No Public Funding of Abortion

[Dr. Shane]

Health care holdout Nelson reaches agreement, senators say

U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, the lone Democratic holdout on the Senate health care reform bill, has reached an agreement with Democratic leaders, several Democratic senators said Saturday on Capitol Hill.

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.

The senators were said to be caucusing on the terms of the agreement.

Asked whether he was on board with it, Nelson replied, "Yeah."

...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.

[text is taken from link]

[phkrause]

Well that's very interesting Shane, thanks for the post.

pk

[bonnie]

Originally those pushing the health care bill claimed there was not any coverage for abortion.If there wasn't then,what is it they are removing now?

Abortion is a "right" in this country.Health care will be a "right" in this country soon. How can anyone deny a woman what is her "right" to do?

If this goes thru and I believe it will we have not seen anything resembling the true intent of those drafting this bill and the shape it will take in the end

[Dr. Shane]

Abortion is a "right" in this country.Health care will be a "right" in this country soon. How can anyone deny a woman what is her "right" to do?

Abortion is not a right. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution grants a right to privacy. The right to privacy allows a woman to have an abortion. That is not the same as saying abortion is a right. She doesn't have to pay for the right to privacy. It is hers because she is an American. However if she wants to use her right to privacy to have an abortion, she will have to pay for the abortion or pay for health care insurance that will cover it.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Supreme Court decision

Harry Blackmun wrote the Court’s opinion.

The court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7 to 2 majority vote in favor of McCorvey. Burger and Douglas' concurring opinion and White's dissenting opinion were issued separately, in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.

The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Although abortion is still considered a fundamental right, subsequent cases, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, and Gonzales v. Carhart have affected the legal standard.

The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Douglas, in his concurring opinion from the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Thus, the Roe majority rested its opinion squarely on the Constitution's due process clause.

The majority opinion is organized into twelve sections preceded by a brief preface; the first four sections provide background. Section I[15] briefly outlines the challenged Texas abortion statutes. Section II[16] characterizes the factual and procedural backgrounds of Jane Roe's and Mary Doe's litigation, including the District Court's rulings regarding the procedural questions (here, justiciability, standing, and abstention) and the merits (here, the requests for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief). Section III[17] is a single paragraph resolving that under the law of Federal Court procedure, the opinions in Mitchell v. Donovan and Gunn v. University Committee do not foreclose review a case of this kind when it is properly here on appeal under § 1253. Section IV[18] issues the court's decision on the procedural questions described in Part II.

Section V[19] is a single paragraph introducing the discussion of the merits, led by the following:

“ The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras ... or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment ...

Call it what you will the right given involved more than a little privacy issue. ”

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

Although abortion is still considered a fundamental right,

The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution

A fundamental right is being struck from this bill or so say others that have a little more knowledge

[bonnie]

The High Price of Ben Nelson's Low Vote

Marc Sheppard

Democrat Ben “Dover” Nelson, who had previously threatened to join a GOP filibuster of the Senate Health Care Bill, proved today that everything has a price – including a man’s values. The Nebraska Senator just accepted what I’ll generously describe as an enormous “monetary incentive” to do a complete 180 on his long-time position on abortion funding and thereby gave this awful legislation life with his 60th all-Democrat vote.

Earlier this month, Nelson insisted that he would not support a bill without stronger anti-abortion language:

"I've said at the end of the day if it doesn't have Stupak [strong protection against federally-funded abortions] language on abortion in it I won't vote to move it off the floor."

But Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “Manager’s Amendment,” which supposedly swung Nelson’s vote, includes no such language. Rather than explicitly prohibiting use of Federal funds for abortion, as in Stupak, Nelson signed on to the idea of instead allowing states to “opt-out” of abortion coverage in their own public exchanges.

Why the change of heart?

It appears that the current health care bill’s plan to insure about 30 million uninsured Americans includes a provision to move a good portion of them onto the Medicaid rolls. Needless to say, that’s quite the unfunded mandate to force upon the budgets of our already cash-strapped states.

But there’s one state that today was guaranteed immunity from such a budget-annihilating burden -- Nebraska. While 49 other states will be forced to scramble and cut and tax and reappropriate in order to meet the new mandates, Nelson’s home state won’t.

That’s because Nelson sold his vote for Reid’s assurance that the feds will pay 100% of any new Nebraska Medicaid costs -- forever.

And that leaves non-Nebraskan taxpayers picking up the tab – forever.

This sordid sell-out certainly represents a new low in opprobrious political payoffs.

Scream loudly about this one.

[phkrause]

Not that I don't believe Mr. Sheppard!! But I'd like to see his evidence none the less. He's been known to bend or like my buddy Bill like's to say "SPIN" the truth.

pk

[bonnie]

Not that I don't believe Mr. Sheppard!! But I'd like to see his evidence none the less. He's been known to bend or like my buddy Bill like's to say "SPIN" the truth.

pk

Good deal for him,49 states can pay for Nebraska's portion,some 45 million dollars

After it was announced Saturday that Senator Ben Nelson D-NE had agreed to vote with the Senate Democratic caucus on health care reform, the Associated Press reported that Senator Nelson faces some fierce repercussions for his compromise from anti-abortion constituents in his home state of Nebraska.

