Ben Nelson’s amendment restricting abortion services coverage in the exchanges is nearing the Senate floor for a vote.
Antiabortion lawmakers in the Senate plan to introduce an amendment as soon as Monday to restrict insurance coverage of abortion in the health bill, setting up a showdown that has no clear path to resolution.
Both sides agree the amendment likely doesn’t have enough votes to pass, but antiabortion groups and Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) say they will continue insisting on tough language as a condition for supporting the overall bill.
The lack of a clear meeting point makes abortion somewhat different from the other top obstacle to the bill’s passage, the publicly run insurance plan that some Democrats oppose. There, both sides are weighing a handful of compromises.
On abortion, said Sen. Nelson, “it’s certainly not a lock that there’s language in the middle.”
As the WSJ story notes, the actual vote on Nelson’s amendment is tangential to the endgame on the abortion language in the bill. However, as Kagro explains, it’s unclear why Nelson would participate in a unanimous consent agreement that would force his bill to capture a higher number of votes in order to pass. He could require a cloture vote to end debate on his amendment, and bottle up the bill basically forever. But if he agrees to the 60-vote threshold, then he was more interested in holding a vote for the benefit of his constituents back home than holding up the bill. And that’s true regardless of Nelson’s threat to join a filibuster if his preferred abortion language, which would ban abortion services coverage in the entire health care market over time, isn’t adopted.
Nobody expects Nelson’s amendment to pass, as Debbie Stabenow told one website today (TPM likes to refer to me as another reporter so for the near future I’m calling them “another website” and not linking to their stuff). I don’t even think it has 50 votes, let alone 60.
But there is an out for all sides that few people are considering. It’s the same out that is motivating negotiations on the public option. There’s going to be a manager’s amendment that will deal with these complex issues. It will be pre-determined to achieve a certain number of votes. Nelson’s concerns can be allayed inside that manager’s amendment. And if they’re not, a manager’s amendment could woo Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins and obviate the need for Nelson’s vote. That’s arguably why Snowe and Collins are in negotiations right now.
There’s a way out of this box, but it’s likely to occur through negotiation rather than any vote on the floor.
UPDATE: I have acquired the text of the amendment. Bob Casey is a co-sponsor, even though he voted against a similar type of amendment in the Senate HELP Committee. The giveaway here is that line where it says “No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act” can be used to pay for abortion services. That’s what was used in the Stupak amendment, and it would basically take away abortion coverage for millions of Americans, and eventually, all Americans. It adds the same fig leaf of supplemental coverage which insurance companies in states with this kind of language simply don’t provide.
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.




57 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Awww, you’re not just another reporter to me. You are my main source for general news coverage. Thanks for all of your hard work!
thanks david!
you’re not another reporter to me, and i will be citing you when i hammer bob casey for this next monday.
TPM sucks, attribution-wise. Always has, don’t feel like the Lone Ranger.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/senate-dems-may-open-up-m_n_382728.html
that other blog reporting a compromise brilliant move by Dems to settle some part of the public option argument by adding in Medicare at 55 or 60.
has the added benefit of pulling the rug out from under a month of gooper TPs about stealing from Medicare. Cant say that when a good deal of the HCR is medicare.
No federal funds for abortion!
But go ahead and take these federal food stamps for the next 20 years.
So this would also apply to a non-viable fetus that does not spontaneously abort? The mother would have to “pay” to save her life?
My reading of the amendment has always been “yes.” And those are expensive procedures.
A nice, “Here’s your medical bill while you mourn your loss and fight for your life,” piece of legislation.
Some compassionate nation there.
Shouldn’t abortion foes be demanding investigations of all spontaneous abortions?
Section b.1 above:
So let Nelson and these conservadems take the fall for killing a bill that at this point should be killed anyways!
Big difference between “life of the mother” and “health of the mother.”
Do you know what kind of paper trail is required for legislation like this? Even if there are exceptions stated, the requirement “to prove” are usually beyond the reality of the situation. Thus, making the procedure nearly impossible to obtain in a timely and safe manner for the mother.
I don’t understand why woman are under such assault by men in the government.
This leaves women with mental disorders forced to have babies even if their families want to terminate, IMO.
I was responding to #6 who stated:
I missed the part about no funds being allocated for vasectomies. Wimmen need to PAY for their accidental pregnancies, but men, nah. (Missed the part about no Viagra too.)
