The Bush administration has passed a new law denying infants born under emergency Medicaid coverage automatic continuing care under Medicaid. Instead, their parents must apply to the program for them separately before any medical services will be covered.

This policy, of course, is aimed at illegal immigrants whose children are born in the US and are therefore US citizens. I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t also apply to other poor children born under emergency Medicaid. The article claims that one-third of the 4 million births in the US each year are paid for by Medicaid. It’s not clear to me whether those 1.3 million children are all covered by emergency Medicaid, or only a portion of them, but even if it’s only a small number, it’s still a vicious law.

Why should we care?

There’s the humanitarian argument, that it’s just cruel to throw obstacles in the paths of impoverished parents trying to treat their sick newborns. Illegal immigrants are likely to be too intimidated to attempt the application process for fear of deportation. Even if our lawmakers have little sympathy for their plight, they are still responsible for safeguarding the health and well-being of the US citizens who are born to them.

There’s the public health argument. Those sick newborns are going to be clogging emergency rooms for routine care and for preventable illnesses. As they get older, they’re going to be contracting diseases that should have been forestalled by vaccines.

There’s the adoptive parent angle, as well. The article states:

Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., was a principal architect of the new law. “Charlie’s intent was that every person receiving Medicaid needs to provide documentation,” said John Stone, a spokesman for Norwood, who is a dentist and has been active on health care issues. “With newborns, there should be no problem. All you have to do is provide a birth certificate or hospital records verifying birth.”

Anyone who has adopted from Korea knows that all government departments do not necessarily recognize the laws that govern citizenship. For example, there is a law that states that adoptive children are automatically granted citizenship. Therefore, the certificate of adoption should equal verification of citizenship, correct? Not at all. You have to use the certificate of adoption to get a new birth certificate, a rather confusing document that makes no mention of the child’s adoption and seems to indicate that the child was born to you, but abroad. The passport agency requires the birth certificate in addition to the adoption papers as proof of citizenship. And the Social Security administration requires the birth certificate, the adoption papers, AND the passport as proof.

Nonetheless, adoptive parents are urged to complete another application process to obtain something called a Certificate of Citizenship as proof of citizenship, because it “never expires.” The adoption paperwork, birth certificate, and Social Security card don’t expire either, but the government still warns you that your child is not entirely safe in this country until you can get the COC.

The application is 8 pages long and costs $215 to file. It requires submission of the adoption paperwork, birth certificate, marriage certificate, records such as a mortgage proving US residence, and social security number–all to prove something which is, by law, self-evident.

If they make it that difficult for us, how hard is it going to be for these parents?