Here's the language of the abortion amendment that won Nelson's vote on HCR

[WilliamPitt]

''SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.

(a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.-- ''(1) IN GENERAL.--A State may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition. (2) TERMINATION OF OPT OUT.-- A State may repeal a law described in paragraph (1) and provide for the offering of such services through the Exchange.

(b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.--(1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.-- (A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title)-- (i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and ''(ii) subject to subsection (a), the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.

'(B) ABORTION SERVICES.-- (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.--The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.--The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.-- ''(A) IN GENERAL.--If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services: (i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

(B) ESTABLISHMENT OF ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.--In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall-- (i) collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee's age, sex, or family status) a separate payment for each of the following: (I) an amount equal to the portion of the premium to be paid directly by the enrollee for coverage under the plan of services other than services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) (after reduction for credits and cost-sharing reductions described in subparagraph (A)); and (II) an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), and (ii) shall deposit all such separate payments into separate allocation accounts as provided in subparagraph (C). In the case of an enrollee whose premium for coverage under the plan is paid through employee payroll deposit, the separate payments required under this subparagraph shall each be paid by a separate deposit.

(C) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--The issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies shall establish allocation accounts described in clause (ii) for enrollees receiving amounts described in subparagraph (A). '(ii) ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.--The issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies shall deposit-- (I) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(I) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services other than services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i); and (II) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(II) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i).

(D) ACTUARIALVALUE.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--The issuer of a qualified health plan shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under the qualified health plan of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i). (ii) CONSIDERATIONS.--In making such estimate, the issuer-- (I) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care; (II) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and (III) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.

(E) ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--Subject to clause (ii), State health insurance commissioners shall ensure that health plans comply with the segregation requirements in this subsection through the segregation of plan funds in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office. (ii) CLARIFICATION.--Nothing in clause (i) shall prohibit the right of an individual or health plan to appeal such action in courts of competent jurisdiction.

'(3) RULES RELATING TO NOTICE.-- (A) NOTICE.--A qualified health plan that provides for coverage of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) shall provide a notice to enrollees, only as part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment, of such coverage.

(B) RULES RELATING TO PAYMENTS.-- The notice described in subparagraph (A), any advertising used by the issuer with respect to the plan, any information provided by the Exchange, and any other information specified by the Secretary shall provide information only with respect to the total amount of the combined payments for services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) and other services covered by the plan.

(4) NO DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.--No qualified health plan offered through an Exchange may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions

(c) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.-- (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.

(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding-- '(i) conscience protection; '(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and '(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.

(3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.--Nothing in this subsection shall alter the rights and obligations of employees and employers under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/schumer-weve-reached-agreement-with-nelson.php?ref=fpa

[debbierlus]

1. Oh man.

FUCK

[Jackpine Radical]

33. No.

Don't fuck. That's where this amendment wants to take you.

[DainBramaged]

2. One paragraph may save us all from this fuck

APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.-- (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.

[clear eye]

3. Saves nothing.

It means in blue states abortion will still be legal, but your insurance will never cover it no matter if you were raped by a family member and can't afford to pay for the procedure or will die w/o it.

Unless you're reasonably well-off that makes abortion legal in name only. It's horrendous.

[sandnsea]

11. Oh for chrissake it does not mean that at all

Current law is that abortion in cases of rape, incest and life and health of the mother is covered. The Hyde Amendment will remain intact. The allocation accounts are for non-medically necessary abortions.

[clear eye]

15. The only Federal law it specitfically upholds is to allow providers

to refuse to participate in abortions for reasons of conscience. Where do you see an exception for Hyde amendment situations?

[bain_sidhe]

23. Actually, I'm not sure current law makes a health exception...

I know the Hyde amendment makes an exception for life, but does it make one for health? And what about the supreme court case that upheld the "partial birth" abortion law which didn't provide an exception for the health of the woman?

Not clear on that.

**edited for brain fart**

[sandnsea]

38. "Partial Birth" is one late term procedure

They just use a different one, and I only post this particular link because it best describes the variations used.

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3112/CWA/life/index.htm

[madfloridian]

28. No they don't care about a woman's health.

Health is not covered in Hyde.