Women need to start sending used tampons to their representatives and senators. Rat bastards, fuck’em all.
We have been going through this crap for months and what does it come down up – cutting services for WOMEN! I feel dumb for not having figured out that it would be this. I am so outraged I can hardly breathe.
No one will be forced to have a baby.
What? You would deny them this chance to nurture their inner misogynist? In the name of preserving life? Which is to say, life before birth and not again until death (and then only if it’s a Terry Schiavo situation)?
Slightly (but not entirely) OT: A clip taking a swipe at Slithery Joe.
I wonder why the antiabortion senators have abandoned the snowflake babies?
If only women who have PHYSICAL problems can have abortions, look at the loophole.
Are there enough so-called Democrats who are really betrayers of a core Democratic Party principle in the Senate to pass this bullshit?
How many fucking times do the Dems wanna shoot themselves in the foot?
HA! Just to Stupak and Nelson maybe. Wouldn’t want to waste.
Yes. Didn’t you watch the Stupak amendment pass in the House?
And the House is nominally better than the Senate.
I’m not the least bit in favor of the amendment, but I don’t think we need to make stuff up to argue against. There’s plenty of bad without saying women will be forced to have babies.
First the amendment doesn’t force anyone to get pregnant, so no one will be FORCED to have a baby.
Then the amendment doesn’t force anyone to use government health care. Few people will take it, and few of them will have an unwanted pregnancy.
And if you find yourself in that very small category, you can still pay your own way, or go to a free clinic, or any number of different options. It’s all about Public Options, not about forcing anyone to have a baby.
There is seemingly no – as in zero – bedrock principals in the D party. Perhaps that is their bedrock principal. Nothing matters.
If I am wrong.. someone please tell me one or two?
Yeah, and everyone has health care because we can go to the Emergency Room, right?
You know very well that is not what I said. I’m talking about women who have a mental illness but no physical reason why they couldn’t have a baby. Pregnancy and delivery are very difficult and could do great harm to someone with a mental disorder. And the woman’s family should have standing in a situation like this. If you wish to misunderstand what I am saying that’s fine.
Yes, and am still mystified by what happened.
Trying to name the eleven Democratic Senators who will join with the Republicans in passing this shit. There would have to be at least 11, right?
$$
Just noticed this in David’s post:
Seems like Nelson is going for a symbolic vote so that he can say he pushed for it and voted in favor of it.
There is seemingly no – as in zero – bedrock principals in the D party. Perhaps that is their bedrock principal. Nothing matters.
If I am wrong.. someone please tell me one or two?
gimme a minute – I’m thinking…..
I’m pretty sure the D’s are against the use of the Confederate Flag being incorporate into the use of any State’s flag….and the insertion of religion into… – oops, never mind.
am I wrong, or was the Gregg Amendment not such a bad idea? If I’m not mistaken, Medicaire overages have *always* been shifted to cover up other more ugly parts of the budget. (and I could be wrong).
That having been said, I know where the good Senator’s place in Sarasota is, and will, unabatedly, and unabashedly, continue to dump my trash over his fence.
The votes on Gregg’s Amendment has been taken and Ben Nelson just started debate of his Stupkan amendment. Cornyn is up talking about hoe health care is a job killer and bashing Obama on job creation.
One day we will all look back and say,boy that half white president didn’t work out very well,he bankrupted the country in less than two years,he destroyed our reputation around the world,He destroyed our democratic system,He has been on the campaign trail for almost three years now,trying to become the president of the world.His tribe of hoodlums,he has hired to work for him in the whitehouse,can’t even pay their own income taxes.What a sad day for this great country.It is time that we removed all incumbants from office.They do not hear us.They want Health Care,we want JOBS.Maybe they will hear “UNEMPLOYMENT”if we remove them from office.You want to see a broken system,Watch cspan for a couple hours.What a joke.If it is after 12:00 pm noon time,half of the senators are drunk,listen to them slurring their words.Friday Montana Senator Baucas was feeling no pain.
And why did you feel the need to mention that he is
“half white”?
hey – I know a rhetorical question when I see one….
delete
Will someone find those companies that contribute money to Sen. Ben Nelson and Rep. Bart Stupak send the results to info@democratz.org and boycott the major contributors of these 2 and get thousands of people to call them and tell them you will boycott them until their CEOs get both get their anti abortion amendments out of the healt care bill.?
