Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

PLM Newsletter ~ Week of Dec 20, 2009

Posted by on Dec. 19, 2009 at 1:46 PM
  • 1 Replies
  • 169 Total Views

 

Poll

Question: Do you think there will still be abortion in this health care reform they keep trying to pass?

Options:

Yes.

No.

Unsure.

I'll Explain My Answer Below.


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 3

View Results

ProLife Mommies Newsletter

Week of December 20, 2009 sorry soo late ..

In this issue: CNN Article, YouTube Video, Political Cartoon, Poll of the Week

Key holdouts in Senate pledge support for health care bill

December 19, 2009 11:19 a.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- Two liberal U.S. senators who had not committed to supporting the health care reform bill said Saturday they will vote "yes."

The holdouts were Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, and Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat.

Sanders said he will vote for approval because the measure now contains provisions for new community health centers. Brown said he favored the insurance reforms in the legislation.

Neither of the men is totally pleased, but they told CNN it's a good first step.

Earlier Saturday morning, Sen. Ben Nelson reached an agreement with Democratic leaders that allayed his concerns about abortion funding, he said.

Nelson, a social conservative from Nebraska who opposes abortion, does not want taxpayer funds to pay for that medical procedure. His vote is crucial for Democrats, who want to avoid a GOP filibuster.

Nelson also demanded that states that offer insurance offer at least one plan without the abortion option.

"Change is never easy, but change is what's necessary in America today. That's why I intend to vote for cloture and for health care reform," Nelson told reporters. Cloture, which needs 60 votes to pass, means the Democrats can end debate on the health bill and send it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Nelson warned that if there are changes to the health bill when House and Senate leaders meet to resolve their differences, he will vote against ending the debate. The House has passed a different version of the bill.

Democrats gathered for a rare Saturday session to try to get the needed votes on the health measure.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, who was one of the key senators involved in the talks with Nelson, confirmed that she's satisfied that the language of the agreement achieves its goal.

"My goal was to try to reach some compromise so we could move forward on health care, where the basic premise was we could separate federal funds from private funds. I think we achieved that."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, agreed, saying the deal follows the principles of the Hyde amendment, which prevents federal funds from being used for abortions.

"Anyone who is in the exchange who also gets a federal subsidy because they're poor, if they choose a private insurance policy and want any kind of abortion coverage, they have to write that part of the premium from their own personal funds," the Florida senator said.

The health bill proposes a health insurance exchange for those unable to afford health coverage or who don't have coverage. No federal funds could be used to cover abortions for people participating in the exchange, the bill says.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/19/health.care/index.html

 

http://www.cagle.com/news/abortion/abor8.asp

 

Poll of the Week:

Do you think there will still be abortion in this health care reform they keep trying to pass?

 

by on Dec. 19, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-1):
diane125
by Diane - Group Owner on Dec. 22, 2009 at 9:48 AM

 

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, who was one of the key senators involved in the talks with Nelson, confirmed that she's satisfied that the language of the agreement achieves its goal.

"My goal was to try to reach some compromise so we could move forward on health care, where the basic premise was we could separate federal funds from private funds. I think we achieved that."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, agreed, saying the deal follows the principles of the Hyde amendment, which prevents federal funds from being used for abortions.

 

The Senate compromise is unacceptable. First and foremost, how can anyone accept a compromise that the rabidly pro-abortion Sen. Boxer is satisfied with? Here is an article that explains why it's not acceptable, and what happens now. Hopefully, the Stupak language will be the one in the final version of the bill. If the final bill gets passed without it, then we will be paying for abortion.

 

Last Updated: December 22. 2009 1:00AM

Stupak explains opposition to health care bill's abortion coverage

Deb Price / Detroit News Washington Bureau

The Detroit News interviewed Rep. Bart Stupak, the Menominee Democrat who fought successfully for a ban on public funds subsidizing health care plans that provide abortion coverage, about why he opposes the new compromise approach on abortion in the Senate health care bill. Here are excerpts from what he said Monday:

Q . Why is the Senate compromise wording on abortion not acceptable to you?

A . Because it greatly deviates from current law. Current law says no public funding for abortions or insurance policies that provide abortion coverage.

And underneath the Senate language, number one, abortion is a recognized benefit paid for by the federal government; number two, in the exchange, at least one plan, could be 10 plans, but at least one plan must have abortion coverage; number three, you still have the $1 per month, per enrollee (that the Senate bill requires everybody to pay in plans offering abortion coverage) that goes to reproductive services, including abortion. ... Those are three good reasons to oppose this language.

Q . Advocates of the Senate wording say it would create firewalls so no public money could be used to pay for abortions. Why isn't that enough?

A . Everyone keeps saying, 'We want to keep current law.' Current law doesn't allow federal employee to write a separate check for their policies so they can have abortion services. That is not current law.

Secondly, after that premium payment is being paid with taxpayer dollars, taxpayers are still subsidizing those insurance policies and the abortion benefit.

The argument has always been, 'Keep current law,' which the Stupak language does. No public funding for abortion. We do not subsidize insurance plans that have abortion coverage.

So that is why it is not acceptable. It is not who is making the payment. The payment is still the taxpayers subsidizing abortion.

Q . What happens next? What are your options?

A . Because the Senate language is different from the House, it is subject to conference. The only way to resolve it is for either the House or the Senate accept each other's language or come up with a third way.

Q . You are open to some different language? Is there anything that could be a compromise from your perspective?

A . In the past week or so, I have spoken with officials at the White House. I have spoken with senators and House leadership. We know that the (new Senate) language is unacceptable as is. And all three parties ... are looking for language that satisfies everybody. We are open to suggestions. We're talking about concepts. But nothing's been agreed upon yet.

Q . It sounds like you are not only open but hopeful that something will be resolved so you and other pro-life members would feel comfortable voting for health care?

A . I am still hopeful we can do something. I talked to a couple members in the last 24 hours, and there are other concerns about the Senate bill. That's why you have the conference committee to work out these differences. ... We remain optimistic that something can be worked out.

Q . You wouldn't likely be on the conference, right?

A . I've asked to be a conferee. I doubt that they will make me a conferee. I don't have to be in the room to be in the room, if you know what I mean. The issue will be in the room so I'll be in the room. ... Our argument to (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) was, 'Look this is a critical issue. And we represent the views of the majority of the House members. We think we should have a seat at the table.'

Q . If the new Senate abortion language were the final restrictions on abortion funding, would you vote against the final health care bill?

A . That would be one reason I would not vote for it. But there are a lot of reasons ... I don't know how anyone from Michigan can vote for it when Nebraska gets a pass on the Medicaid matching funds (Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., provided the crucial 60th vote that Senate Democrats needed to move the bill ahead). If there's any state that has been devastated economically, it is Michigan. But under the Senate bill, we have to pay our Medicaid matching funds. But Nebraska doesn't have to. That doesn't make sense.

Q . Are there other things you will be doing behind the scenes?

A . ...(Y)ou don't have to reinvent the wheel here on the abortion language. We worked out language in the Labor-HHS (Health and Human Services) bill and also in the Children's Health Initiative Program that passed in April and was signed into law by President (Barack) Obama. You've had two bills now that had abortion language in it that was satisfactory to everybody this year under President Obama. .... I have been telling leadership, 'Here is a way to compromise.' ... That is one way I can see reaching some common ground. Why don't we go back and visit the language that we voted on twice and was signed into law twice this year. That should be a reference point. That's a good place to start from."

http://www.detnews.com/article/20091222/POLITICS03/912220323/1025/POLITICS03/Stupak-explains-opposition-to-health-care-bill-s-abortion-coverage

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)