Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson dropped his anti-abortion amendment into the Senate health care debate this afternoon, essentially lifting the language from the House version that so angered the left.
Nelson, a staunch pro-life advocate, partnered with fellow Democratic Sen. Bob Casey and several Republicans to offer the measure, saying it’s necessary to ensure no federal dollars are spent on elective abortions.
“Most Americans, even some who support abortion, do not want taxpayer money to be used for abortions,” Nelson said in his floor speech. “We should not break with precedent on this bill.”
Nelson said the amendment would bar women from abortion coverage if they get any sort of subsidy, and would bar it entirely from the public plan, should there be one.
“As President Obama has said, ‘This is a health care reform bill, it’s not an abortion bill,’” he added.
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand begged to differ on his interpretation, however, as did other Democrats, calling it an unprecedented expansion of restrictions on a legal medical procedure.
“His reading of his amendment is not the same as my reading of the amendment,” Gillibrand told us. “it’s a significant departure from current federal law. And while we can agree that many Americans are very comfortable with current federal law… what this does is vastly expand that.
“This is an amendment that basically makes it impossible for women to have access to a full range of reproductive services whether they purchase it themselves, whether they’re subsidized or not,” she added.
She predicted Nelson does not have the votes to pass his amendment, but she planned to speak up on the Senate floor soon anyway to make the point that the measure — included in the House bill as the Stupak amendment — should not wind up in the finished legislation after it goes through the conference committee.
And that’s where things will get interesting. Keeping anti-abortion Democrats in the House on board with the finished bill could be tough, and a very convincing argument will have to be made that the explicit anti-abortion language already in the bill is good enough.
Gillibrand noted that the federal government segregates funds all the time in its programs, such as cash that goes to religious institutions for secular purposes, and believes the same can be done with health care, ensuring public money is not used for elective abortion.
“We segregate funds often, so it’s not an accounting gimmick,” Gillibrand said, referring to one of the pro-life criticisms of the bill.
* * *
Are you in favor or against this amendment?
Should tax-payer dollars pay for abortions?
What are your thoughts on this issue?
Eight Year Old Girl Given "Catastrophe Award" By Teacher
- Cafe GroupAdmin
on Dec. 8, 2009 at 1:31 AM