When it comes to the issue of abortion, the Bush Administration finds no deception too unbelievable. Now it has decreed that a fetus, from the moment of conception, is a child and therefore eligible for medical care. But, it has protested at the same time that that pronouncement has nothing to do with its opposition to abortion.

After declaring that fetuses qualify for pre-natal care, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, actually said that "all we're doing is providing care for poor mothers so their children are going to be born healthy. How anybody can turn this into a pro-choice or pro-life argument, I can't understand it." Does he think we're a nation of fools?

The anti-choice crowd certainly doesn't see it that way. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, told CBS, "This will strengthen the right-to-life philosophy." For pro-choice supporters, the message is clear. The Bush Administration's pronouncement that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception sets up the opportunity to give a fetus legal protection. The obvious next step is to make abortion murder under the law, taking away the right of women to make their own choices about their reproductive health.

Let's look at what's really going on here. President Bush wants all pregnant women to have access to pre-natal care. No one's going to argue against this important policy. The simple way to guarantee pre-natal care is to fund it for all pregnant women. Poor women are already covered under Medicaid. The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) allows states to seek waivers for pre-natal care for women with higher incomes, but no health insurance. At least two states have such a waiver; Colorado has applied for one.

According to Secretary Thompson, his new rule simply makes it faster for states to provide pre-natal care. No need to go through the messy waiver process. Well, Mr. Secretary, wouldn't it be much easier to just make your department more efficient and responsive if you really want to provide pre-natal care more quickly? Then you don't have to get into the abortion debate at all.

But, that's exactly what the Bush Administration wants to do. Except, they want to do it by the back door. President Bush, a strong right-to-life proponent, wants to have it both ways. He'll give the political right what it wants by declaring that a fetus is a child worthy of, at least, medical care, but try to look moderate all the while by not linking this directly to his anti-abortion agenda.

At the same time, Mr. Bush has requested another $33 million for abstinence education. Well, that's fine because it's hard to argue that abstinence isn't the ultimate birth control method. But, if assuring pre-natal care for pregnant women is such a high priority in these days of renewed budget deficits, why not put that $33 million towards caring for pregnant women?

If the President is so concerned about women, why isn't he pushing to guarantee the mother medical care, rather than the fetus that can't exist without her nurturing body? It is a woman, not a fetus, after all, who is most critical to the gestation process. Have we come to the point where, in the eyes of this Administration, a woman is simply a vessel for producing a baby? There's no need to help a pregnant woman through her fetus. Just help a woman herself get the care she needs.

We have the tools to guarantee all pregnant women pre-natal care. The Bush Administration has chosen to ignore the obvious mechanisms in order to further its anti-choice agenda. To think they're fooling either side of the abortion debate is absurd. We all know the President's opposition to abortion. I respect his right to have that view. But I don't respect this duplicitous attempt to impose that position on those of us who disagree. If the President really cares about helping pregnant women stay healthy themselves and give birth to healthy babies, he'll find the money to do it directly.