Yesterday, I wrote about Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) proposal to deny pregnant undocumented women access to prenatal care assistance. I argued that Walker’s position runs counter to his vehemently “pro-life” crusade. In the post, I also mentioned that when the state of Nebraska debated a similar proposal, anti-choice groups strongly opposed denying undocumented women prenatal care because it put “borders ahead of babies.”

It turns out that many of their worst fears have come true. The Lincoln Journal Star reports that preventing undocumented women from accessing prenatal care assistance has had “dramatic effects”:

The elimination one year ago of Medicaid funding for prenatal care for about 1,600 low-income women has had dramatic effects, doctors and health clinic administrators reported Wednesday. At least five babies have died. Women are traveling 155 miles to get prenatal care. Babies have been delivered at clinics, in ambulances and hospital emergency rooms. [...]

Andrea Skolkin, chief executive officer of One World Community Health Centers in Omaha, said that in the past year, only about half of uninsured women are receiving any prenatal care. The health center has more premature births to uninsured women, compared to insured women. Uninsured mothers were twice as likely to deliver through cesarean section, which is more expensive. [...] Four infants died in utero at the Columbus health center, she said. In the previous seven years, the clinic had never had an in utero death.

Nebraska state Sen. Kathy Campbell (R) has introduced a bill that would reinstate the prenatal care. “We need to be pro-life from cradle to grave, to err on the side of compassion and stay grounded in family values,” stated the Rev. Howard Dotson of Omaha’s Westminster Presbyterian Church who testified in support of the bill.

However, opposition to Campbell’s bill is largely ideological. “Our position is that we shouldn’t be spending any money for people who are here illegally,” stated Vivianne Chaumont, director of the state’s Medicaid division who testified in opposition to the bill. Dr. Caron Gray, from Creighton University Medical Center and clinics called Chaumont out, stating, “We can sit here and talk about costs as much as we would like, but I think we really need to be honest about what this is truly about … political beliefs and standing on what to do with immigration.”

Meanwhile, while Nebraska is forcing some women to watch their babies die due to lack of prenatal care assistance, another woman also had to experience the same “torture” because the state would not allow her to terminate her pregnancy even after doctors told her that her child would not live.

ThinkProgress filed this report from West Des Moines, IA.

On Wednesday, ThinkProgress broke the story of presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich’s brazen flip-flop concerning the American response to the crisis in Libya. After our article was published, Gingrich’s campaign offered one incoherent and contradictory response after another, even committing another flip-flop last night on Fox News in the process. The flap earned Gingrich a “full flop” from the non-partisan PolitiFact’s Truth-o-Meter.

ThinkProgress confronted the former House Speaker over his evolving position on Libya at an event in Iowa today. Gingrich stuck to his guns, declaring that it was “inaccurate” of PolitiFact to say he had flip-flopped on Libya. When asked to respond to his own 2004 declaration that “you can’t flip-flop and be commander-in-chief,” Gingrich brushed off his own standard, maintaining that if people “look at what I actually said[,] they’ll find I didn’t flip-flop”:

KEYES: Is it possible to get your thoughts real quick on the Libya situation? I know that PolitiFact said that it was a total, a “full flip-flop.” What’s your response to that?

GINGRICH: It’s inaccurate. I have responded since the middle of February to this situation as it changed. And obviously as the facts change the analysis changes. I’ve consistently worked through exactly where we were at any given moment.

KEYES: I know in 2004 you were quoted as saying that “you can’t flip-flop and be commander-in-chief.” What would you say to critics who would point to that?

GINGRICH: I would say that they should look at what I actually said and they’ll find I didn’t flip-flop.

Watch it:

If you take a look at “what he actually said,” you’ll find that Newt has flip-flopped not once, but twice. Watch them both:

As ThinkProgress reported Wednesday, former Speaker of the House and current presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has had a hard time defining his position on American intervention in Libya. While Gingrich may be the most high-profile flip-flopper, he’s certainly not the only one to have changed his position. In fact, ABC News reports that multiple Republican members of Congress have conveniently shifted their positions on Libya to keep themselves on the opposite side of the issue from President Obama.

