Nelson Compromise – Sell-out or Stroke of Genius?
I’m reluctant to comment on something without knowing too much about the details. This morning, it seems that Ben Nelson has become the 60th vote for health care reform, which I regard as good news indeed. What remains murky is the abortion compromise he negotiated, given that he had rejected earlier compromises based on segregation of funds. It seems that the big thing is that states will be allowed to prohibit plans that offer abortion from participating in the exchanges that operate in their states. The difference is that Stupak would have applied this nationally.
Already, I see some of the usual suspects using the language of treason (it’s always a dark dualistic world for them, isn’t it?). But here’s the deal. The main objection to subsidized health care plans that offer abortion was that it would lead to a great expansion in abortion rates. I’m not convinced at all, but let’s go with it. If this expansion in abortion is in proportion to current abortion rates, then the Nelson language would not make much difference, as the large states that account for the most abortions would still allow coverage of abortion.
Does this ring any bells? It should. It is one of the main criticisms of the pro-life movement’s sole focus on eliminating Roe v. Wade and the fetishization of abortion industry subsidiarity. Here is the language of none other than archbishop Chaput of Denver:
““Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation.”
Now, can’t the same argument be made with the Nelson compromise? It sounds to me like if you are arguing that this is a chimera, and that moving the decision to the states will make no difference at all, then you are implicitly also criticizing the all-eggs-in-one-Roe-basket strategy? At the very least, expect some cognitive dissonance…
Update: If you want to comment, and you disagree with me, first tell me whether you would support this reform with ironclad abortion protections. I’m not giving any soapboxes to laissez-faire liberals to exploit the unborn for their own ends.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
We are talking two different issues here.
First as to ROE. THe issue of abortion (that is if it can be restricted) is currently in large part a no go. It is a issue in which the COurts has made it extremely difficult to restrict. In fact the cases that came out after ROE don’t even following the reasoning of ROE itself.
Most pro-lifers realize that through the poltical process is how the debate over the issue starts in earnest. People have to grapple with the issue Neighbors have to to talk to neighbors about it, it is discussed around diunner tables,there are Op-eds, articles. In effect we can make our case in our communities. It is no longer one of those abstract issues. I know of few pro-lifers that would not like to see a nation wide ban of abportion in most cases. Most support a human life amendment. However to get to that stage there has to be an opportunity for debate and action on a local level. It builds from there.
We are talking here about us taxpayers still having to pay for abortions. I expect the Catholic Bishops are going to be opposed to this compromise.
Any funding of abortion needs to be opposed, not primarily because it may or may not increase abortion rates, but primarily because it violates truth. Any law that funds the murder of the unborn is a law that systemically cultivates lies. This systemic disemmination of deceit is an assault on human life itself. In the short term, yes, more lives may be saved than lost. But in the long term, every human life is put into jeapordy, because life itself has been put into question.
We cannot support a pro-death Health Care system.
Saint Paul reminds us that our real battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the world rulers of this present darkness – the powers of wickedness and death. We cannot defeat evil while giving into lies, even lies that seem insignificant, even lies that seem outweighed by practical gains.
I’m reluctant to comment on something without knowing too much about the details.
I’m not. :)
We started with the original language. Then we got Capps — insuffiecent but not meaningless. Then Ellsworth was offered. Now something we can assume beyond Ellsworth. And the bill still as to go to Conference where it could be further improved in the direction of Stupak while it cannot fall below the baseline of what Nelson has agreed to.
Three observations: The NRTLC was cut out the discussion by Stupak and by the Senate until the very end when Nelson consulted with thier Nebraska chapter. Of course, once Nelson had the experience of dealing with them, is when he went ahead without their blessing. I’m sure the experience was exasperating for the Senator.
Second, regarding the long standing practice of the NRTLC, conservative pro-lifers and bishops like Chaput and Burke of criticizing liberals, Democrats and public officials on the most indirect and disputable acts accomodating abortion while maintaining total silence of the promotion and financing of abortion by the barons of big business — the recent debate has exposed their limited defense of the unborn. They deserve everything they have coming in the “post-game” analysis.
