Reid stripped Stupak language from Senate ObamaCare bill

posted at 12:15 pm on November 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Let the games begin:

The Senate healthcare reform bill includes new language designed to prevent taxpayer money from financing abortions, an anti-abortion-rights Democrat said Wednesday.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who was briefed on the healthcare bill by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in advance of a Wednesday meeting of all Senate Democrats, said he received assurances that his concerns about abortion had been met. …

Nelson emphasized he had seen no legislative language on abortion and specified that the provisions would not be the same approved by the House. Those provisions have triggered an outcry from pro-abortion-rights Democrats in both chambers, who vowed to strip them from any legislation that reaches President Barack Obama. 

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who supports abortion rights, said Reid’s new provisions would preserve the Hyde amendment while enabling people to buy insurance plans with abortion coverage on the exchange.

“We’re basically going to keep current law, which is what we ought to do,” Kerry said after the Democratic caucus meeting.

The question will be whether the new language will be enough to allow moderates to climb down from their previous pro-Stupak declarations.  The restrictions come in Section 1303 of the Reid bill, which dances on the notion of fungibility in federal subsidies:

SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.
(a) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—
(1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title), and subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D)—
(i) nothing in this title (or any mendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and
(ii) the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.

(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—
(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

(C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—
(i) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary—
(I) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2);
(II) assures, in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office, that no  Federal funds are used for such coverage; and
(III) notwithstanding section 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision of this title, takes all necessary steps to assure that the United States does  not bear the insurance risk for a community health insurance option’s coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
(ii) STATE REQUIREMENT.—If a State requires, in addition to the essential health benefits required under section 1323(b)(3) (A), coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) for enrollees of a community health insurance option offered in such State, the State shall assure that no funds flowing through or from the community health insurance option, and no other Federal funds, pay or defray the cost of providing coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i). The United States shall not bear the insurance risk for a State’s required coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
(iii) EXCEPTIONS.—Nothing in this subparagraph shall apply to coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) by the community health insurance option. Services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be covered to the same extent as such  services are covered under title XIX of the Social Security Act.

Compare that to the text of the Stupak amendment:

SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.

(a) 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.

(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE’ SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN-Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this’ section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as

(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased using
(A) individual premium payments required for’ a Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(B) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including State’s or locality’s ,contribution of’ Medicaid matching funds.
(c) OPTION TO OFFER SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN.-Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under  this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as (1) premiums for such separate supplemental
coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;

(2) administrative costs and all serv;ices offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage ,or plan; and

(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.

The Stupak language is much, much stronger than the weak offering in the Reid bill.  For one thing, Reid’s language only prohibits the use of federal funds based on the law as it was in the previous six months before the plan year.  Why not just take Stupak’s direct approach and forbid federal funds from going to abortions and abortion coverage?  This has the appearance of a loophole deliberately set for Congress in which arguments can be made as to whether the restrictions on funds only apply to monies transmitted from HHS, and which laws apply in setting the precedent for the restriction.

But the replacement of Stupak’s clear and unmistakable ban with the weasel-worded Section 1303 may be enough to sway moderates like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, even if it doesn’t sway Stupak himself.  Democrats will insist that the two sections are functionally equivalent — and I suspect the media will be happy to help them with that in order to get political cover for a yes vote in the Senate.  It’s a sleight-of-hand that has a decent chance of succeeding as long as people don’t compare the two clauses and see the differences for themselves.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I question the timing.

Emperor Norton on November 19, 2009 at 12:18 PM

NO!

Fishy.Gov on November 19, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Quick show of hands. This surprised whom?

*crickets*

ExSubNuke on November 19, 2009 at 12:19 PM

it’s on!

D2Boston on November 19, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Reid a lying sack? no! when did that happen? never saw it coming.

bbz123 on November 19, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Who-da thunk it?

JoeinTX on November 19, 2009 at 12:21 PM

They have every intention of funding abortion. They have got to keep basic costs down. An abortion is a hell of alot cheaper than the alternative and it is what pays the bills for Planned Parenthood.

Any assertion to the opposite is simply a lie.

ORconservative on November 19, 2009 at 12:22 PM

It will never pass like this.

Punditpawn on November 19, 2009 at 12:22 PM

It. Will. Pass.

We. Are. Screwed.

Knucklehead on November 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Knucklehead on November 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Not. If. My. Mossberg. Has. Anything. To. Say. About. It.

Holger on November 19, 2009 at 12:25 PM

We’ll see if those “moderate” dems who were doing the posing the last couple of weeks will grow a pair and stand up!

