The Medicaid expansion debate in Alabama has centered almost exclusively on cost concerns and states’ rights arguments, and Gov. Robert Bentley did not depart from these predictable talking points in his Jan. 14 “State of the State” address.

A major component of the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA” or “Obamacare”) is the expansion of Medicaid coverage for low-income adults up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (only $15,856 for an individual or $26,951 for a family of three in 2013). However, states remain free to effectively block expansion of Medicaid programs, and Gov. Bentley appears intent on doing just that in Alabama.

But even with Montgomery refusing to move forward, there’s still a lot we can know about the importance of Medicaid expansion in our state.

We know that expanding Medicaid under the ACA would extend coverage to about 300,000 uninsured working-class Alabamians. We know that citizens within this demographic are likely already receiving emergency care for things like heart attacks and broken arms but remain ineligible to receive preventative and specialist care – the kind of basic care that can, far too often, represent the ultimate difference between living a happy and healthy life and dying a preventable death.

We know that a 2012 Harvard School of Public Health study calculated that one death per year was prevented for every additional 176 adults covered by Medicaid expansion in other states. From the same study, we know that post-expansion drops in mortality rates were most significant among society’s most vulnerable groups – older adults, minorities and residents of poor counties.

Based on this information alone, simple math tells us that the lives of 1,704 Alabamians depend on Medicaid expansion as we sit here today. Lives. Not statistics.

So don’t be distracted by Gov. Bentley’s rhetoric about tax receipts and the 10th Amendment – Medicaid expansion is not a matter of dollar and cents, but is fundamentally a right to life issue.

It is disappointing that the Republican party – which is supposedly committed to protecting the “sanctity of innocent human life” and has worked vigorously to limit the reach of Roe v. Wade – is consistently unable to appreciate the moral implications of their decisions when it comes to health care.

An Alabama Republican might argue that a woman has no right to abort a fetus. That same Republican might also argue, however inexplicably, that the state maintains the right to deny basic and necessary coverage to the most vulnerable Alabamians – thus depriving them of a happy and healthy life or indeed depriving them of life altogether.

What is the relevant moral difference between directly killing a fetus and allowing hundreds of poor and marginalized Alabamians to die unnecessary and preventable deaths due to willful neglect and lack of empathy?

Further, I am deeply unsettled by Gov. Bentley’s “State of the State” remarks, which suggest that the right to life is not absolute and fundamental, but situational: “I am a physician who cared for all my patients regardless of their ability to pay. But I have another role to play now. I am also your governor. And I have to be concerned for our state.”

Here, Bentley seems to acknowledge that humans have a right to have their basic health needs met – so long as there aren’t taxpayers to appease and political points to score. We as a society should not accept a right to life which simply disappears as increased political and economic leverage is applied.

It should not be a death sentence in this state to make a living just above the poverty line. It should not be a death sentence to be a working parent. It should not be a death sentence to be ignorant of or disillusioned by the complexity of health care options.

This is not an “abortion column.” It is, however, a column which demands that whatever your position is on abortion, it should at least logically square with your convictions on health care and Medicaid expansion.

The right to life cannot begin at conception but end at birth.

Henry Downes is a junior majoring in economics and political science. His column runs biweekly on Tuesdays.