Third, after all of the accusations following the President’s election (“the most pro-abortion President ever”) we are now may see the greatest practical advance in limiting abortion since Roe — a massive change in how private insurance treats abortion. The credibility of the RTL establishment is dead.
Eunice and Teddy, thank you.
I’ve never supported the “all or none” outlawing of Roe as per Judie Brown because a half a loaf is better than none.
As far as I can see, IF the states were allowed to vote on this, we’d have as much luck as we’ve had with the Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman votes which is 100%. When left to popular vote, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how God intended people to make love and that, after that, the woman ends up carrying a real baby for nine months.
My question is: are you right about this vote today?
Nate, I agree that this reform should try try to distance itself to the extent possible from each and every abortion. After all, it is about “health” reform and the Hippocratic Oath itself notes that procuring abortions is forbidden of health care practioners – if only that were heeded.
But there is no “funding abortion”. People buy health care plans that may or may not cover abortion, and – if their income is low enough – they get subsidies. One can stretch this to argue that a person who receives any transfer from the government, such as unemplyment benefit, may turn around and procure an abortion with these funds.
The key problem is that private health plans currently cover abortion. If they did not, there would be no problem. Whey then, do we not tackle the problem at its source and campaign to stop the coverage of abortion by private insurers? For the moral argument is identical. Whether you pay out of your pocket for a private insurance plan, or whether you pay indirectly through your taxes, the money is going to an insurance company that somewhere is funding some abortion. That is the issue.
This bill, to my knowledge, fails on all three levels of what the bishops requested: health care for immigrants, conscience protection, and now we see funding for abortion. While I’d like to support it, with none of these three simple requests met, especially considering how unnecessary abortion coverage is, I think the bill should go down.
And yes, I know that private plans cover abortion, but I don’t think it’s that difficult to say “if you want federal dollars, the plan can’t cover abortion.” And yes, if you’re paying for those plans, you’re paying for abortions (and I agree with you, we Catholics need to start looking more closely at the plans we’re on to see if they too are covering abortion).
(So-yes, I probably would support it w/ iron clad abortion restrictions-I think Cao voted right-and no, I don’t think abortion should go to the states and that Chaput is wrong).
Talking Points Memo (TPM) has this explanation of the compromise accepted by Sen. Nelson:
“If you’re buying insurance with help from the government, and the policy you want to buy covers abortions, you have to write two checks (or authorize two credit card transactions, etc.) for your plan. If the plan costs $1000 a month, and the insurer plans to sequester $50 to put into a pool that covers abortions, you have to make one payment of $950 and a separate payment of $50.”
Sounds like an accounting compromise to me. Nothing spiritual. Nothing ethical. Just accounting.
Where is the moral advance? Where is the elevation of human consciousness? The whole RTL effort comes across as a joke. It shows once again the bankruptcy of the fundamentalist RTL strategy.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/one-premium-two-checks-how-abortion-will-be-paid-for-under-the-nelson-compromise.php?ref=fpblg
Any law that funds the murder of the unborn is a law that systemically cultivates lies. This systemic disemmination of deceit is an assault on human life itself.
Nate,
First, the Senate bill with the Nelson compromise doesn’t “fund the murder of the unborn.” It seems to me to be consistent with the Medicaid arrangement under which no federal funds are used for abortions but under which states are allowed to use state funds for abortions for Medicaid recipients, which 17 states do.
Second, your argument seems to be a slippery slope argument: If the unborn don’t have a “right to life,” then the right to life of everyone is in danger. However, the unborn did not ever have a “right to life” under American law and English common law. The unborn were never persons under the law, even when abortion was illegal. The right-to-life movement is not looking for a return of the status quo ante. It is putting forward a legal proposition never before accepted — that the unborn should be persons under the law. I suppose — although I don’t speak for the right-to-life movement — that they would be pleased to see abortion outlawed based on any premise. But the premise they are proposing — that life (personhood) begins at conception — is a new one, and demonstrating the truth of it seems to me to be impossible. That a fertilized egg is a person with rights is an entirely new, unprecedented legal proposition. Even some pro-lifers don’t support a ban on fertility clinics creating embryos or stem-cell research although they maintain that life begins at conception.