Dukehoopsfan on November 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM

The farce continues.

WisCon on November 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM

OT: Speaking of Senators, just heard on C-BS radio that one of the daughters of the new “senior Senator” from Massachusetts got into a little trouble with the law last night in La-La Land…

Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Let the games begin:

Game over.

OT: Speaking of Senators, just heard on C-BS radio that one of the daughters of the new “senior Senator” from Massachusetts got into a little trouble with the law last night in La-La Land…

Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Drudge has the story. DUI.

uknowmorethanme on November 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM

The Stupak language is much, much stronger than the weak offering in the Reid bill. For one thing, Reid’s language only prohibits the use of federal funds based on the law as it was in the previous six months before the plan year.

Just waiting now, for the new law after the 6 months are up, for population control, allowing parents only 1, or 2 children. All others, by law, are to be aborted. It doesn’t matter how you slice this. Even adding an abortion clause to individual coverages….tax money goes into this, and will cover clinics, and doctors who perform abortions. We’ll pay for them, one way, or the other, if these murderers of babies get their way.

capejasmine on November 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Abortion=racism.

Daveyardbird on November 19, 2009 at 12:31 PM

I hope the GOP goes through with the threat of insisting that all 2000 pages of the bill be read on the Senate floor before any vote can occur.

highhopes on November 19, 2009 at 12:31 PM

2010 can’t come soon enough!

ohiobabe on November 19, 2009 at 12:32 PM

and in other Government intrusion news:
SEC. 2953. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION – AKA sex ed. in the health care bill … for 10 yr olds & up.

batterup on November 19, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Nov 2010 can’t be here soon enough~

hawkman on November 19, 2009 at 12:34 PM

highhopes on November 19, 2009 at 12:31 PM

ditto

cmsinaz on November 19, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Reid’s text on abortion is full of references to other parts of the bill, which Reid hopes nobody will bother to check.

The Reid text also refers to whatever the law might be six months before a claim is made for a specific abortion. Since the whole ObamaCare bill doesn’t really take effect until 2013, Reid hopes to skirt this issue by reassuring wavering Democrat Senators NOW into voting for cloture, then change the law LATER to allow Federal funding for abortions. It’s a classic bait-and-switch, and hopefully some Democrats will not be fooled.

Besides, who knows what Congress might look like in 2013 and beyond, after at least two Congressional elections? If current Senators want to still be there then, they need to think long and hard about their vote NOW.

Steve Z on November 19, 2009 at 12:39 PM

The problem unborn children have is that they are so small they fit under any bus.

I surely hope it doesn’t happen to them this time.

Lily on November 19, 2009 at 12:40 PM

I hope the GOP goes through with the threat of insisting that all 2000 pages of the bill be read on the Senate floor before any vote can occur.

highhopes on November 19, 2009 at 12:31 PM

I hope this just does not pass!! I have found out my husband’s insurance IS considered a cadillac plan. We will not be able to afford the taxes on it, so we would have to drop it and become one more of the uninsured. What happened to “if you like what you have you can keep it”. Or is that just your doctor.

mcmm on November 19, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Color me shocked.
KILL THE BILL

nyx on November 19, 2009 at 12:43 PM

The change will fool no one, and will only act as weaselly defense to scumbags who lie about their true positions on the issue. Not sure where Ben Nelson comes down on abortion, or whether he intends to ever seek re-election. If he supports abortion and doesn’t intend to run again, then it doesn’t matter if the prolifers scream and hold their breath, he’ll vote for it.

But in the same vein — if he intends to run again, ever, then this won’t provide him with any defense at all. It will be seen with perfect hindsight when women are getting Federally-funded abortions in Nebraska: Ben Nelson is a liar.

Jaibones on November 19, 2009 at 12:44 PM

If this bill gets passed, Anarchy will follow.

Obama will be criminalizing freedom. Plan and simple.

PappaMac on November 19, 2009 at 12:46 PM

They are not trying to get to single payer government run healthcare anymore either, at least that is what they expect us to believe.

truetexan on November 19, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Unfortunately a lot of the public seems to be illiterate or something.All they see is “tax the rich.” They all want to do that.Trouble is all of us will soon be considered “the rich.”

sandee on November 19, 2009 at 12:50 PM

“And God said, Notwithstanding any other provision of these commandments, though shalt not murder, except for procedures covered under 1303(a)(1)(B)(ii). “

pedestrian on November 19, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Legal selective extermination.

