By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 12, 1998; Page B01

RICHMOND, March 11—Gov. James S. Gilmore III vowed today to veto legislation that would provide health care to 83,000 Virginia children of low-income, working parents, calling it a welfare-style program that "only encourages dependency on government."

His pledge came after five Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate and defeated Gilmore's less generous health care plan 24 to 16, a majority that was three votes shy of what would be needed to override the veto. Both sides blamed each other for the standoff and for the possibility that no plan to reduce the number of uninsured children would be adopted this year.

Hours later, the GOP-led Senate and the evenly split House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly for final passage of a ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. The Senate also voted to ban physician-assisted suicide, giving a double victory to religious conservative groups as lawmakers met in a marathon session days before adjournment, scheduled for Saturday.

In promising the health care veto, Gilmore chastised the legislature for rejecting his plan, which would have provided less comprehensive coverage and required some families to pay full premiums for the insurance. Either approach would allow Virginia to get about $56 million in federal aid meant to encourage states to adopt such programs.

"Poor children ought to have health care coverage," Gilmore said in a statement criticizing the General Assembly's plan. "No child should go uninsured. But . . . I am dismayed that lawmakers apparently fail to see that such a measure does not empower people and only encourages dependency on government."

Lawmakers accused the administration of twisting the facts and using anti-welfare rhetoric, while saying their plan would offer fuller, child-oriented coverage, including preventive checkups, eyeglasses and hearing exams.

"Since when is health insurance welfare? Is it when we cover the disabled and elderly?" asked Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax). "Why is it welfare when it's poor children of working parents?"

Gilmore's alternative "will provide less benefits at a greater cost per child with a greater administrative expense," said Senate President pro Tempore Stanley C. Walker (D-Norfolk).

The legislature's plan, passed by the House 59 to 39 and the Senate 29 to 10 this session, would cover about 83,000 low-income and poor children. It would cost $37 million in state money, plus the $56 million in federal funds.

It would extend Medicaid to families making up to 150 percent of poverty, or $24,000 for a family of four. Families making up to 185 percent of poverty, or $32,000, would receive similar benefits but pay co-payments for doctor visits and partial premiums.

Gilmore's plan would cover the same number of children and cost about $40 million in state money, plus the federal funds. But it would have provided health benefits equal to those that state employees receive, requiring co-payments for all families. About 25,000 children whose families make more than 175 percent of poverty, about $36,000, would also pay monthly per-child premiums of $62.

The administration campaigned hard over the last 48 hours to persuade moderate Republicans to vote for Gilmore's plan, which was opposed by nearly 80 child advocacy groups, unions, hospitals and doctors' organizations.

Gilmore aides spoke to more than half the assembly, said Claude Allen, Gilmore's secretary of health and human resources. Administration officials sent e-mail bulletins to local officials and activists urging them to contact their lawmakers to back Gilmore's plan.

"It's very simple, it's very straightforward, you have a clear choice here," Allen said. "It's not about numbers. It's about do we go with more public entitlements, or do we go with private insurance?"

Gilmore's political committee also joined conservative allies such as the Family Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform to fight what the committee called a "massive expansion" of welfare benefits.

Opponents called Gilmore's style heavy-handed, noting that the governor's plan is also publicly funded, that it would have barred low-income state workers from participating and that it would have initially awarded insurers no-bid contracts to match the speed with which the legislature's plan could be launched, by July 1.

Democrats also accused Gilmore aides of claiming inaccurately that the legislature's plan would cost $9 million more than its sponsors said.

"These numbers have been cooked. They have been fried to a crisp," Sen. Joseph V. Gartlan Jr. (D-Fairfax) said. "They have been on a barbecue grill until there has been roasted out of them every drop of credibility."

In other business, antiabortion groups called the 32 to 8 Senate vote and the 79 to 20 House vote to ban the procedure known as partial-birth abortion a triumph.

The votes came after supporters defeated amendments that would have allowed the procedure if a woman's life or health was at risk.

The Senate voted 34 to 6 to make physician-assisted suicide illegal in Virginia, after deleting language that would have imposed a civil fine on violators. Physicians who break the law could lose their license, however, and family members of those they help could file civil lawsuits against them. The bill passed the House 77 to 20 last month.

Both pieces of legislation go to Gilmore, who supports them.

The House, on a voice vote, also killed for the year a bill that would bar school officials from expelling or suspending students for possessing nonprescription drugs. The bill was spurred by cases in which children violated so-called zero-tolerance school drug policies and were sent home, including a Fairfax County seventh-grader suspended for possessing the over-the-counter pain reliever Advil.