HC Bill's "Concessions" on Abortion = Zero

|
Posted: Dec 19, 2009 12:04 PM
I'd love to ask Sen. Ben Nelson exactly which "concessions" were made in order to line-up his support behind Reid's Obamacare bill.  First of all, the bill does NOT prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion.  In fact, unless states act in passing legislation that would ban the practice, taxpayer funds WILL be used to subsidize abortions. 

The only 'concession' I see is that states have the option to "opt-out" of abortion funds--note the language is "opt-out," not "opt-in."  The default position of the bill is to fund abortions.  Way to stick solidly to those principles, Ben. 

Furthermore, Reid's managers amendment reads:
(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
At last count, there are 13 states in which state supreme courts have mandated public funding for abortions and an additional 4 states which voluntarily provide the funding.  The way that I read this provision is that this bill will not preempt these state laws or voluntary practices, and, with its passage 17 states will automatically begin funneling federal tax dollars to abortion clinics.  

Is Ben Nelson only pro-life in Nebraska--a state which currently restricts publicly funded abortions?  Or is he actually against the practice of abortion, regardless of state? 

If Nelson is signing his support onto this bill, he is agreeing to support the public funding of abortions in at least 17 states.