The perfect dream of the dems.

ms on November 19, 2009 at 12:51 PM

The lies and deceptions are continuous with these buffoons. Obama’s incompetence is reflected in every action he takes. His surrogates are the ship of fools that will sink at his direction. Corruption is at every level.

volsense on November 19, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I can see it now — if an employer currently has a plan which allows abortion coverage, and shifts to a plan which does not, lawsuits by disgruntled employees denied “choice” will follow. Choice works in one direction only.

unclesmrgol on November 19, 2009 at 12:54 PM

I have heard this constitutional argument before but had forgotten about it. I think it will be just hilarious and fitting when democrat liberals are foisted by their own pertard. The very language of the supreme court ruling that gives them abortion is the SAME supreme court ruling that will be used to KILL their commie care!

patriotparty1 on November 19, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Never doubt the party of death. This surprises no one.

search4truth on November 19, 2009 at 12:54 PM

O/T~Can you believe this nitwit on Rush right now? She sounds like one of our moderates around here~our very own Olympia Snowe, but I doubt SHE could get anyone to marry her.

On this subject~I’m SHOCKED. Shocked, I tells you.

HornetSting on November 19, 2009 at 12:56 PM

I just have a sick feeling to my stomach we are going to get this rammed down our throats and we can’t do anything about it.

Brat4life on November 19, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Here we go!

gophergirl on November 19, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Well if your goal is to get everyone one the national policy…and you believe in abortion….then of course you would want that national healthcare plan to fund abortion. Which will mean in 10-20 years all abortions are funded by the government since every american (except congress) will be on the national healthcare paln

unseen on November 19, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Why are we concerned with trying to curtail pieces of this legislation? It is their premise that we are in a crisis and something is broken with the best health care system in the world. That should piss us off. Identify what is specifically wrong and address it. This is a total socialist swipe at a competetive health care sysytem. We don’t want any part of this legislation to pass. Kill the bill and start over.

We are being rolled by inferiors.

Americannodash on November 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Abortion funding will never, ever fly. 1 in 5 democrats voted against the Pelosi Bill, and that was only AFTER Stupak was added.

It’s just there as a pawn to be sacrificed in exchange for moderate support. Throw all the junk in, then make it look like you’re “compromising” as you reluctantly remove what you knew would never pass in the first place.

Posturing. Same as happened in the House.

Let’s get real. Only 80% of elected democrats in the house could even get behind this piece of garbage …

The chances of this Bill passing are less than 50% at this point.

Did you see the Quinnipiac poll today? Absolute slaughter. Only one in three Americans supports obamacare . . .

SBABG on November 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Basically they say the law is same as the Hyde Amendment IF THE HYDE AMENDMENT IS IN FORCE

Duh – they plan to get rid of the Hyde Amendment

bill30097 on November 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I think this is a ruse. In sales it’s called the take away. Take it away then watch them focus on the take away then negotiate to place it back in then bam, bill passes…ruse.

This is bigger than abortion and the libs don’t care because they feel confidant they can work around this with legal language or tricks at another time. Ruse.

This bill needs to DIE.

javamartini on November 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Forced abortion, check … kill granny, check … give healthcare to illegals, check … ration healthcare to those who pay the bills, check.

What’s not to like, besides if you complain, the gulags await.

The more you see the more you realize, Democrats are commies, our dear reader is their leader.

tarpon on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans in the government-run plan.

Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan. It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.

Leader Reid’s 2,074-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy. The National Right to Life Committee has called the Reid abortion language “completely unacceptable.” The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion. The pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment passed the House by a vote of 240 to 194, enjoying the overwhelming support of 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats. The Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law by prohibiting federal funding of elective abortions under any government-run plan or plans available under the Exchange. The Reid plan ignores the will of a bipartisan majority of the House, and indeed the American people, by rejecting this bipartisan amendment.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree. House Republicans have offered a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

unseen on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Absolute slaughter. Only one in three Americans supports obamacare . . .

SBABG on November 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Problem is that our Congress is only listening to those 1 out of 3.

pedestrian on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM

But the replacement of Stupak’s clear and unmistakable ban with the weasel-worded Section 1303 may be enough to sway moderates like Ben Nelson of Nebraska,

Nelson is gutless, without a spine. If it wasn’t for the massive amounts of hair spray, there would be no starch in the man whatsoever.

PappaMac on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM

It’s worse than that…

Sen. Reid’s Government-Run Health Plan Requires a Monthly Abortion Fee

Enoxo on November 19, 2009 at 1:04 PM

SBABG on November 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM

When did the @$$holes in Washington care what the people wanted. They don’t care. They are going to pass something to make Zero look good. It has a chance to pass that’s what is sad. The guys in Washington don’t care because it doesn’t affect them.
I’m not mad at you, It’s been nothing but a month of bad news and it pisses me off that they can get away with $h!t like this and not care.

