The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux

What is it about those Nebraska governors-turned-senators? Did they not get enough attention as children? Do they chafe at being told they hail from a “flyover” state? Does that unicameral legislature leave too few adoring supporters? Bob Kerrey was infamous for waiting until the verrrrrry last moment to make up his mind on important pieces of legislation, waiting until he’d been courted and wheedled and begged. And now it appears Ben Nelson is looking to make himself similarly indispensable to the Democratic effort to pass health reform legislation.

On Monday, Nelson introduced an amendment that would prohibit the public option from covering abortion and would prevent private insurance plans that covered abortion procedures from receiving federal subsidies (bill text after the jump). It is virtually identical to the Stupak amendment that passed as part of a deal to get health reform through the House last month. But there is one important difference between the two.

Unlike the Stupak amendment, which garnered the support of 64 House Democrats, the Nelson provision will certainly not pass when the Senate considers it (probably Tuesday). The amendment would need 60 votes to pass, and pro-choice organizations count at least 41 senators who are solidly on their side. Each side is still playing their part, of course, with choice groups circulating frantic emails to their members about the “outrageous” Nelson amendment and a trio of key Catholic leaders sending a letter to senators to urge a “yes” vote on “an essential amendment.”

So what happens when the Nelson amendment fails? Last week, Nelson was threatening to filibuster health reform if his abortion language was not included, but he’s since walked that back. Even a Nebraska attention-seeker can only go so far, after all. Democratic leaders have said they’re working on other compromises to win Nelson’s support for the final bill, but it’s unclear that he was ever willing to vote for health reform, even if his amendment were to pass. And other pro-life Democrats–like Bob Casey, who is a co-sponsor of Nelson’s amendment–have not said the issue will determine their vote.

Casey has talked about introducing parts of his Pregnant Women Support Act in order to insure that the bill contains measures to reduce abortion rates. But such a move would be almost entirely for his own comfort, and not to bring more pro-life senators aboard or placate the Catholic hierarchy. Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ secretariat of pro-life activities, told the Wall Street Journal over the weekend that compromise in the wake of a defeat of the Nelson amendment was “not a negotiation we’re prepared to have,” adding, “I really don’t know how you compromise further.”

Another factor arguing against additional abortion amendments is the fact that if Reid cannot count on Nelson to get to 60 votes, he will have to pin his hopes on Olympia Snowe, a strong supporter of abortion rights. Snowe’s main stated concern about health reform is the public option. But stronger abortion restrictions would only make her less likely to sign on to be that crucial last vote to pass reform. Which is why as of Monday night, Democratic leaders were much busier crafting a public option compromise than worrying about abortion negotiations.

The buzz early this week may be about the Nelson amendment and whether it will be the key or the stumbling block to passing health reform, but the real focus of players in the abortion world is what happens in conference committee once (if) there are Senate and House versions to reconcile. Intense brainstorming and negotiations are taking place, especially among House Democrats who voted both for the Stupak amendment and health reform. They aren’t willing to see health reform go down in flames and they don’t need language as strong as the Stupak amendment to support final legislation.

TEXT OF THE NELSON-HATCH AMENDMENT

Purpose: To prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortions.

H. R. 3590

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.

Referred to the Committee on __________ and ordered to be printed

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Casey, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Thune, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Vitter and Mr. Barrasso) to the amendment (No. 2786) proposed by Mr. Reid

Viz:

Beginning on page 116, strike line 15 and all that follows through line 15 on page 123, and insert the following:

(a) Special Rules Relating to Coverage of Abortion Services.–

(1) In general.–Subject to paragraph (2), nothing in this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of abortion services or to allow the Secretary or any other person or entity implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of such services.

(2) Community health insurance option.–The Secretary may not provide coverage of abortion services in the community health insurance option established under section 1323, except in the case where use of funds authorized or appropriated by this Act is permitted for such services under subsection (b)(1).

(3) No discrimination on the basis of provision of abortion.–No Exchange participating health benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(b) Limitation on Abortion Funding.–

(1) In general.–No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(2) Option to purchase separate supplemental coverage or plan.–Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as–

(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using–

(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

(3) Option to offer supplemental coverage or plan.–Nothing in this subsection shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as–

(A) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;

(B) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and

(C) any such non-Federal health insurance issuer that offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • juniusredivivus

    No, they are simply classic examples of why Madison feared that small states would have disproportionate influence. Admittedly, given Nelson’s vicious combination of self-interest, ignorance and intellectual desuetude, he would probably manage to gum up the works in even a perfect polity. Fortunately, we can rely on Max Ironfist Baucus and Kent Braveheart Conrad to save the day.