Senator Nelson fought hard against his pet peeve, abortions, and though he had lost a vote several days earlier on an amendment he’d proposed, similar to the Stupak amendment in the House which would forbid any insurer in the insurance exchange "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion." Opponents to this amendment argued that it would lead many insurers to drop coverage for abortions as opposed to being left out of the lucrative exchange intended to give individuals who don’t get coverage from their employers. Most of these people would also qualify for federal subsidies to help defray the cost. Despite that defeat, and despite the lies of the Far Right, the federal government would still not in anyway subsidize abortions.

Senator Nelson did however get some valuable concessions for his state. He craftily leveraged his position as the final holdout, to get Nebraska a single-state permanent exemption from contributing to the states’ share of the Medicaid expansion written into the bill, which will mean the other states will need to contribute an additional $45 million in the first decade to cover Nebraska’s share. He also got a concession on the abortion issue in that states can opt out of allowing plans that cover abortion in the insurance exchanges, but apparently for anti-abortion proponents in Nebraska that’s not enough.

Senator Nelson did the right thing for his constituents and the country. Despite what anti-abortion activists in Nebraska and elsewhere around the nation believe or want, access to legal abortion remains the law in this country and their efforts to limit that access to women will fail as long as the U.S. Supreme court supports a women’s right to choice, and limits the government’s ability to legislate an individual’s reproductive system. Nelson must have learned his lesson from his time as governor in Nebraska when in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court struck-down a statewide ban on abortions in Nebraska which he had signed into law as governor in 1997.

But apparently for anti-abortion proponents in his home state, the compromise Nelson achieved is not enough. Senator Nelson may face an unhappy constituency of Republicans and pro-life Democrats and independents, but they should applaud his efforts and the fact that he had the courage to compromise on what may be the most important issue Americans have faced in decades. Health care reform opponents have tried to use many tactics including the hot-button abortion issue to derail health care reform claiming they want save babies lives. Nobody can rightly say that abortion is something that is easy to accept, but the same people who want the government to force women to have babies against their will, and want to force women back to the days of backroom, black market abortions, hypocritically opposed a government run single-payer system or even a public option based on the argument that the government should not make health care decisions for any individual concerning their own body.

Health care reform cannot be allowed to be killed based solely on the abortion issue, because it will save the lives of living, breathing people of all ages.

Photo credit: Photo credit: An opponent of President Obama's health care overhaul poses with a banner during a demonstration outside the offices of Sen. Ben Nelson D-Neb., in Omaha, Neb., Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009. Democratic leaders in Washington were trying to finalize language restricting abortion coverage that could secure the support of moderate Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

Sources: Associated Press, Kansas City.com, Washington Post.com, Chicago Tribune.com, Sun Times.com, Politico.com

[phkrause]

Thanks for the new article Bonnie. It puts it in a different perspective than the first article.

pk

[bonnie]

Thanks for the new article Bonnie. It puts it in a different perspective than the first article.

pk

Not really,it gives Nebraska relief of 45 million dollars to be picked up by the other states

First article

It appears that the current health care bill’s plan to insure about 30 million uninsured Americans includes a provision to move a good portion of them onto the Medicaid rolls. Needless to say, that’s quite the unfunded mandate to force upon the budgets of our already cash-strapped states.

But there’s one state that today was guaranteed immunity from such a budget-annihilating burden -- Nebraska. While 49 other states will be forced to scramble and cut and tax and reappropriate in order to meet the new mandates, Nelson’s home state won’t.

Second article

Senator Nelson did however get some valuable concessions for his state. He craftily leveraged his position as the final holdout, to get Nebraska a single-state permanent exemption from contributing to the states’ share of the Medicaid expansion written into the bill, which will mean the other states will need to contribute an additional $45 million in the first decade to cover Nebraska’s share. He also got a concession on the abortion issue in that states can opt out of allowing plans that cover abortion in the insurance exchanges, but apparently for anti-abortion proponents in Nebraska that’s not enough.

It says pretty much the same thing.Nebraska got a big break other states will pay for

[bonnie]

American Thinker

December 23, 2009

Court battle begins over Nelson Medicare goody in Obamacare

Clarice Feldman

Ben Nelson's taking a lot of heat for accepting the Reid bribe of a free pass on Medicaid to sign on to the Reid health care fiasco. Even the state's biggest newspaper is poking fun at him and one of my correspondents indicates he'd not be surprised if the Senator chooses not to be the ex-Senator from Nebraska by voting against the bill when it comes to a final vote after conference.

In the meantime, seven states' attorneys, lead by South Carolina are considering bringing suit if the Nebraska provision is in the final bill:

The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday.

Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state - all Republicans - are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution - as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.