Nelson Goes Beyond Hyde, Decimates Abortion Coverage Almost as Fast as Stupak

by: debcoop

Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 15:45

Insurance companies will respond to the Nelson amendment the same way they would have reacted to the Stupak amendment.  Operationally they are the same.  Maybe more, it sets the stage for the anti-choice forces to vigorously campaign against women on a state by state basis.

Secondly I need to make it clearer because Monday night on TV there were 2 women I admire - Rachel Maddow and Rep Jan Schakowsky  underplaying the actual impact of what the passage of the Nelson amendment would mean to women. I understand and I sympathize. Sailing  between Scylla and Charybdis is a hard and dangerous place to be.  

Jan Schakowsky and Diana De Gette, chair of the House Pro-choice Caucus were stalwart in doing as much as they could to  minimize the impact of the President's offer of an Executive Order to Bart Stupak. An offer that was initiated by the White House to Bart Stupak so the White House would be certain that there would be more than enough votes to pass the health care bill.  Cong. De Gette made it clear to the WH that the Order must not codify the odious Hyde Amendment. Negotiating with the White House, they tried to limit its reach and its scope. It they hadn't been in the mix, the Executive Order that Bart Stupal proposed was much broader and it could have stood.

The Executive order is in 2 parts. First is the  iteration of Hyde, however in addition there is an extensive process by which HHS  nails down the actual implementation of the Nelson amendment. Ameliorating the huge impact of Nelson becomes a very big rock to roll up the hill and may be next to impossible.

The White House's press release proudly admits that it goes further in terms of "safeguards". "Safeguards" for making sure that Nelson is so effective that women will have next to no access to abortion coverage in insurance. A very odd choice of words to be coming from a supposedly pro-choice President.  Safeguarding anti-choice measures  instead of safeguarding women's legal and moral right to an abortion.

So some say the executive order is only symbolic. As though that is such a paltry, trivial matter. A contretemps, much ado about nothing...Even if it was only symbolic, (which it is not) symbols matter.  Electing the first African American man was also symbolic ---a meaningful and motivating symbol.

Saying the Nelson amendment observes Hyde while Stupak went beyond Hyde is just not the point. The theory behind Stupak always went beyond Hyde. The theory behind Nelson just goes around Hyde but make no bones about it- it is as JUST DESTRUCTIVE TO ABORTION COVERAGE UNDER PRIVATE INSURANCE AS STUPAK.

Read why and how after the fold:

Bart Stupak Lied at Midnight Friday and then He Lied All Day Saturday

by: debcoop

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 18:45

Right after midnight on Friday November 6th,  Bart Stupak began his testimony to the House Rules Committee.  The (be)witching hour.  Less than 24 hours later the vote began on his amendment.  Not much time to understand his amendment.  

It was a bait and switch.  There had been an earlier amendment whose language had circulated.  It prohibited the use of federal dollars, i.e. federal subsidies, in only the public option, not the newly created exchanges. The new amendment did much more.  It extended the prohibition to the exchanges. By doing that,  it will in short order,  2-3 years after the exhanges begin operating, eliminate almost ALL insurance coverage for abortion.  

Rep. Bart Stupak lied in his testimony. When he lied in his testimony before the Rules Committee. Therefore he lied to those 64 Democratic members who voted for the Stupak-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper amendment. Some of them are having buyer's remorse. It should be further inflamed by this. They were sold a dishonest bill of goods by Rep Stupak.  How did he do that? Let us count the ways.