  • http://www.ghostnote.com Cookie Puss

    Ben Nelson: Crusader for the Unborn. The living? Not so much.

  • deconstructiva

    Amy, have some brandy or just hit the mimosas early, then get some sleep. Maybe Ben Nelson does literally represent NE insurance corporations, NOT the state itself. Is NE one of those states with all those circular fields you see while flying? Given both sides’ heels dug in, maybe Goldwater was right also in that the govt. should just stay the hell out of this issue.
    .
    Barring that, Nelson’s backtracking on the my-way-or-the-filibuster-highway (waaah!) makes me ponder his real motives: more attention (to which as you’ve delightfully alluded), some slab of bacon for his corporation, I mean, state, or does Reid (more likely Schumer or Rockefeller) have “something on him” to get him in line?

  • deconstructiva

    These abortion HCR fights remind me of the Rome vs. Carthage Punic Wars. Should these congressional battles be called the Pubic Wars? I’d bet Amy’s divinity education included enough Classics to let her answer this best: who among the Senate (ours, not Roman) would be Hannibal and who would be Scipio?

  • http://www.besttalalaylatexmattress.com/natural-latex-mattresses-good-for-the-health Best Talalay Latex Mattress .com » Blog Archive Natural Latex Mattresses – Good for the Health

    [...] The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux – Swampland – TIME.com [...]

  • sevenoaks07

    Thanks for reminding me: I sweated Latin and Greek but it was worth it.

  • Matt

    Nelson isd an idiot if he thinks he can complain that the Senate bill has no sufficient comprise on abortion and then demands the most strict limits on it for his own “compromise.” The Dems would rather pander to Olympia Snowe…

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • FlownOver

    I suspect/hope Nelson will get all the attention hew can handle when he tries to win re-election. He’ll take fire from Republicans (who don’t give a damn how he votes on issues – he’s just a D) and Democrats (who have no use for a DINOsaur like him). The only way I’d even think about caring is if his race became critical to a bare Senate majority; it’s evident we can’t ever count on him for cloture control.

  • palininatowel

    Do people really believe that Nelson would torpedo health care reform over abortion funding?

    Does anyone really believe that Nelson gives a flying f*** about abortion?

    Nelson is cynically using the abortion funding issue to do what he has been paid to do by his biggest contributors (read: health care corporate interests such as insurance and pharma): sink health care reform.

    Nelson is a tool. And I mean that both ways.

  • http://jingleyanqui.wordpress.com Jingle

    well, to get things done, Nelson is wanted..

    http://www.jingleyanqiu.wordpress.com

    Have a Great Tuesday!

  • allthingsinaname

    the connection is simple, The unborn is the future of the living.

    It continues to amaze me that Americans are willing for everyone else to sacrifice for them, but do little of it them selves.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Ben Nelson: Crusader for the Unborn. The living? Not so much.
    Libelous hyperbole…

  • grollican

    Exiled at Home – dishonest oxymoron.

  • stewartiii

    NewsBusters: TIME’s Sullivan Slams ‘Flyover Country’ Nebraska Dem for Pro-life Amendment
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/12/08/times-sullivan-slams-flyover-country-nebraska-dem-pro-life-amendment

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Hello, grollican.

  • grollican

    Hello, ex.

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/09/senate-kills-nelson-amendment-over-to-you-bishops/ Senate Kills Nelson Amendment–Over To You, Bishops – Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] by Amy Sullivan Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 1:39 am Submit a Comment • Trackback (0) No surprise here. As expected, the Senate voted down the Nelson abortion amendment late Tuesday (technically, they [...]

  • rayrice4

    There shoudn’t be an “Abortion War” if the pro-abortion advocates (and TIME) followed Pres Obamas guidelines for decision making,that he articulated on this issue in his Notre Dame speech .”Decisions should be made using SCIENCE and ETHICS,”The abortion lobby (and TIME) avoid these guidelines like a plague.
    SCIENCE:..What scientist can prove that a child nurtured in it’s mothers womb is not an innocent human being(is it possibly some other species or substance,different from a child nurtured at it’s mothers breast?..Impossible!!)
    ETHICS :What civil society condones the destruction (murder) of an innocent human being?
    TIME has an obligation to get on the track of SCIENCE and ETHICS to advocate positions instead of pandering to radical feminist causes that have been proven to be barbaric.

blog comments powered by Disqus