In a Feb. 26 press release, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) called for a no-fly zone, saying:

“[S]tronger penalties must be imposed in order to hold the regime accountable for its heinous crimes, and to prevent further violence against the Libyan people. … Additional U.S. and international measures should include the establishment and enforcement of a no-fly zone.”

Ros-Lehtinen, however, expressed new-found reservations in a March 26 release, saying she is “concerned” about the enforcement of the no-fly zone.

Similarly, on March 9, House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (R-CA) criticized President Obama for not taking action, saying, “He’s doing a great job of doing nothing on Libya.” But eleven days later, after Obama announced the intervention, McKeon held a different position:

I am concerned that the use of military force in the absence of clear political objectives for our country risks entrenching the United States in a humanitarian mission whose scope and duration are not known at this point and cannot be controlled by us.

And then there is Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s panel on the Middle East. McCaul announced Thursday that the administration had missed its window of opportunity for a successful intervention. “We had an opportunity ten days ago,” McCaul said. “We failed in that.”

However, just six days before deciding Obama was 10 days too late, McCaul supported the administration’s decision to use military force.

“Gadhafi’s heinous crimes against his own people warrant prompt action in order to mitigate the loss of life, to allow for uninterrupted flow of humanitarian aid and to ensure a more peaceful resolution of conflict between the Libyan government and its citizens.”

Not to be outdone, Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), who sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security, called for intervention in a Feb. 22 press release:

“The United States Must Support These Brave Men and Women Who are Seeking to Throw Off the Shackles of Tyranny in Libya.” “The unrest in Libya is another sign that our nation must take action to protect our vital national interests and support the efforts of those who are seeking freedom across the globe,” she said then.

And yet, after Obama took action, Miller accused him of doing so without “clearly stating to the American people the compelling national interest” of intervening.

Last night, Gingrich hinted that his apparent flip-flops were actually just individual responses to positions taken by Obama. Apparently, these four lawmakers were reading from the same playbook. No matter the decision Obama makes, they’ll be there to oppose it.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich went on Fox News last night to “attempt[] to clarify [his] stance on Libya,” as Fox itself put it, but only ran into more trouble. Gingrich has been in hot water since ThinkProgress caught him doing a complete 180 reversal on his stance regarding intervention in Libya — from demanding intervention “this evening” to saying “I would not have intervened.”

Gingrich has since tried multiple times to rectify the two conflicting statements, failing to do so each time. And last night with Greta Van Susteren, the same show where his Libya problems first began, Gingrich only dug himself deeper when he attacked Obama for making a “fundamental mistake” by relying on air power to protect civilians in Libya:

GINGRICH: If they’re serious about protecting civilians, you can’t do that from the air. Gadaffi is going to use light infantry, he’s going to use his secret police. He’s going to be in the cities, he’s going to be inside buildings. Your not going to be able to do that with air power. This is a fundamental mistake. And I think is a typical politician’s over-reliance on air power.

But two weeks ago on the exact same program, Gingrich said “all we have to do” to stop the Qadaffi regime from “slaughtering your own citizens” is use air power:

GINGRICH: All we have to say is that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable, and we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops, all we have to do is suppress his air force, which we can do in minutes. And then we have to say, publicly, that he is gone, that the military should switch sides now. … The fact there’s no more Libya air power, and the fact that the United States has come out decisively for replacing him, I suspect the military will dump him.

Watch a compilation:

Gingrich tried to explain his incoherent stances by telling Van Susteren that he is merely responding to what Obama does. “I was responding in each case to changes in Obama’s positon,” he said last night. Indeed, no matter what Obama does, Gingrich will be sure to oppose it — even if he supported that exact policy two weeks ago.