"Pro-Life" Catholics and Healthcare Coverage for All: A Report from Missouri

I wrote yesterday,

For the life of me--and I use that phrase quite deliberately--I do not understand the "pro-life" approach of some of my fellow Catholics of the right who simultaneously urge me to consider abortion the biggest threat of all to an ethic of life in the world in which we live today, and who want me to fight to deny contraceptive coverage and even basic healthcare to women in need and to their children. 

For that matter (and, again, for the life of me), I also do not understand these same Catholics' bitter resistance to recognizing my humanity and that of other gay and lesbian human beings, and their same bitter resistance to caring about children being raised by same-sex couples. I don't see much life--much commitment to a meaningful ethic of life--in the "pro-life" stance taken by my fellow Catholics of the right.

And after I wrote those statements, I read Mary Ann McGivern's report in National Catholic Reporter about the current fight in the Missouri legislature over whether to expand Medicaid eligibility, which states,

Enter a "young Catholic attorney ... proposing a different kind of Medicaid bill that reforms the program." So says the Missouri Catholic Conference in its April 2 newsletter. The bill, HB 700, includes a partial increase in Medicaid eligibility but is written in direct conflict with federal law. It bans funding of abortion except to save the life of the mother; it cuts coverage for many children covered today; and it cuts coverage of some cancer treatment, resulting in fewer people actually covered. Analysts say if the bill becomes law, it will bring in no federal funds and increase state costs. 

One of the collateral consequences will be cuts in services and closing of many small hospitals in rural Missouri. Currently, they receive federal reimbursement for the care of uninsured patients. But congressional funding for that reimbursement is scheduled to end with the implementation of Medicaid expansion.*

A bill proposed by a pro-life young Catholic attorney who wants to end abortion would cut coverage for many children covered by Medicad today, would cut coverage of some cancer treatment, would result in fewer people actually covered by Medicaid, would bring in no federal funds and increase state costs, would cause cuts in medical services and closing of many small hospitals in rural Missouri.

Can someone please explain to me how any of these consequences other than diminishing or ending abortions could conceivably be called pro-life? And how Catholic "pro-life" movements that have the direct blessing of the Catholic hierarchy expect anyone to take their "pro-life" message seriously when it so radically undercuts any meaningful ethic of life that makes much sense at all to people with heads on their shoulders?

(Later: and what to make of this finding hot off the press?:

∙Among white evangelical Protestants who say the term “pro-life” describes them very well, 64% oppose stricter gun control laws, compared to 33% who favor them. 

∙By contrast, among Catholics who say the term “pro-life” describes them very well, 61% support stricter gun control laws, compared to 33% who oppose them.

*Note: McGivern's article contains a link pointing to a Missouri Catholic Conference statement that appears to be a broken link, so I haven't included it in the excerpt above.