Brat4life on November 19, 2009 at 1:05 PM

ABORTION IS NOT HELATHCARE

unseen on November 19, 2009 at 1:05 PM

This is also over on Drudge:

http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=690

Reading through that, I wonder if anyone can substantiate it? Because if so, then it makes the amendment above worthless words of reassurance to allow anti-abortion Dems to vote for the bill without possibly getting in trouble with their constituents.

So, anyone have and substantiating words about this other article??? If so, then it can be thrown right back in Reid’s face as a bait-and-switch, as was talked about above.

Highlar on November 19, 2009 at 1:05 PM

unseen on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Heh…I just linked to that story as well. Totall screws up Reid’s little plan here, I think.

Highlar on November 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM

A question~what would an abortion coverage rider be called? I like posting here, so I will refrain from what I would call it. But, Hoover comes to mind.

HornetSting on November 19, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Reid is pond scum.

rplat on November 19, 2009 at 1:09 PM

If Stupak didn’t know that this was exactly what was going to happen then the man is an idiot.

29Victor on November 19, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Heh…I just linked to that story as well. Totall screws up Reid’s little plan here, I think.

Highlar on November 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Let’s hope. what i want to know is when did it become the Congress’s job to figure out a way to sneak unpopular laws oass the voters. I thought it was Congress’s job to do the will of the people.

unseen on November 19, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Reid is pond scum.

rplat on November 19, 2009 at 1:09 PM

I take that as an insult to pond scum.

29Victor on November 19, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Moderate Dem. A contradiction in terms.

angryed on November 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM

In order to get health care you will have to have a number imprinted on your forehead.

“He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell receive health care unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. “

pedestrian on November 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM

It. Will. Pass.

We. Are. Screwed.

Knucklehead on November 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM

We must repeal.

petunia on November 19, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Who didn’t see this coming???? Idiots!!!!!

yoda on November 19, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Abortion is not “health care”. It’s birth control for the stupid and lazy.

This just shows how powerful the progressive influence is in the democrat party.

Kill the unborn, euthanize the elderly, control and steal money from the rest. Progressivism in a nutshell.

darwin on November 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM

The thought of NOT helping to kill innocent unborns keeps Dingy Harry awake at night.

omnipotent on November 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Rush is covering this now

ORconservative on November 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Boy, the way Rush puts it, the abortion premium that everyone pays sounds like a Planned Parenthood slush fund.

ORconservative on November 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM

I guess we will find out soon enough if this thing will pass. I am holding out hope of a filibuster.

Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who was briefed on the healthcare bill by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in advance of a Wednesday meeting of all Senate Democrats, said he received assurances that his concerns about abortion had been met. …

Those of us who share him as a senator have been warning you. He can’t be trusted. He does this every time. He’ll also roll over on the funding part. he always acts reluctant to appease his constituents, then some small change is made and he caves.

a capella on November 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM

If it’s the same, why is it different?

LibTired on November 19, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Stupak’s amendment would probably prohibit most private employers from offering abortion. The healthcare bill provides incentives to companies for wellness initiatives and early retirement benefits and companies couldn’t offer abortion coverage if they took advantage of those incentives (most will).

Jimbo3 on November 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM

ABORTION IS NOT HELATHCARE

unseen on November 19, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Abortion is not healthy for unborn babies and other living things.

Jvette on November 19, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Those of us who share him as a senator have been warning you. He can’t be trusted.
a capella on November 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM

He’s not paying attention to Nebraskans and he will be voted out in 2012 if he lets this bill get to the floor. He thinks Nebraskans will forget this…..we won’t!!!!

yoda on November 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Anti-abortion-rights Democrat?

They mean “Pro-Life Democrat” don’t they?

DavidM on November 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Stupak’s amendment would probably prohibit most private employers from offering abortion. The healthcare bill provides incentives to companies for wellness initiatives and early retirement benefits and companies couldn’t offer abortion coverage if they took advantage of those incentives (most will).

Jimbo3 on November 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I see you are still stuck on this mythology that it is acceptable to play fast and loose with co-mingled funds as a front to get federally paid abortions. It is not going to fly.

highhopes on November 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I see you are still stuck on this mythology that it is acceptable to play fast and loose with co-mingled funds as a front to get federally paid abortions. It is not going to fly.

highhopes on November 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM

–This has nothing to do with co-mingled funds. Stupak’s amendment says that nonfederal entities (including an individual or a State or local government) can purchase a plan that includes such abortions, so long as such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act…… The problem is that the Health Care Act appropriates funds to be given to private employers offering insurance for wellness programs and early retirement incentives. Technically, individuals couldn’t buy employer health care plans that took advantage of those incentives if those plans covered abortion.

