Ben Nelson's abortion restrictions will likely be in the health care bill.

[madfloridian]

I can hear someone say it is better than the Stupak anti-women amendment to the House bill. I guess that is one way to look at it.

What it shows me is that the minority is holding all the cards when it comes to women's rights. The religious right is ruthless in their demands, and there is a history of both parties giving in to them.

From RH Reality Check today....the way the bill will likely affect women.

Nelson Restrictions Most Likely Outcome of Reconciliation Process

As health reform seems to be approaching final passage, anti-choice advocates are ratcheting up pressure to completely eliminate coverage of abortion care, now a basic component of the insurance coverage held by the majority of currently-insured women in the United States. Meanwhile, discriminatory restrictions contained in the Senate bill--originally incorporated to appease Senator Ben Nelson and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (which later rejected the language anyway)--are likely to become law.

Actually both parties credited the Catholic bishops for the Stupak amendment as well. They were very influential, even meeting in private with the Speaker of the House.

"We did not want this legislation to be a vehicle for expanding abortion or for changing federal policy on abortion in the wrong direction," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the secretariat of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The abortion issue was at the center of last-minute wrangling in the House. A bloc of Democrats, backed by the Catholic bishops, threatened to scuttle the House health bill if leaders didn't take up the antiabortion measure. In an unusual show of influence, Mr. Doerflinger and other representatives of the bishops on Friday met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to broker an agreement. Ms. Pelosi, who favors abortion rights, reluctantly agreed to bring the measure to the floor, and it became part of the broader bill that passed in the House late Saturday..

More from RH Reality about the Nelson amendment and the effect it will have on women.

Unfortunately, however, reconciliation means that it will be nearly impossible, at least in the short term, to remove restrictions on women's health coverage now contained in the Senate bill.

This is because the reconciliation process can only be used to address subjects germane to the budget. The Nelson language, which has a zero net effect on spending by the federal government, is not germane and therefore can not be addressed as part of reconcliation. It could only be addressed in a future bill aimed at making technical fixes to health reform. While many hope corrections to health reform passed now will be made later, there is no guarantee of having such a bill introduced or passed.

The Nelson language does the following, as described in more depth here:

* Requires every enrollee--female or male--in a health plan that offers abortion coverage to write two separate checks for insurance coverage.
* Includes "conscience clause" language that protects only individuals or entities that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortion, removing earlier language that provided balanced non-discrimination language for those who provide a full range of choices to women in need.
* Prohibits insurance companies by law from taking into account cost savings when estimating the costs of abortion care and therefore the costs of premiums for abortion care.
* Eliminates the provision in earlier versions of the Senate bill and in the original Capps language in the House bill to ensure that there is at least one insurance plan in each exchange that offers and one that does not offer abortion coverage.

...Bottom line: in terms of abortion coverage, women will not only be worse off with this version of health reform, they will also face institutionalized sex discrimination for basic reproductive health care in a sweeping law passed by a Democratic White House and Congress.

..."Independent analysts have concluded that the Nelson provision will result in most private health insurance companies dropping coverage for abortion coverage altogether. Moreover, because it requires individuals who choose to purchase comprehensive coverage to make two separate payments — one for abortion coverage and one for all other treatments, screenings, and procedures, it is widely seen as unworkable.

Women are asked to sacrifice for the "good" of everyone else.

We are being expected to not complain too much about it, just accept it for the common good.

And it won't stop with giving in on abortion to make peace with the right. Next on the agenda is birth control.

[katandmoon]

1. K&R

[DURHAM D]

2. god damn motherfucking authoritarian males...

:nuke:

Keep your pious hands off my uterus.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

42. if it goes down that way then, like minded people must pay instead

I would be willing to send a few dollars every year to a fund, to pay for women who can not afford this for them self.
or is there one all ready ?
I will be willing to send my OBAMA tax cut $$.

who else is willing?
does planned parenthood have such a fund ?

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

43. screw the heath bill, donate directly to planned parenthood,

here is the link ... and the government can't stop me

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

[2Design]

3. can we find a progressive to run against him n/t

[appal_jack]

4. oops, repeat. delete

[appal_jack]

5. As a pro-choice guy, this may just be the last straw

First of all, the current Senate-driven "Democratic" Health Plan is corporatist-crap; welfare for monopolistic for-profit insurance companies.