The America Bishops used the Hyde Amendment as the standard by which to measure health care reform legislation, and it appears to me that the Nelson compromise meets the test. As in Medicaid, no federal funds will be used for abortions. And as MM points out the compromise is also consistent with those who maintain that abortion regulation is best left to the states.
“(So-yes, I probably would support it w/ iron clad abortion restrictions-I think Cao voted right-and no, I don’t think abortion should go to the states and that Chaput is wrong).”
Michael you have just finished the hell of a being a first year first semester law student. How can we not take this back to the States under our Const
“The America Bishops used the Hyde Amendment as the standard by which to measure health care reform legislation, and it appears to me that the Nelson compromise meets the test”
What? Are you reading the bill for goodness sake. This goes against the Hyde Amendment
I don’t think the “reform” as proposed is a good idea because, for now anyway, it really requires everybody to buy private health insurance–with government aid, if needed. This strikes me as good for the insurance industry but not necessarily beneficial to the rest of us. However, I do support national health care and would like to see a whole new “single payer” system, perhaps modeled on the VA.
I doubt that passes MM’s test but post-ability, but on the abortion issue, it seems to me we ought to follow the guidance of the USCCB. The latest statement from the 3 bishops who have been speaking on the health care issue is quite clear: “This legislation should not more forward in its present form. It should be opposed unless and until such serious concerns [regarding tax-subsidized abortion] have been addressed.” I certainly agree with that.
What? Are you reading the bill for goodness sake. This goes against the Hyde Amendment
jh,
Just asserting that doesn’t make it so. Does the Hyde amendment prevent states who get federal funds for Medicaid from providing abortion coverage with state funds? No, and the Nelson compromise does not spend federal funds on abortion but merely allows women who get subsidies to get policies that cover abortion as long as they pay for the abortion coverage with their own money.
Under the Stupak amendment, women getting federal subsidies can obtain abortion coverage if they pay for it with their own money. Under the Nelson compromise, women getting federal subsidies can obtain abortion coverage if they pay for it with their own money. The difference between the two is that under Stupak, the coverage would have to come in a “rider,” and under the Nelson compromise, it could be a part of the existing policy. Still, no federal money goes for abortion coverage in either case.
An insurance policy with a rider that covers abortion is just as much abortion coverage as an insurance policy that already includes abortion coverage. What is the moral difference between obtaining abortion coverage under Stupak and obtaining it under the Nelson compromise?
People may use food stamps to buy bread, milk, eggs, and so on, but they may not use them to buy hot, prepared foods. But when they check out at the supermarket, they may buy their bread, milk, and eggs with food stamps and buy hot, prepared foods with cash. If we applied the principle of the Stupak amendment to food stamps, would people have to check out twice, once using food stamps and once using cash? Or would they have to make two separate trips to the store, once to buy what could be paid for with food stamps, and once to buy what can’t? I don’t see why it should be different for abortion coverage.
Question: Won’t the actual impact of either the Stupak amendment or the Nelson compromise depend very much on how insurance companies decide to handle abortion coverage in policies offered on the exchange?
I support a single payer system and health care for all who live in this country regardless of status. It is the right thing to do. Health care reform won’t come from the insurance industry. However as a Catholic first I won’t support any plan that advances abortion. And I do think we need to support more pro-life Democrats. I made my first political donation to Stupak after he championed the cause of the unborn.
jh:
Michael you have just finished the hell of a being a first year first semester law student. How can we not take this back to the States under our Const
Well, I haven’t gotten to Con Law yet ;)
But the bottom line is that the states do not get the right to determine when human life begins. Period. Human life begins at conception, and this is an objective universal truth that is outside the differences of a particular state or community. While different states could have different prudential judgments about the punishment for abortion, I see no reason why the states need to separately deliberate about whether or not it’s okay for the unborn to be deprived of life without due process via abortion.
