Abortion focus in health care debate
By ConnPolitics.tv Editor on Dec 7, 2009 | In News, Washington D.C. - Congress | 28 feedbacks »
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – Buoyed by a presidential pep talk and intense rounds of negotiations, Senate Democrats hope to move closer to embracing a major health care bill this week by tackling the nettlesome issue of abortion.
Anti-abortion lawmakers in both parties have insisted that taxpayer funds not be used to pay for abortions in government-run health programs. But some liberals say proposed restrictions go too far by barring federally subsidized health insurance plans from covering abortion even if the procedures were entirely paid for with customers’ premiums.
That’s the language the House adopted last month, angering liberal groups. A prominent anti-abortion Democratic senator, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, plans to urge the Senate to follow suit.
The Senate was to begin debate on Nelson’s amendment, reflecting the House language, on Monday, although the senator said he doesn’t expect a vote before Tuesday. The amendment appeared unlikely to gain the necessary 60 votes in the 100-member Senate, according to numerous lawmakers.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Monday she wouldn’t be able to accept the Nelson language.
“Let’s be clear, the bill as it stands does continue the current law” banning the use of federal money for abortions in most circumstances, she said in an appearance on CBS’s “The Early Show.”
“What this amendment does, is it goes further,” McCaskill said. “You can’t use private money in the private market … and frankly I think that goes too far.”
Democratic leaders hope to soften the House’s tougher language in eventual House-Senate negotiations designed to send a bill to President Barack Obama’s desk.
In a rare visit to the Capitol on Sunday, Obama urged Senate Democrats to make history by overhauling the nation’s health care system, even if some of them might face angry voters. He stuck to general themes in his 45-minute closed-door speech and did not dwell on specific topics such as abortion.
The Senate bill would cover more than 30 million additional Americans over the next decade with a new requirement for nearly everyone to buy insurance. The federal-state Medicaid program for the poor would be expanded, and there would be a ban on unpopular insurance company practices such as denying coverage based on medical history.
It would create marketplaces where people could shop for and compare insurance plans. Lower-income people would get subsidies to help them buy coverage.
A government-run insurance program, or “public option,” is one of the bill’s most contentious issues. At the urging of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a group of moderate and liberal Senate Democrats met again Sunday to seek a compromise, after Obama’s pep talk.
One idea calls for national nonprofit insurance plans to be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the popular Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
The proposal seems to appeal to a key Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who met with Obama at the White House on Saturday.
On Sunday, Snowe called the possible compromise “a positive development” because it would give consumers more options for buying insurance.
Snowe’s potential support for the Democratic-crafted bill is crucial. Supporters need 60 votes to overcome filibusters, and the chamber’s 40 Republicans hope to draw at least one Democrat to their side.
It could be Nelson, who says he will not support final passage of a health care bill unless it includes the tight abortion restrictions he wants. If so, Democrats would have to woo moderate Republicans such as Snowe.
Nelson’s amendment would restrict abortion coverage to cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Senate bill now would allow insurance plans operating in a new federally supervised health insurance marketplace to cover abortion, provided they use only funds from premiums paid by beneficiaries.
——
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.
28 comments
We simply do not need the government to run health care and any tactic to achieve that goal is worth while.
"Dump Dodd"
So, if you don't want to fund abortion with your tax dollars, can I not fund the wars with mine?
Well, you can't conclude that as those who supported slavery were a wide array of interests, and are dead. Nice attempt at trying to be me though.
Also, no one is for the 'killing of babies' and you're quite flawed in suggesting so. People are in favor of allowing a consenting adult the right to do with their body, how they choose. They aren't babies.
It is also not human life as defined by law. Secondly, it is not YOUR decision to make, it is a woman's, and hers only. Same as it is not your decision to decide whether gays can marry, or any other loonball rights stripping legislation.
'Mostly left wingers who are duped or are directly involved with changing history with myth.'
Can you; A) Back up that it is mostly 'Left Wingers' with substantial data? B) Explain how there is a 'myth' and how it is 'changing history?'
If someone's arguements are consistent, ie anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, believing personnaly, not as an extension of a man made dogma, then I can understand their discussion. But if you are just spouting dogma and are for death in one case and life in another, you are demonstating the hypocracy that is part of this debate.
Yeah Coca-Cola feeding the Nazi's Fanta, or helping murder union organizers in Columbia sure sounds like a quality track record. They, like governments, both need to be held accountable for the mess they've created. A government and a corporation share the same interest; Money over humanity.
Why not sponsor adoption clinic right next door to the abortion clinic. Therefore the women have a choice as to which door to enter. Then when you are there, make it a life thing not a religious fuvor thing so they know the child will be raised by caring adults, not zelots.
If you weren't "ignorant to history" you would have already known that the Republicans today are the Democrats of the past, and vice versa.
"Hey able ever seen an ultra-sound of an baby in the womb?"
Have you ever seen fetal demise? Have you ever seen a child that will kill its mother if carried to term? Have you ever seen a severely retarded child in the womb that will have a deplorable standard of living and people such as yourself will b***h about having to care for in a state home? Have you ever met a woman who was impregnated as a result of rape? Have you ever met a daughter who was impregnated by her father?
"Are the anti-abortionists here also part of the church that used to burn people at the stake for hearasy?"
No, they rewrote that part of history, or they are "ignorant of it".
I have heard that the Republicans and Democrats have switched stripes but the fact that democrats support killing innocent babies makes me think that it is all another liberal lie.
B. If I kill a pregnant woman, why can I be charged with a second murder?
Answer to A - because a legal abortion is truly defined by who is paid to kill the baby
B. It's a life
Bet the house on it. They will rework the bill during reconciliation to make sure it's in there.
Then Democrats will say "Gee I didn't think they'd do that!" and vote for it any way.
If the act is good, justified or appropriate they support it, as does the Pope.
'You WILL pay for unlimited abortions.'
I have to pay for horrible wars where hundreds of thousands of lives are drastically changed without their own consent, so you can pay for someones abortion.
'A. if the fetus is merely something that a woman can remove, then why can a pregnant woman be prosecuted for murder if she chooses to harm her fetus?'
After a certain term it is defined as a 'living entity.'
'B. It's a life'
It is your perception of life, not actual life.
'I suppose they feel embolden because they control the Government these days.'
Democrats control the government, not the left wing.
Sorry, but I go to church and I do know that the Catholic church is consistent in their beliefs. I also know that the Catholic Church engages in unchristian actions such as hiding and defending priests who molest children - lets talk about the bishop of Bridgeport who Became the Arch Bishop of New York. Furthermore, I know that the Catholic Church is so moralistic that they will cut off social services in DC if gay marriage is approved... What a great bunch of "christians" they are.
So, when you talk about the Catholic Church being "consistent" I'm sure you'll be very happy to talk about their consistent record of hiding and defending child molesters. I'm sure you'll also be very happy to discuss the Christ-like ideologies of charity, fraternity, and the notion of "loving one another as I [Christ] have loved you." As the leaders of the Catholic Church seem to have issues with this.
"democrats support killing innocent babies makes me think that it is all another liberal lie."
Thanks for grouping us all together. I never said I supported abortion 100%. But, you appear to have a simple mind, so I won't belabor this point any longer.
This (a woman has a rite with her body).She made the choice when she agreed to have intercorse.
There is a 99% chance you get pregnant without protection,protection brings the percentage down and even then there is a chance of pregnancy.
This is to protect the unborn.
Wether in the womb or the kindergarden classroom they are people too.When you see those two little teeth come up in the front on their bottom gum,you will smile and be glad you saved their life,they are so cute.And didn`t listen to someone say,abort "it".
~Peace Glenna~
I respect the people like the devout who are against both. What I disagree with is that there are many out there who claim right to life, and then say the murderer should be put to death. So if you are devout in both cases I see no fault in your beliefs or desires. It does not mean I agree with them, I just do not see the hypocracy in them.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
| « Cafero, McKinney mulling gubernatorial runs | McMahon advisor faces subpoena » |