That’s obviously not what the status quo is now.

Jimbo3 on November 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM

So I assume Dingy Harry’s bill corrected this technical problem to allow those benefits without paying for abortions, right?

d1carter on November 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM

So I assume Dingy Harry’s bill corrected this technical problem to allow those benefits without paying for abortions, right?

d1carter on November 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM

–It would. It would also conform to the status quo by deciding each year whether or not abortions would be covered. Right now, the Hyde Amendment is passed each year during the budget process and the actual prohibition language has changed from year to year.

Jimbo3 on November 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM

That’s obviously not what the status quo is now.

Jimbo3 on November 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM

So for every abortion state admitted to the Union there should be a pro-life state admitted as well. Only this time they are provisions to 2000 page bills.

pedestrian on November 19, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Sen. Mike Johanns spoke on the Senate floor about how Sen. Reid’s bill would allow government-funded abortions. He called pro-life Democrats to oppose voting to proceed to debate on the bill. Watch a clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ6uZRu4YSI

Sean Hackbarth
Senate Republican Conference

seanhackbarth on November 19, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Have you noticed how twisted Nelson’s arms look? That’s because they have been twisted into a corkscrew by Ried and BHO. Landreau will own La. after she votes for this POS. Is this any surprise to anyone? Liberman said that he would vote to get it to the floor for debate. Any surprise there? These blue dogs need some blue balls!

inspectorudy on November 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM

ABORTION IS NOT HELATHCARE

unseen on November 19, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Is health care,. When Jesse Jackson knocked up Karin Stanford, he almost had a back alley circumcision or more.
I oppose abortion but many males think it improved their life expectancy.

seven on November 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM

You’re kidding yourself if you believe that the final bill will have any restriction on abortion. After the Senate passes their version, the reconciliation process will strip that out. The final bill will then pass, as did the House bill, with “Blue Dog” conservative (that’s a laffer) Dem’s complaining that they did all they could. Make a note that you heard it here first.

It’s fun to do all the conjecturing that we do here and on other conservative sites. I enjoy it more than anyone. But let’s face it: If the vote on the House billed proved nothing else, it did show that we’re delusional if we think this can be stopped.

Hucklebuck on November 19, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Blue Dogs will show that they are in fact Lap Dogs. They will subsequently be shown the door in 2010.

ncconservative on November 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Hucklebuck on November 19, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Well said. This was a done deal the moment they got their 60th vote in the senate. There is not a single dem senator who doesn’t want to vote for this. Every last one of them has been itching for this chance, and they know it could be a long time before it comes around again (I’m not so sure about that, but they’re probably right to think so).

runawayyyy on November 19, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Said provisions do not stop the Health commissioner and his expert panel from requiring abortion to be cover under all approved plans.

chemman on November 19, 2009 at 7:38 PM

hopefully some Democrats will not be fooled.

Steve Z on November 19, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Um Dude, you are aware that you are suggesting there is such a thing as a dhimmicrap who is not a fool aren’t you? I mean seriously, think about that for a minute:
dhimmicrap == fool
Always has, always will.

Blacksmith8 on November 19, 2009 at 10:21 PM

single payer government run healthcare

truetexan on November 19, 2009 at 12:48 PM

All government run healthcare is and will be single payer. That is was and shall be their plan.

Blacksmith8 on November 19, 2009 at 10:24 PM

I’m not mad at you, It’s been nothing but a month of bad news and it pisses me off that they can get away with $h!t like this and not care.

Brat4life on November 19, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Be sure you remember this fire when you’re looking at a new candidate, when you’re thinking about how you can help, when you stand alone in the voting booth. They do not care. Not about you, me, or this country. Remember, and hold their feet to the fire.
 
FREEDOM!

Blacksmith8 on November 19, 2009 at 10:30 PM

Boy, the way Rush puts it, the abortion premium that everyone pays sounds like a Planned Parenthood slush fund.

ORconservative on November 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

Blacksmith8 on November 19, 2009 at 10:32 PM

The Ronin Edge on November 19, 2009 at 10:36 PM

If your rep votes badly, be sure and remind him that recalls don’t wait for 2010.

Blacksmith8 on November 19, 2009 at 10:46 PM