I regretfully find myself in the "Scrap the Bill, Start Over" camp. What a wasted, squandered year by Obama/Baucus/Reid, and to a lesser extent, Pelosi (at least she gave the appearance of trying for something better).

Add to that the second big problem that we are being asked to surrender yet another fundamental right (women's bodies are their own), and to relegate what remains of choice to those who can afford either extra insurance, or to pay for procedures out of pocket, and once again the DC-Democrats have sold us down the river.

Much more bad news and I will be changing my affiliation to (I).

-app

[niyad]

6. they can take this bill and shove it up their . . . .

ben nelson, and all the other woman-hating jerks in the senate and the house can go straigt to hell.

this is not about health CARE, this is about lining the pockets of insurance cartel execs, and screwing over women. damn them all.

[SPedigrees]

7. There seems to be a conflict of facts here.

Why is Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood endorsing the bill?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x206426

[madfloridian]

10. No conflict. Her statement is at my link as well.

Planned Parenthood does support the health care bill. They state their reasons. I imagine they will support it even if women are screwed.

That's what these groups do. They sound big and then cave.

They do not like the Nelson or Stupak amemdments, but they, like Congress, are too afraid of the religious right and the Catholic Bishops to do anything about it.

Women are the scapegoats.

[karynnj]

14. They are afraid of not having the votes

That is a valid concern. Sure, they could write a bill that explicitly repeals the Hyde amendment, but it alone would lead to the bills defeat. Then, you could proudly say they didn't cave.

If you could say that the representatives were not representing their voters, you might have an argument that enlisting the voters to change their opinions could change their opinions. (In some cases, personal and deeply held values would prevent that - on either side.) But, look at the polling - more than half the people in every poll here do NOT favor the federal government paying for abortion. http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

(Pollingreport.com has in the past done a pretty good job in including almost every poll I saw elsewhere. )

[madfloridian]

15. Do you stand firm on any issue at all?

Read the post again. Mostly likely, and the Democrats know this, the insurance companies that cover abortions now will likely stop coverage.

[karynnj]

33. Yes, on many

Here I stand on the need for universal health insurance and I will not sacrifice that on the altar of "treating abortion like every other procedure". The fact is the Senate bill will allow people to buy policies that cover abortion. They will have to pay the difference in a second check - not a huge problem. Now, how much will that differencial be - nearly all elective abortions (ie not because of teh health of the baby or mother) are in the first trimester and the average cost is $450. Now what is the probability that a given insured for abortion woman has and abortion in a given year. I will assume that over the course of 20 childbearing years on average they will have one abortion. (Some will have none and a small percent will have more than one. As to 20, I am purposely using a low number, which could be age 20 to 40, taking a higher one makes the expected value of the cost lower.)

Given those assumptions the expected cost for the insurer is $450/20 - $22.50 a year. Now even if they have a 100% markup - you are speaking of $45 a year - less than $4 a month!

There is no reason that private companies that currently cover abortion will change that.

Frankly, on my scale of what is important PAYING for abortion is very low. (Keeping it legal is important) If it could be added and the bill pass, I would have no problem. That appears to not be the case.

[SPedigrees]

18. Since there is no public option in the current HCR bill, how would the govt pay for abortions?

Sounds more to me like the repubs using this non-issue as a wedge to try to prevent HCR from passing. And judging from the hoopla on this thread, with success.

Paying for an abortion, esp with help from planned parenthood, is within anyone's means. Expensive cancer treatments is not something that can be paid out of pocket unless you are a millionaire. Let me think.. do I want protection from being dropped or denied by my insurance carrier if I get cancer, or do I want to forgo these protections because an inexpensive inpatient procedure might not be covered? Seems like a no-brainer to me, and apparently to Cecile Richards as well.

[laughingliberal]

22. If the purchaser receives a gov't subsidy to cover part of their premium costs

That is the concern of those who 'don't want their tax dollars funding abortion.' How do these fuckers get their way when those who don't want their tax dollars going to fund illegal wars are just ignored?

[karynnj]

31. The public option is not free - it would have a cost and would be paid

for like any other policy. There are subsidies to pay a portion of the policies. Those subsidies are whet they were concerned about.