What a bunch of weasels!!
What’s wrong with them? I didn’t know Josh was so petty.
I mean, good grief: people working [at least nominally] on the same side of an issue shouldn’t be so small.
McCain is on the floor reading from a FoxNews news report on Reid’s comparison of Senators opposing slavery to Republicans opposing health care reform. F I L I B U S T E R
We should wirte some “news” articles Democrats could read into the record on the floor.
No exception for a fetus which is dead. I have yet to hear an explanation how that is pro life.
No, She would not. Section (b)(1) explicitly permits cases where the Mother faces “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.” BTW, I should point out the President has insisted wording of this nature be included in the final bill. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/sebelius-president-rules-out-public-funding-for-abortion.html) This idea isn’t coming from anti-choice/anti-Woman Conservatives. It’s coming from a President of the United States accused by Republicans of being the most liberal in history. I would find it pretty hard for Anyone to claim this change is anti-Woman with any degree of sincerity. I know You didn’t say so in Your post. However, I have heard Other make that claim.
That’s called “a miscarriage”. It spontaneously aborts.
I think landlockedsalmon was refering to Bush. He was speaking with an impediment. He meant to say “half-right”.
But it doesn’t always completely abort.
Once the miscarriage has occurred, the removal of the Body no longer constitutes an abortion due to the fact the in utero Body is dead and abortion requires living matter upon which to perform.
Nobody said They have. I think this issue probably ranks a more immediate concern to Them; not necessarily more important; just more urgent.
My point is that there are states with anti abortion laws on the books with “exception” clauses. My own family went through this. Once anti-abortion is involved in legislation, the problem is proving the “necessary need” cases and “paperwork” and hoops get developed to meet the criteria.
Went through it, nearly lost my sister because of the incredible bureaucratic tape. That is the point of my concern. My concern is that coverage may not happen in the needed fashion and only happen after insurance pre-approval. The process for care will be too slow to meet the safety of the mother’s health.
Not “whether” it will be covered but fully covered in the needed time frame.
And fyi @ 49, the same medical procedure to remove a dead fetus is the same used on living matter. You are wrong. I lived through it.
klynn, if you’re up for it, it would be so helpful to share your experience with your senators and representative.
Yes…permanent sterility would not be sufficient groups for providing Federal funding.
I recall something like this was how young men could avoid the draft back in Vietnam…so they went out and actually created “physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illnesses” that would remove their 1A status.
“First the amendment doesn’t force anyone to get pregnant, so no one will be FORCED to have a baby.”
Umm, women get pregnant without wanting a baby all the time. They’ve had this occur for millenia. That’s the reality. To say that getting into a situation where a woman will need an abortion is a “choice” is absurd.
“Then the amendment doesn’t force anyone to use government health care. Few people will take it, and few of them will have an unwanted pregnancy.”
The amendment says ANY government funding…not government health care. The latter suggests “programs” fully run by the Government. But the amendment applies to the Exchanges, and even to the subsidies that would applied to every individual earning under $70K. If you have an insurance plan that covers abortion…sorry…no subsidy (which is actually a rebate of the taxes you paid).
The effects of this is easily seen in Medicare that is used by women of reproductive age. They have more kids, have higher poverty rates and are more likely to have further children simply because the cost of pregnancy to term is subsidized, but abortion is not covered. When $500-$1000 is simply not available…and yet the pregnancy is fully covered to term which would be YOUR choice?
“And if you find yourself in that very small category, you can still pay your own way, or go to a free clinic, or any number of different options. It’s all about Public Options, not about forcing anyone to have a baby.”
It’s not a “small number” that will be affected. And the opportunities will dry up since women will be in the same patch as lower income women without the inclusive insurance plans that cover all reproductive options.
Furthermore the cost of the health care programs would actually go up significantly if women do opt to have children (particular those with congenital or other issues) rather than abort.
All very good responses.
But nowhere do you show that the amendment will “FORCE women to have babies”, which was the earlier assertion that I was countering.
“Women get pregnant all the time for millenia.” The amendment won’t change that.
“The amendment says ANY government funding” There is currently no government funding for abortion, so the amendment doesn’t change that.
I stand by my statemsnt that the amendment will not “force women to have babies.”