Nelson Folds; It’s Up to Stupak to Save Unborn from Obamacare

As Senator Ben Nelson addressed the nation at his news conference, you could visualize him “folding” as he claimed he is now satisfied that public funds would not be used for abortions in Obamacare. So much for principle.

Congressman Bart Stupak, our hero, says the Reid/Nelson compromise is unacceptable. On a Relevant radio interview with Drew Mariani last week, Stupak said he remains adamant that the Stupak language will be in the final version of Obamacare or it fails. Stupak says he checks regularly with key Democrats in the House to ensure that they share his steadfast resolve to derail Obamacare unless the Stupak language is included.

Here’s what’ wrong with the “new” abortion language in the Senate bill:

• It allows the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. Supposedly, enrollees in an abortion-covering plan can make a separate payment into an account that will pay for abortions. But, the amendment also contains language that is apparently intended to prevent or discourage any insurer from explaining what the surcharge is to be used for. There is nothing in the language to suggest that payment of the abortion charge is optional for any enrollee.
• This supposed “firewall” that exists between federal funds and private funds is a gimmick made of very thin paper. It exists only as long as Congress enacts the Hyde Amendment in the appropriations process as it does every year. At any future date should Congress or the President block the Hyde Amendment, the firewall evaporates.
• In place of the “public option” the Senate bill establishes a new program under which the federal government would administer “multi-state” health plans offered by private insurers. The new program would ensure that there is at least one plan that does not provide coverage of abortions. This seems to envision a system in which the program director would perhaps even possess authority to require such plans to cover elective abortions. Under the current system that administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, private plans are prohibited from offering any abortion coverage.
• A state may elect to prohibit abortion coverage IF a state enacts a law to provide for such a prohibition. However, it would apply only to laws enacted in the future. Other language could be construed to conflict with some existing state laws.
• The House bill contains language to prevent federal Executive Branch officials from requiring private health plans to cover abortions. However, the Senate adopted the Mikulski Amendment on December 3 to mandate that all health plans cover “preventive” services. The Senate bill prevents the Secretary of Health and Human Services from defining elective abortion as an “essential benefit” but does not remove the entirely separate authority granted by the Mikulski Amendment to potentially cover abortion as a “preventive” service.
• There is no conscience protection for health care providers.
• The entire text of the Indian Health reauthorization bill is inserted into the bill without the Vitter Amendment to prohibit coverage of elective abortions in federally funded Indian health programs.

All analysis is provided by the excellent work of the National Right to Life Committee. Tomorrow — what’s in store for rationed care in this ever-ominous bill.

Barbara Lyons