I agree with you that abortion is being used as a wedge issue. Part of it was a genuine concern that Healthcare reform not move the status quo that the Hyde amendment has. The Senate language was written to result in keeping this position.

I agree completely with yor last paragraph and that has been what I have been saying.

There are many who feel that not treating (non medically needed) abortion like every other medical procedure stigmatizes it - but the fact is that it is different than other medical needs - at least in the eyes of a majority of people in this country.

[pitohui]

28. planned parenthood is aware that women do get cancer, heart disease, strokes, etc.

"women are the scapegoats" is a ridiculous statement -- abortion/pregnant are NOT the only health issues that a woman faces, and if i had my druthers of paying cash for an abortion or paying cash for breast cancer treatment because i can't afford health insurance, guess what

abortion is something you can actually work and save and pay for

breast cancer treatment can be hundreds of thousands of dollars -- more than most women could save in an entire lifetime of working

women are NOT the scapegoats, we actually make more use of health care and have longer life expectancies, so we are the ones who benefit the most if there is universal access to health care

we need to get health care reform done now, before anyone else i know gets dx'd w. a cancer they can't afford to treat or a heart problem they can't afford to treat

yes, i would love a bill that always included abortion coverage, but we don't live in that world

i would rather start saving lives NOW, as soon as possible, than wait another 5000 yrs for the catholics to stop saying, "what if mary had an abortion?"

[Triana]

8. Does the Catholic Church pay taxes?

If not, why are they interfering in the lawmaking process?

I love how a bunch of self-righteous MEN who will never become pregnant get to control women who do. :wtf:

[tnlefty]

13. They need to start paying them. I'm not catholic and resent the

hell out of the influence the bishops had in this.:mad:

K&R

[saracat]

9. Hey, wheres that cut and paster, Ms. Link to scream how wrong this is????????

K+R. I am beyond disgusted.

[karynnj]

11. It is NOT a minority fighting for Reid or Nelson or Stupak language

This is not a question of repeal Roe vs Wade, where you would be right. It is the question of paying for abortions with federal money. Here - take ANY poll where that is the question from any poll in pollingreport.com. Only a minority of people would want to choose the prohibition. (Now, I know all the reasons to do it, but you are speaking of minority/majority and you are wrong on thst.

http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

PS Your comment that women are asked to sacrifice, assume that they are giving up something they currently have. Under Stupack that could be true, it isn't under the Senate language.

[madfloridian]

16. See my comment above.

You appear to excuse whatever the party does, unquestioningly.

I used to do that, but now I can't anymore.

[karynnj]

35. Don't be presumptuous - I have spoken against things I thought wrong

I do not think they are wrong here. It is far more important to pass this bill. If there is support, start an effort to repeal the Hyde amendment and this language. From the polling, good luck - it's not there

[madfloridian]

40. Nowhere did I say not to pass the bill. Women's groups support it...

they will go along.

I am pointing out that women are the scapegoat to pacify the religious right.

That is not okay.

The bill will pass. Women will go along to get along. All is well.

[joeybee12]

12. But, but, but...we can fix it later...it's better than nothing...we can't let

the Repukes win.

And so it goes.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. This bill will be what pushed me out of the party.

Between selling me into the clutches of the health insurance industry and fucking me over as a woman, this is the proverbial straw for me.

If/When it passes, I am going down to my Registrar of Voters and doing what I have been threatening to do for years now.

And I will be sending a copy of my new voter form and a note as to WHY I made the change to O, my reps, and Tim Kaine.

An ass fucking is still an assfucking, even if the Dems do use lube. :( :cry:

[SPedigrees]

19. And you would join what party instead?

Enough petulant progressives like yourself go for 3rd party or republican and either way will assure a return to Bush era politics. Let me point out what a single additional conservative appointment to the Supreme Crt will mean for Roe v Wade. Then you (and all the rest of us) will truly be denied access to abortion.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. I will join the Greens or the Democratic Socialists --

two parties much more alligned with my politics. I will then work on a local level to build my party of choice, and I will support only progressive Democratic candidates on a national level. :shrug:

The argument you are making is what has kept me in the Party and voting Democratic for 8+ years now.

Sorry, it doesn't work on me any more.

