Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Senator Adds Abortion Restrictions to Health Care Bill
WASHINGTON - Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, introduced an amendment to the health care bill today that places the same restrictions on abortion funding as the one Michigan's Bart Stupak helped write that passed in the House.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., talks with reporters before heading into a Democratic caucus on health care reform in the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009. Nelson introduced an amendment to the health care bill today that places the same restrictions on abortion funding as the one Michigan's Bart Stupak helped write that passed in the House. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) The amendment faces a much harder time getting passed in the Senate, since it requires 60 votes to survive. But even if it's defeated, it could cause further problems for the bill, one of President Barack Obama's signature efforts.
If the amendment fails, Nelson could balk later at voting to end debate to clear the path for final passage of the health care reform legislation, which would play into the hands of Republican critics trying to kill the bill.
Meanwhile, if the legislation's supporters find a way to get it out of the Senate without the abortion restrictions, it would still have to be merged with the House bill. And if the abortion restrictions disappear from the merged bill - as many expect - it could hurt its long-term chances among pro-life Democrats, including Stupak, in the House.
In the Senate, Nelson and Utah Republican Orrin Hatch are the primary sponsors of the amendment, though one other Democrat - Pennsylvania's Bob Casey - has also put his name on the measure.
As written, the health care reform legislation in the Senate calls for any funds for abortion coverage provided by either the public option plan or participating insurers on a national exchange that receive federal subsidies to be drawn exclusively from premiums paid by the policyholders.
But critics, like Stupak and Nelson, argue that such a segregation of funds doesn't adequately stop public funds from being used for abortion coverage since the insurers are still receiving taxpayer money.
Their amendment goes further, saying no plan receiving federal subsidies - nor the public option - may provide abortion coverage, except in limited cases of rape, incest or where the mother's life is in danger. Stupak says such a measure retains funding restrictions already in place.
"For more than 30 years, taxpayers' money hasn't been used for abortions, a standard that has the broad support of the American people. This rule now applies to federal health programs covering veterans, federal employees, Native Americans, active-duty service members and others, and should extend to those covered by any new health care bill," said Nelson.
But abortion rights supporters say it actually extends that prohibition to millions of women who could get coverage through the national exchange.
A vote on the amendment could come as early as today.
- Posted in
26 Comments so far
Show AllIf Ben doesn't like abortion...then he shouldn't have one...
Personally, I dont like subsidizing his Viagra prescrpition.
...maybe his mom should have had one. These running dogs won't be happy until all the American people are suffering and dieing in poverty. I'll certanly avoid Nebraska beef from now on.
And subsidize it we do. Prior to 1997, direct-to-consumer drug advertising was not allowed. The GAO reports that direct-to-consumer marketing was $2.7 billion in 2001. By 2005 it was $4.6 billion. This doesn't begin to cover the marketing to physicians, which is much more, for example, it was another $19.1 billion in 2001. Total promotion was estimated by the GAO to be 11% of overall healthcare spending in 2004.
Numbers specific to the ubiquitous erectile dysfunction advertising is harder to find. I saw one mention of Pfizer's Viagra having an annual advertising budget estimated to be $100 million in 2004. The Seattle Times had a more recent article saying that Viagra, Cialis and Levitra spent $300 million advertising in 2007 for sales of $1 billion.
Drug companies spend even more on other popularized drugs; tune in any night to the six o'clock news to see what else is being sold to the oldsters. The GAO finds that increased prescription use is part of increased costs in the system. Some of those "customers" might be better off with a cheaper treatment or different treatment, but few doctors turn down requests for the drugs seen on teevee.
Not mentioned in the GAO report, but obvious, is the problem and cost the FDA has in keeping up with their regulatory oversight of drug advertising. It would be best for us (but not the six -o'clock news advertising revenue) to simply go back to the pre-1997 ban on drug advertising.
There is another issue with the way drug companies market to doctors, with an interesting recent side story about pharma hiring cheerleaders to sell the sizzle to doctors. On a more serious note, there is an increasing issue of conflict of interest by physicians who now have significant investments in medicine.
