is only for those we consider people. I do not see how else I could clarify what I said.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I think that what many people here are missing, is that prenatal care, while given to the mother, is really for the benefit of the child. The child did NOT cross the border illegally, did NOT choose to be born of parents that could not afford proper care for it, and does NOT have any choice in the matter.

The child is innocent. The child must be protected. If we are pro-life than we are pro-life, and the needs of the child outweigh our tax bills or immigration laws. Does immigration need to be reformed, yes, but that is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is whether an innocent child should be denied care because their parents did something stupid/immoral/illegal/etc. The answer to that question is a resounding NO. We have to support the children that had no choice in the situation that they find themselves in. Period!

 

[Glennon_P]

Agree. But as far as I can tell, this bill doesn’t do that. It only provides pre-natal care to some women. My point is only that a program that excludes large groups of women is no more moral just because one of the groups it includes is illegal immigrant women.

Unless and until it includes all women, it’s still a flawed piece of legislation.

The State of Nebraska provided this care to all women under a Federal program for several years. A couple years back, it was discovered that the Federal regs did not allow these services to “undocumented women” (or “illegal aliens” if you will).

Thus legislation was needed for the state to fund these services to undocumented women outside of the Federal revenue stream. That’s why the legislation targets this group…there’s no need for legislation providing these services to legal residents.

The Nebraska bishops have advocated for the restoration of these services through the Nebraska Catholic Conference, their public-policy office. Bishop Conley of Lincoln came out strongly in favor of the law in his column in the diocesan newspaper: dioceseoflincoln.org/SouthernNeRegister/bcc/bcc021513.aspx.

 

[SamH]

No, let me clarify: I said that we are morally obliged to insist that those who can assist in helping themselves and that we do not have moral standing to decide whether or not a married couple engaging in the marital act is “within their means”. Can we say, “A prudent couple will ask themselves”? Yes. Can we say, “A prudent couple will come to thus and so conclusion that we believe we would come to in what we believe to be the same circumstance”? I am saying “not so fast”. There is a boundary around a marriage that other members of the faithful do not get to cross. That is what I am trying to get at.

Agreed. So why bring the state of Nebreska into our moral obligation?

 

[tbcrawford]

I think that what many people here are missing, is that prenatal care, while given to the mother, is really for the benefit of the child. The child did NOT cross the border illegally, did NOT choose to be born of parents that could not afford proper care for it, and does NOT have any choice in the matter.

The child is innocent. The child must be protected. If we are pro-life than we are pro-life, and the needs of the child outweigh our tax bills or immigration laws. Does immigration need to be reformed, yes, but that is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is whether an innocent child should be denied care because their parents did something stupid/immoral/illegal/etc. The answer to that question is a resounding NO. We have to support the children that had no choice in the situation that they find themselves in. Period!

 

[pnewton]

Agreed. So why bring the state of Nebreska into our moral obligation?

Perhaps because we believe it to be a moral good to so so, just like we believe it morally good to provide aid to those losing their homes to fire, or injured in a car accident.

 

[EasterJoy]

Agreed. So why bring the state of Nebreska into our moral obligation?

Because it is an obligation born out of human decency, not out of some belief particular to Catholics. There is no “common value system”, after all, but only values that are held for one reason or another by each voter. We are no less duty-bound to vote according to our values than are those who vote to let the devil take the hindmost.