[niyad]

25. time to resurrect the national women's party

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. I would totally go for that!

:hi:

[katandmoon]

37. So would I.

[Vidar]

39. I suspect you're far from alone.

[Bluebear]

45. 'petulant progressives' - Wow.

[laughingliberal]

21. "Next on the agenda is birth control. "

More than ten years ago I began telling people if the right gets abortion outlawed they will go after birth control next. People thought I was being hysterical. Today, a few more people are seeing it. The Catholic Church, of course, opposes all BC. But the evangelical movement opposes BC pills and IUD's as they are 'abortofasic.'

[niyad]

24. "first they fight abortion, birth control is next" (days of the theocracy)

Days of the Theocracy
(Kristin Lems)
July 15, 2007
words and music by Kristin Lems c 2007 Kleine Ding Music (BMI)
Out of print for many years, I felt this was important enough that I allowed a free legal download of it from the freedom from religion site. Written in 1979....
1. First they fight abortion, birth control is next,
Then comes sex if you’re not married, finally, out goes sex
Put the prayers back in the schools, install parochiaid
Allow for corporal punishment, and then you got it made!

Chorus:

We’re going back, back to the good ole days
When men were really men and women knew their place
Back, back a couple of centuries
And welcome back the days of the theocracy

2. The family is so holy, there must be no divorce
And if a wife is not content, she must adjust, of course
And if he’s forced to beat her, it’s all for her own good
She must know what her limits are, as any woman should

3. The next to go is daycare, it’s all a commit plot
What could be more fulfilling than a child, wanted or not?
A woman’s work is housework, God wanted it that way
A salaried job degrades her since she never works for pay

Chorus

4. They teach us women’s lot is "love honor and obey"
And while their crusty notions seem like jokes to us today
They’re sitting in the Capitol, they’re voting on our lives
If we don’t stop them now, our freedom will not long survive

No going back..to the bad ole days...let's go ahead for future centuries,

And build a world that’s based on true democracy
And build a world that’s based on true equality
Ah – person!

http://www.kristinlems.com

[MadHound]

23. For this and other reasons, this bill needs to be killed

It will do more harm than good. It will put more constraints on a woman's choice, it will hand a mandated monopoly over to the insurance agency, it will bankrupt the working and middle class, and it will hit doubly hard at union members who will have to pay extra taxes on their hard fought for "Cadillac" plans.

This bill is a disgrace, something that the Democratic party of my youth would never condone. In fact it is much worse than Nixon care, upon which it is modeled, and that in and of itself is a sad statement.

[pitohui]

27. this is pretty much a ridiculous post, no one's insurance ever covered abortions, get real

you are allowing some ideal fantasy world be the enemy of getting something real done

first off, abortion is de facto unavailable these days for most women ANYWAY, so this bill doesn't change the status quo on abortion

second off, abortion is relatively cheap, if all else fails, we can all chip in a few bucks and help our friend in trouble get an abortion but cancer, heart disease etc. are expensive -- if my uninsured friend has colon cancer, then i can't chip in a few bucks or have a bake sale because we are talking about raising several hundred thousand dollars instead of a few hundred dollars -- it's impossible whereas down through the decades (probably BECAUSE it isn't an insured procedure) abortion has remained relatively cheap and we have always been able to help each other with that

right now we need to get something out there to save middle class families from losing their homes and everything they have because of cancer, heart disease, etc. -- we can't do that with rent parties and bake sales because the price of some very common injuries and diseases costs more than any honest person can earn a lifetime of work

women have families, homes, jobs, and a lifetime of work ALSO -- YOU are asking women to make a hell of a major sacrifice when you (or anyone else) suggests that NO health care reform is better than health care reform that doesn't address abortion or that excludes abortion

no one is a bigger supporter of abortion rights than myself but a woman's life is just as destroyed if she can't get breast cancer treated than when she's forced to have an unwanted baby

i would rather focus on big picture stuff and put it where people, INCLUDING WOMEN, are able to have major diseases like cancer treated w.out price hassles

if abortion remains something where it's women helping other women with our spare time and money well, i'm afraid that's the way it has always been, it isn't like we're losing anything

let's grab the big picture here and not allow the dream world to be the enemy of an improvement in this world

sorry if i'm phrasing it poorly but BOTH sides are asking women to sacrifice, it's just that one side is asking women to give up insured access to a relatively cheap procedure (insured access which realistically i never heard of any woman ever having anyway so they're giving up nothing) and the OTHER side is asking women to give up on health care reform altogether (because that IS the choice, we have too large of a nutjob minority in this country for any health care reform to go thru that provides free/discount abortions and if you don't know that you SHOULD know it)

maybe an unpopular view but to me it seems the practical view

[SPedigrees]

29. Most of what you've said, I heartily agree with. However

many private insurance cos do indeed cover abortion. Mine did back in 1970.