Why has congress overlooked something so useless to the patient as drug advertising? Of course, now that there are so few car commercials on teevee, I suppose some of the networks would go under if they didn't have pharma ads. But the billions being spent on marketing are added to the cost of health care.
Sorry to be off topic, mujeriego, but this seemed like as good a place as any to drop in day's research on the costs to us of Viagra, Cialis and Levitra advertising.
i'd rather continue on the same path as now unelect
people like ben nelson then do it right after getting rid
of the bluedogs and more republicans as well!
Yet another example of a male trying to control females. High time for him to become fertilizer.
I hereby nominate Nelson as The Ugliest Democrat in the congress. And, man, that hair! Only Canada's Stephen Harper has a worse do.
This 60 votes issue is why any Democrat/Independent with the slightest progressive inclination should not have voted to have the bill passed to debate until the bill was fixed in the first place. Too much was compromised to get it this far and now it will be nearly impossible to get and significant progressive adjustment made.
Every step of the way, the conservative Democrats are blocking the bill and being catered to while any "so called progressives", loosely speaking, are told to stand back and accept whatever the conservatives demand. And they are doing so obediently.
My non-blue dog Democrat Senators told us the 2003 Medicare Drug Extortion Act was "better than no bill". Ditto for the TARP bailout. I can already hear them telling us that this fascist corporate welfare bill disguised as health care reform is "better than no bill".
Obama's life will be easier when many of the non-blue dog Democrats lose to Republicans in the 2010 elections. At that point it really will be the Republicans who are controlling the agenda rather than the current charade of Democrats controlling the agenda and blaming Republicans.
The public option (a joke to begin with, albeit a bad one) is seemingly defeated, yet these Christofascists still insist on imposing their pseudomorals on those who are in need of a LEGAL medical proceedure. Whatever happened to freedom of religion (or the right to be free of religion?) These assholes impose their false morality through the war on drugs, anti-abortion amendments to public policy, and all other sorts of other "vice" laws that seem to apply to all but those who preach it and still have the gall to say they are being discriminated against. Although I do support an individual's right to practice religious views, those rights cease to exist when they encroach upon anothers rights and liberties. These very people who insist on their own personal religious freedom actively seek to deny others those same rights. We have the most disfunctional semi-theocratic government money can buy and frankly, I am so totally pissed off at this farce of a Constitutional Republic I can't see straight anymore. The very people who so arrogantly claim moral superiority to others are the very ones who are personally mired in extramarital affairs, financial/official corruption, lies, and murder through illegally declared wars. With the exception of Bernie Sanders and possibly Russ Feingold in the Senate and Dennis Kucinich and on occasions Ron Paul in the House, every last one of these parasites on society need to be either in prison or in the unemployment line with NO extended unemployment benefits (as if they need them to begin with.) What a bunch of pukes!
Ben Nelson has adopted 2 children so I think it fair for him to speak his mind on abortion issues.
Those that haven't adopted should keep their mouths shut.
hey, lorax!
I admire adopters, also, but doing something admirable on one hand, doesn't justify something horrific on the other...
the choice to adopt is the same as the choice to abort...personal...
what is our purpose?
True.
But those that have adopted and those that have had an abortion should get more voice on the issue regardless of which side they take.
I'm pro-choice but I haven't done either so I give them center stage if they want to talk about it.
Does that mean I get a really big voice? My mother was forced to relinquish me at birth. I am anti-adoption as it is currently enacted and pro-choice. Each woman should be allowed to choose her own pain.
Why does adopting 2 children give him a right to tell my daughter how to live? Explain.
The issue is CHOICE. Nelson made one choice but he wants to deny any other choice to anyone he chooses. I support life. But life without choice is no better than being a steer.
When Ben grows a uterus, THEN he can comment on abortion.
So, by your logic, Micheal Jackson and Madonna are the only legitimate voices on abortion?
Looking into my crystal balls, here is what will happen. The health reform bill will fail because Nelson and other "ugly" members of Congress insist on an abortion amendment that makes it impossible for most Democrats to vote for it. This "loss" of a fatally-flawed bill for the benefit of the health insurance industry will be blamed on Republicans and blue dogs. This is just fine with Obama and the other Democrats because they now have an "issue" for the 2010 elections: that "good for nothing" 111th Congress that failed to give the people what they "wanted," more corporate money will flow into their coffers to "elect more Democrats" to finish the job of a health care reform bill; after which they will find another reason to be "stymied" by said Repub and blue dogs, followed by...you get the picture, a quagmire of perpetuation of the current health mess in the U.S. with no real "exit strategy" on the horizon: apart from an all-out assault on the duopoly of control by the Republicratic party. As in Afghanistan, failure is success because it guarantees the continuation of a system that is favorable to the military/industrial complex.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that this bill should be never be passed, or it should be vetoed immediately by the President. This should be followed by every woman who voted for a Democrat, or had either an abortion or a miscarriage but voted Republican, of all generations to start campaigning against these Blue Dog cretins and the GOP in 2010. And, any Democrat who campaigns on "it was better than nothing and we will tweak it later" should be roasted at the 2010 polls, starting with Pelosi and Reid.
I was raised a Christian, but nowhere in any religious teaching did I ever see where Jesus demanded that I force my religious beliefs on anyone. He told his followers to teach, not threaten or intimidate. He treated women better than his peers did, not passing judgment on them, or anyone else for that matter. He respected the living and offered hope for the dying. He did NOT damn people with his words, except for those who were desecrating the temples and using God to fatten their purses. Perhaps our esteemed Senators and Representatives should stop trying to play God and recognize that women have the right to choose how they will receive medical care, not them.
aahhh the Democrats they'll save us!!!!!
Republicans were supposed to be the problem.
Democrats were supposedly the answer.
Revelation! We live in a corporatocracy
ruled by plutocrats!
The is only one party.
For the Corporations and
by the Corporations.
The Plutocratic Puppets will NEVER EVER serve the
everyday citizens of this country!
The real solution is Revolution!
When the Hyde Amendment was proposed and the language to allow abortions included, for rape, incest and the life of the woman, some of the men in Congress were saying that women will be crying rape all the time. It is outrageous to think that they could get away with this amendment when the Supreme Court ruled that a women must be treated with dignity and her privacy must be respected. This amendment violates this Constitutional right to privacy for girls and women who have a crisis pregnancy.It is none of anyone's business why a girl or woman needs an abortion. As far as Ben Nelson having the right to speak his mind and force us to agree with him because he adopted 2 children, that is nonsense. Democracy is not about servitude which forces a girl or woman to give birth against her will to present a gift to a couple who want to adopt a child.Democracy is not about the human bondage of girls and women, during their fertile years, being forced to follow an ideology or to be coerced by religious members of congress to obey a theology which she does not believe, by denying her affordable health care. If a girl or women needs an abortion to save her life or because she was raped she should not be expected to prove this to get financial help in a democracy which respects her privacy. The private reason, regarding why a girl or woman needs an abortion, belongs to her sacred conscience.
Hyde I believe was made to make sure the pregnant woman would or could be coerced into getting an abortion because the irresponsible man who impregnated her would not have to get married or pay child support as it is really not so much about woman crying RAPE.
It's funny that all these people are opposed to the idea of abortion, but the war and killing and maiming is okay.
Some even have the audacity to stop sex education, yet are the first ones to throw a stone at an unwed mother.
I wonder if they have a provision to build more prisons for women that break the law, or doctors that cannot legally meet the documented requirments for providing a medical procedure.
Kill this Bill....
This not real healthcare reform anyway.
As Obama calls this legislation "health insurance reform," so should you all understand what this means as well.
Tell me anything good about this "health insurance reform" which will make the system better for all?
Don`t blame poor Senator Ben Nelson, he is only trying to insure his next re-election. What could be more important than that?