“Does the Hyde amendment prevent states who get federal funds for Medicaid from providing abortion coverage with state funds? No, and the Nelson compromise does not spend federal funds on abortion but merely allows women who get subsidies to get policies that cover abortion as long as they pay for the abortion coverage with their own money.”
And this is suppose to make us fell better. The Hyde amendment is about to be gone with the wind if this allowed to pass. I am amazed that in this Nation that where even a good many “pro choice ” people don’t want their money to pay for abortions this is passing. All the fancy accounting can’t hide the fact of what is happening here.
That a fertilized egg is a person with rights is an entirely new, unprecedented legal proposition.
David, it’s also a “development” of Catholic religious doctrine that both Augustine and Aquinas would not necessarily have agreed with.
it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how God intended people to make love and that, after that, the woman ends up carrying a real baby for nine months.
“gb,” DID Jesus Christ intend people to “make love”–as opposed to BEING “love”? It seems to me he said something about the preferable status of “eunuchs for the Kingdom’s sake.”
It’s nice, isn’t it, the way the “social conservatives” of the Catholic flock always revert to the patriarchalism and the sexual legalism of the Old Testament to justify their bigotries.
I’ve said this numerous times on these threads, and I’ll say it here to you, “gb”: your deity cured a slave boy at the behest of a master who, under Roman law and custom, had the right to command the boy’s services in bed, and the Jews standing around watching MUST have been “given scandal” by this, because they had enough contact with their Roman masters to know that the boy was, in all probability, his master’s lover.
Jesus Christ was not a “conservative” regarding love or even love-making, and I’m quite certain that he’d support a law that would make what is already a “pro-death Health Care System” one that would be, in actual practice, a less “pro-death Health Care System.”
(And, actually, when you think about it, all “Health Care Systems” are pro-death because they tend to become capitalist monopolies which could not function unless they doled out “death.”)
“I doubt that passes MM’s test but post-ability, but on the abortion issue, it seems to me we ought to follow the guidance of the USCCB. The latest statement from the 3 bishops who have been speaking on the health care issue is quite clear: “This legislation should not more forward in its present form. It should be opposed unless and until such serious concerns [regarding tax-subsidized abortion] have been addressed.” I certainly agree with that.”
Thank You RON!!!
I’m OK with it — I wish the compromises were more in the direction of protecting the unborn than goodies for Nebraska, but that’s where we ware.
One thing this means is that the pro-life movement will have more points of access to meaningfully impact abortion policy, which is a good thing.
I think it’s also good that the presumption that pro-life interests can be simply rolled over is now moot. And I must admit that this is due to the presence of witness of pro-life Democratic lawmakers. May we see more of them!
he main objection to subsidized health care plans that offer abortion was that it would lead to a great expansion in abortion rates.
I’m not certain that’s the main objection.
My main objection is that including abortion in health care coverage would send a cultural message that it was just another health care procedure, of no moral import, which would lead to greater cultural acceptance of abortion, and yes, ultimately more abortions.
JohnMcG,
You are the font of wisdom.
Not letting this bill move forward would be crazy. First, it gets us to conference where it is possible Stuapk or something close to it could still be enacted. Second, even the Senate language will (I am confident) result in a dramatic decrease in abortion coverage by private insurers. Rather than million of Americans unknowingly buying insurance with abortion coverage, those in the exchanges will now have to affirmatively choose abortion coverage. Not only will millions of pro-lifer decline it, so will single men, people outside child-bearing years, fertile women who feel a stigma about electing abortion coverave (and fears of privacy lapses) as well as firmly pro-choice women who simply don’t want to pay extra for something they expect they will never need.
The result will be the insurance companies will find abortion coverage in all of their plans not beneficial to their marketing.
Kurt and David – absolutely right.
And, Kurt, THIS was the way to end–or, at least, dramatically reduce–abortion in America; not the overtly political way of the National Council of Catholic Bishops or of the Catholic stooges of the Republican Party.
And this is suppose to make us fell better. The Hyde amendment is about to be gone with the wind if this allowed to pass.
jh,
As can be confirmed by checking any number of right-to-life websites, the Hyde Amendment is not a government-wide prohibition. For example, Douglas Johnson of NRLC says, “Since the Hyde Amendment applies only to funds appropriated through the annual HHS appropriations bill, the Hyde Amendment will not apply to any of the funds used to establish or operate either the ‘public option’ or the premium-subsidy program created by H.R. 3200.” The Hyde Amendment does not require any restrictions on taxpayer dollars paying for abortions, as long as those dollars don’t come from funds from the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. (There are other federal laws restricting federal funding of abortions in other areas, but they are separate laws, not applications of the Hyde Amendment.) The Hyde Amendment could continue to be in effect even if health care reform legislation somehow is modified to pay for abortion on demand. Likewise, if the Stupak Amendment prevails in health care reform legislation, the Hyde Amendment could be abolished, and it would not undo Stupak.
The argument by the American Bishops (and others) seems to be that anything less than the Stupak Amendment is not consistent with “longstanding policy prohibiting federal funding of elective abortion and plans which include elective abortion (Hyde Amendment). Medicaid, Medicare, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and other federal health legislation include this provision.” But exactly how to apply the principles of the Hyde Amendment to health care reform legislation is not a simple matter even if one believes it is important or essential.
My point is that no one argues that states may not use their own tax dollars to pay for abortions in the Medicaid program even though Medicaid gets federal funding that is covered by the Hyde Amendment. Consequently, I am asking why women should not be able to pay for abortion coverage with their own money even when getting federal subsidies to help them buy health insurance. Also, I am asking what the essential difference is between Stupak and Nelson, both of which allow women to purchase abortion coverage with their own money.
I know you are unhappy with the Nelson compromise, but you haven’t actually made an argument against it along the lines of the Amercan Bishops, who are arguing that health care reform should neither be pro- or anti-abortion but should reflect the status quo of no federal funding for abortion. I would say the Nelson compromise does not authorize federal funding for abortion and is therefore consistent with the Hyde Amendment. You may disagree, but asking me if I have read the bill does not constitute an argument.
The argument by the American bishops…
I will give the bishop great credit and deference. Their statement, while indicating they are not content with the Nelson agreement nor think it meets their criteria, firmly characterizes Senators Nelson and Casey as acting in “good faith” and also describes their problems with the Nelson agreements as “their judgment.”
I consider my agreement or disagreement with the bishops secondary. I am very proud of them for affirming that there can be people operating in good faith to promote life and that these matters are to a certain degree matters of judgment.
I’ve studied Section 1303 of the bill with the Nelson changes and I don’t see any basis for claiming that the government will be subsidizing abortion services (other than the limited ones allowed by both Stupak and Hyde). Just as with a voucher program, the government will pay a fixed amount of money to whatever insurance company the person chooses, regardless of what premium the insurer charges and regardless of what services it provides. The difference between the government payment and the total premium is paid by the person directly to the insurance company.
If the insurer chooses to cover abortions beyond those permitted by Stupak and Hyde, it has to set up a separate “allocation account” to pay providers for those services and it has to collect a separate payment from each user to fund that allocation account. No federal money can go into that allocation account. My guess is that those separate “allocation accounts” and separate payments were put in to deal specifically with the earlier criticism that money is fungible.
The deletion of the “public option” (which I would have liked to keep) made the abortion issue much simpler to deal with.
If I were a Senator, I would vote for the current version of the bill. I would not risk losing the chance to provide health care to millions of uninsured people by trying to make it perfect.
I think this is also a good deal because I suspect more states will opt out of abortion coverage than pro-choice commentators think. It won’t just be the reddest of red states. I think the vast majority of states, including bluish ones like Pennsylvania and Ohio, will opt out.