The federal government has never paid for abortions. It is likely they never will. Since there is no public option attached to the HCR bill this is a moot point. When a public option was on the table, and if a public option should be created down the road, it is extremely unlikely that it will cover abortion services.

It is remarkable to me how today's generation does not comprehend the difference between life threatening illness and a simple affordable procedure. They are so worked up over this non-issue that they are willing to jeopardize Roe v Wade by throwing away their votes on 3rd party candidates. Younger people who don't remember the efforts that we older women went to in order to secure these reproductive rights for them, cannot comprehend the thin edge that Roe v wade now rests on. Young and in good health, they also believe themselves to be immune from serious illness and the costs associated with it.

My mother's college roommate had an abortion on a kitchen table in NJ. Is this the legislative state we want to return to? No insur co or fed govt paid for her illegal procedure btw. It makes me literally sick to read posts from these petulant children who want to throw away all that my generation secured for them...for nothing. For a non-issue used by the media and repubs to manipulate them. And they are like putty in their hands. Sad...

[madfloridian]

30. "if abortion remains something where it's women helping other women with our spare time"

What does that mean? I am surprised you would post something so blatantly untrue about insurance coverage.

But I guess that is your right.

[M_A]

32. wrong

many if not most insurance covers reproductive care including D&C/abortion. After co-pays & deductibles, just like any other procedures.

Separating a singularly gender based health procedure for exclusion from coverage is a deal breaker, period. This lifelong Dem has switched to Indy. Sometimes it's best to burn the pest ridden house to the ground then re-build it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. "...no one's insurance ever covered abortions..."

Wow, what a wildly uneducated statement that was. :wow: In fact, most really good insurance coverage indeed coveres abortion services. My Mom used to work for one of the country's top employee benefits firms -- I know this to be a fact. As a matter of fact, until a few weeks ago, the RNC's own employee insurance covered abortions.

On edit:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/12/republican-insurance-plan-covers-abortion.aspx

Republican Insurance Plan Covers Abortion
Katie Connolly

Every now and then there comes a piece of news so shrouded in the stench of hypocrisy that it renders satire unnecessary, news that exemplifies the twisted logic of the political calculation. With that in mind, I offer you this nugget, masterfully uncovered by the skilled headline-grabbers over at Politico:


The Republican National Committee’s health insurance plan covers elective abortion–a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.” Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

[liberation]

36. Funny to see some politicians trying to restrict access...

... even when they are supposedly working on increasing coverage.

Why is it that bills that limit rights and access have all sorts of facilities to pass, but anything that tries to restore or increase freedoms and rights gets all sorts of fantastic resistance from both houses and the presidency (never mind the supreme court).

It seems we are paying taxes, in this country, for the privilege of being abused, ignored, and having our freedoms curtailed. Funny how things work...

[Canuckistanian]

38. Just wondering - does the Democratic party have standards?

Abortion is a conservative issue. Period. Democrats have traditionally and consistently had a policy of "hands off" on abortion rights.

Are there not conventions where policy issues are solidified? And if potential candidates divert radically from the policy at any time are they not called to account?

It seems to me like a party as a whole should take ownership of their policy messages or else refuse to take on candidates who are using the brand name to enrich themselves at the expense of party message.

Nelson should have been sent packing for this reason LONG ago.

[spanone]

41. i will never give money to a party that does not have a definitive platform. i.e.democrats

[Captain Hilts]

44. Women's rights are negotiable. Nothing new here....move along...nt

[Odin2005]

46. KILL THE BILL!

:puke:

[Jefferson23]

47. Oh goodie, more great news about HCR!!

:sarcasm: