According to what I read, Nelson's abortion language is much weaker than Stupak

[Jersey Devil]

Of course I wish there was no limiting language at all concerning a woman's right to choose, but here is what I understand the Nelson language to be:

Unlike the so-called Stupak language in the House, Nelson's abortion language would not forbid people who receive subsidy assistance from the federal government from buying insurance policies that cover abortion. However, according to Nelson, the money that pays for each such policy will have to be separated into two pools--one that pays for the abortion coverage, and one for all other services.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/nelson-ill-filibuster-post-conference-health-care-bill-if-house-forces-major-changes.php

So the Nelson language does not ban abortion. If you choose a policy that includes abortion coverage (and your policy is subsidized) you will have to pay more. Now since abortion is legal I don't know how such language could withstand a constitutional challenge based on discrimination and believe the Nelson provision will turn out to be totally inefffective.

Is this right or is there more?

[IndianaGreen]

1. but stronger than Hyde

like Mussolini was better than Hitler.

[Jersey Devil]

3. I am not defending it, just saying it is not what it seems

It appears to me to be nothing more than an empty gesture by Nelson to the right. As a lawyer who has followed abortion issues since law school (one of my professors wrote an amicus brief cited in Roe vs. Wade) I simply can't see how discrimination against a legal right can possibly hold up in court.

[still_one]

6. True, and if all the women in the country united, bush would have never been president

but due to the soccer moms, he was elected to two terms

Of course, that statement isn't entirely fair, but neither are a lot of the charges getting thrown back on DU

[Captain Hilts]

2. Don't wanna hear any old man talk about laws controlling young women. nt

[Jersey Devil]

5. Yeah, me too, but the provisions appear just as toothless as an old man

The language will probably be thrown out by a court faster than the ink can dry on the order.

[still_one]

7. then why don't the women do something about it? They can vote? /nt

[IndianaGreen]

10. Blame the women for a Senate that is predominantly male

One thing for certain is that electing Blue Dogs and conservadems is not a good idea for it will hurt our class interests.

[still_one]

11. I have no doubt my Senators, Boxer and Feinstein will vote for it? The real question is

why do people vote against their own interests.

Could the Democrats even win those purple states without putting up a blue dog?

[polichick]

4. I hope some lone liberal - maybe Sanders - votes NO WAY. nt

[gaysonf]

8. this is horrible

dems selling out to corps

[polichick]

9. It sure is horrible - and heartbreaking. Welcome to DU! :)

[treestar]

12. And it's no worse than the government has been on the subject since the 70s

This issue sucks, it is so easy to use it to derail other things.

[madfloridian]

13. So women should be eternally thankful.

:eyes: