Ben Nelson Amendment Just As Bad As Stupak

« Stabenow Ready To Kill Public Option And Empower The Insurance Companies

Senate Possibly Looking At Early Medicare Buy In »

Ben Nelson Amendment Just As Bad As Stupak
By: Jon Walker Monday December 7, 2009 12:36 pm	Tweet4

Ben Nelson (D-NE) has just released the language of his anti-abortion amendment. Like he promised, it is as close to the Stupak language as possible. Just like the Stupak amendment, it would have an incredibly long reach, and could make abortion coverage extremely rare in this country. The most critical and far reaching part of the Nelson amendment is:

(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.

As you can see, this is identical to the same important provision of the Stupak amendment.

(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.

This phrase “any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion” gives the amendment huge reach. Just like in the House bill, “this Act” will provide a small amount of funding for tens of millions of people’s insurance. There is the large employer re-insurance program, the risk adjustment mechanisms, the small business tax credits, etc. A single federal dollar ruins the whole risk pool potentially forcing many plans to stop covering abortion. Passing a health care reform bill with this amendment would be an unprecedented step backwards for reproductive rights. While it is unlikely to get enought votes on the floor, the real issue is will Reid be forced to add it to the final bill to get Nelson to be the 60th vote for cloture.

2 Comments

2 Responses to “Ben Nelson Amendment Just As Bad As Stupak”

Leen December 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

over at Huff Po
Senate Dems May Open Up Medicare To Pacify Progressives

powwow December 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

In the Senate yesterday:

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have had a brief conversation this afternoon with the Republican leader.

[...]

It is my understanding that tomorrow [Monday] there will be a bipartisan amendment on abortion.

[...]

Mr. McCONNELL. [...] With regard to the agenda tomorrow, as the majority leader indicated, we have the Gregg amendment, the Pryor amendment, and the abortion amendment [coming up for votes]. We will have an additional amendment on this side as well. That is up to four.

Mr. REID. A counter to the abortion amendment or something like that?

Mr. McCONNELL. No.

Mr. REID. Just an additional amendment.

Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I don’t really know who is going to offer the [abortion] amendment tomorrow for sure, but it is an issue I want to get out of the way. I think we all do. So it is OK. It will be our slot, no matter who will be the first person on the amendment.

At least as of the beginning of the vote on the Gregg amendment, which is now underway on the Senate floor [Gregg's amendment would forbid transferring Medicare-dedicated funding to non-Medicare purposes (like Medicaid, subsidies for the purchase of private insurance policies, and S-CHIP) in this bill], I don’t believe there has yet been a Unanimous Consent Request to require 60 votes on the Nelson abortion amendment, though it will apparently be coming up for a vote later today.

Thus far, however, the Democrats have unanimously agreed to forego their Senate majority on all other amendment roll-call votes, to the extent that simple-majority support for amendments results in their defeat:

AMENDMENT NO. 2905

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I think it is so important we look at the choice we will be making when we vote on this amendment in a few minutes. It is very simple. When health insurance reform becomes law, health insurance companies will receive millions of new customers purchasing their product for the first time.

My amendment is intended to encourage those insurance companies to put the additional premium dollars they will be bringing in with the volume of new customers back toward lowering their rates and making more affordable coverage for consumers, not putting it in their own pocketbooks.

Where health insurers spent more than 90 cents of every dollar on patient care in the early 1990s, that number has decreased dramatically to just over 80 cents for every dollar in 2007, and even more so in recent years.

According to testimony delivered in the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this year, this trend has translated into a difference of several billion dollars in favor of insurance company shareholders and executives at the expense of health care providers and their patients.

I think it is so important we understand what it is. This amendment does not dictate what insurance companies can pay their executives. They have the complete ability to pay what they choose. It is not a salary cap. But it does limit the American taxpayers’ subsidization of outrageous pay and, instead, devotes those resources to protecting Medicare.

A vote for this amendment is a vote in support of strengthening the Medicare trust fund. A vote against this amendment is a vote in support of having the IRS write a check of $650 million to the health insurance companies to subsidize the multimillion-dollar salaries they are paying their executives.

So I urge my colleagues to support this effort on behalf of the American taxpayer and our seniors and to vote in favor of our amendment.

[...]

The question is on agreeing to the Lincoln amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be.

The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) is necessarily absent.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted “nay.”

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced–yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

[Senators Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, and Joe Lieberman voted NO.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 42. Under the previous [unanimous consent] order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of amendment No. 2905, the amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.