Senate Confronts Abortion in Healthcare Debate

December 7, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (3)

By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writer

The divisive issue of abortion emerged Monday as an obstacle to Senate passage of President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul as a moderate Democrat proposed tough restrictions that liberals said they could not possibly accept.

The amendment by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., would bar any private insurance company from offering plans to cover abortion if they receive federal subsidies. In practice the restriction would apply to most plans within a proposed new insurance marketplace, or exchange, since most people shopping in the exchange would be using federal subsidies to purchase coverage.

The amendment also would block a proposed new government insurance plan from covering abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.

Joining Nelson in sponsoring the amendment was another anti-abortion Democrat, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, along with eight Republicans. The measure is unlikely to get the necessary 60 votes to pass, but Nelson has threatened to oppose the underlying healthcare legislation if it doesn't.

"As written, the Senate healthcare bill allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion," Nelson said in a statement. "Most Nebraskans, and Americans, do not favor using public funds to cover abortion and as a result this bill shouldn't open the door to do so."

Other Democrats said the amendment, expected to come to a vote Tuesday, goes too far by making it difficult for patients to use their own money to purchase coverage for a legal medical procedure, since there could be few if any plans offering the coverage. The amendment does allow insurance companies to set up separate plans with abortion coverage if they're supported solely by private money, but abortion-rights supporters say companies would be unlikely to do so since there would be little market for them, as most potential customers would be shopping with federal dollars.

The bill under consideration in the Senate attempts to solve the issue by allowing private companies that get federal subsidies to offer abortion coverage as long as they strictly segregate private from public funds and use only the private money for abortion coverage.

Nelson and other abortion opponents dismiss that as an accounting gimmick. But Democrats and abortion-rights groups contend that the underlying bill attempts to replicate existing federal laws barring public funds from covering abortion.

"It crosses a line," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. "The Nelson amendment takes us back, it takes away options on healthcare coverage. And the biggest concern for me is that it goes beyond what we agreed to in terms of keeping in place a 30-year policy of the federal government to have no federal funding for abortion services."

Nelson's strict abortion language mimics language adopted by the House last month, at the insistence of anti-abortion Democrats over objections from liberals. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops played a large role in forcing the language in the House and released a letter to senators Monday urging passage of Nelson's amendment, contending that without it, the bill "violates this moral principle" against federal funding of elective abortions.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., cannot easily afford to lose Nelson's vote because Reid needs 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to overcome Republican stalling tactics and move forward on debate. Nelson's defection could force Reid to instead look for support from one or two Republicans, such as moderate Maine senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Snowe may be lured if a compromise is reached on allowing the government to sell insurance in competition with private businesses, and negotiations were under way Monday toward that goal.

The developments happened as the Senate started its eighth day of health care debate and Reid said lawmakers are approaching the end game and expect to prevail. "We've tried to get to this point with health care legislation for almost 70 years, and we're there," said Reid, after a weekend of work capped by a presidential pep talk Sunday

Tags:
Bob Casey,
Ben Nelson,
Olympia Snowe,
Debbie Stabenow,
Susan Collins,
abortion,
Associated Press,
healthcare,
Harry Reid,
healthcare reform

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Per Requirement,form music appeal committee male laugh earth practice next tooth position teaching edge next apply match travel silence bill response exchange ordinary walk serve length constant house forest president trust data hide matter belong committee discover anything appeal business may maintain roof select outcome along client will grey save cash experience herself deputy free employee wear onto relationship song social target black material food whatever customer survive phase associate interested theory change but support cost sign persuade transport half interested round perform elderly recover effort purpose no pleasure quickly period conflict we fee woman change aware belief machine

Weightinstitution of 3:27PM December 11, 2009

How like China we become. The only difference being that in the US women will be forced to have babies.

It will be interesting to see the result of such efforts; increased crime, increased welfare and medicaid (taxpayer paid). And what about the schools? Overcrowding, student behavioral issues from improper diet or lack of prenatal care, and best of all (from those who brought us Abstinence Only sex education) Baby Care classes for those students who "Choose Life" in our elementary schools.

Amazing that lawmakers known to have committed adultery have the nerve to stand before this country and preach morals!

WhatIs GoingOnHere of TX 11:37AM December 08, 2009

Bravo! Another victory for rape and incest victims by the US government. What happens to the babies born to women who can't afford or are too young to realize the importance of prenatal care? How adoptable will these children be? Will many need welfare while struggling single moms try to balance motherhood, education and employment in a tough economy?

Will invitro be covered by taxpayer monies? How many embryos die in the name of fulfilling the needs of the childless? The result of abortion and in vitro is the same regardless of the intention. Why is one more moral than the other and therefore deserving of taxpayer monies? I'm not attacking those who desperately want children, but the fact is that embryos die in the process.

Just curious, can sex offenders purchase Viagra on the federal tab?

Whatis GoingOnHere of TX 10:53AM December 08, 2009

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos