Senate Bill Compromises Women's Reproductive Health to Woo Nelson
Man your battle stations: Ben Nelson (D-NE) has announced that his vote will make lucky number 60 for the Senate health care bill, riling up pro-choice accountants over whether his price was too steep.
After his Stupak copy-cat amendment got the boot, Nelson decided that his conscience wouldn't allow him to support affordable health care for millions of Americans. Well, who needs him, right?
Unfortunately, we do. Our dysfunctional filibuster rules mean that it's not enough to have a simple 51 sturdy Democrat majority saying "AYE" -- we need nine more lukewarm "okay" votes. Which is why the party is forced to whisper sweet promises to its least liberal members (and non-members), like Nelson and Joe Lieberman. Oh baby, don't leave me. Not before the big vote. Look, don't get jealous over that thing between me and women's reproductive rights. It was just a fling -- I'll prove it to you.
Prove how? Take a look at Senate Majority leader Harry Reid's new manager's amendment's proposal to keep innocent federal dollars from being tainted by helping to cover abortion through a separation of private and public funds. (I'd much prefer to see a little separation of church and state.) Of course, insurance companies aren't known for enjoying added hassle or a positive approach to women's health, so faced with the administrative nightmare of setting up two bank accounts to deposit two checks from each woman electing abortion coverage -- one payment for the abortion pot and one for everything else -- insurance companies are likely to chuck that option altogether. Hey, that's just what anti-choicers wanted in the first place!
At least women don't have to worry about the federal government intruding on their ability to buy a public plan that covers abortion by barring insurance companies from selling one. Instead, individual states get to do that, under an opt-out clause that reverses the Senate bill's previous requirment that the state exchange offer the option of a plan covering abortion, pleasing both anti-choicers and Tenthers in one easy infringement on women's rights!
Nelson tells us that he just wants to make sure that those 12 states reining in abortion coverage in public plans can keep on controlling women's bodies. (Okay, I'm paraphrasing a bit.) I was shocked by some members of the dirty dozen: Massachusetts, shame on you. My respect for your shining beacon of universal health care has just dimmed significantly.
Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who pointed out the absence of restrictions on men's right to Viagra and is generally beloved of pro-choicers, is also glowing less than usual in some people's eyes. She's decided to defend of the compromise as acceptable because it still allows women to pay for coverage of their reproductive rights themselves (until insurance companies are incentivized into no longer offering the option).
Meanwhile, the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus is mulling over just how badly they think this change is screwing over women before they decide to refuse to back it. But groups like NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood, not being calculating politicians, don't need the time to think over how they feel about health care legislation that doesn't cover all of women's health, whether the word preceding "amendment" is Stupak, Nelson, or manager's. Do you?
Alex DiBranco
is a Change.org Editor who has worked for the Nation, Political Research Associates, and the Center for American Progress. She is now based in New York City.
COMMENTS (5)