[Matt Shapiro]

49. You are right madfloridian, and sandnsea is wrong.

Not only is the health of the woman not a consideration in Hyde or in the prohibitions under this section written for Nelson, but this allows States to go farther than the Stupak language, in that they can prohibit any plans in the exchange from covering any abortions, even ones involving rape, incest or threats to the woman's life, much less health. That first section (a)has no exclusions at all.

Furthermore, as comments #16 and #19 point out, the "nationwide" plans will likely originate in States with the fewest coverage mandates, and such States are also likely to ban abortion coverage in the exchanges, which means that people purchasing these plans anywhere in the country will also not get abortion coverage.

In addition, requiring individuals who purchase insurance that includes abortion coverage to make separate payments for the abortion part of the coverage is harassment that will lead to fewer people choosing these plans, presuming they could even find plans that include the coverage. Artificially inflating the actuarial estimate of the cost of the abortion coverage by prohibiting ANY estimated cost reductions that would result from the abortion, like prenatal care, delivery, and postnatal care, adds insult to injury, and will lead to even fewer purchases of such coverage, because it will seem to cost too much.

Make no mistake about it, this Nelson language in the Senate bill is an attack on a woman's right to choose just as severe, in some ways more severe, than the Stupak language in the House bill.

No Senator who supports a woman's right to choose should vote for this.

There are many reasons to oppose this bill, but if the right to choose is important to you, then call your Senators and urge them to VOTE NO!

Starting over is a better choice. Using budget reconciliation is a better choice. Choice is a better choice.

[tonysam]

29. Yep, but the misguided outrage has always missed the obvious.

The Hyde Amendment is legal, and the federal government can disallow taxpayer money to finance abortions whether directly or indirectly with the few exceptions allowed.

From Wikipedia:

Opponents of the amendment, such as the National Abortion Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union, assert that it unfairly targets low-income women<2>, stating the amendment effectively ended the provision of abortions for low-income women across the United States through Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for poor people.<3> As a rider attached to the yearly appropriations bill for Medicaid, it occasioned intense debate in Congress each time that it came up for renewal. The original measure made no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant woman, provoking an outcry from women's rights advocates. As a result, beginning in 1977 language was added to provide for such circumstances; however, the exact wording has varied from one year to the next, subject to the outcome of Congressional bargaining on the issue.

[FLDCVADem]

39. sandnsea, thank you for being the voice of reason in this

Seriously, thank you. For all of the hysteria over abortion coverage, you have been the one person that I've noted that has consistently spoken the unadultered truth here - that this changes NOTHING. Federal dollars aren't permitted for direct abortion funding or abortion coverage in insurance now, and the same will be true when this bill passes. Nothing will have changed.

[joeybee12]

43. You've got a really phucked up definitition of reason...

...I guess you didn't bother reading this or understanding what it implies. Hopeless.

[FLDCVADem]

47. I have read it and I do understand

Poor women didn't have federal abortion funding before and they won't have it now. Sucked for the past 30+ years and will suck now. But not a whit of difference.

Doesn't ban abortion.
Doesn't ban insurance coverage for abortion.
Maitains the status quo on federal funding for abortion.

But to hear some people on DU, you would think it was the end of the world, that abortion funding that exsited is going to disappear.

Totally untrue.

[Thickasabrick]

31. Delete

[JDPriestly]

45. Except, I'd need to re-read it, but I believe that the law

does preempt state laws that prohibit hospitals from refusing certain procedures.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

4. If it goes to Obama's desk intact, a signing statement may offer saving grace

Since his election Obama has indicated he's open to using them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html

[Hatchling]

6. Yeah, right.

I don't think he'll be doing a signing statement on anything in this bill.

[SoCalDem]

5. translation:

If you are poor enough to qualify for a subsidy, and you find yourself in need of an abortion, you will have to "take a walk on the old side" and find yourself a med-student & a motel..

or if you are wealthy, you just check into a hospital and write a check.

Women of childbearing age, had best start a savings account..just in case

[FLDCVADem]

40. And that's different from now

how?

[JDPriestly]

44. Medical students are not the ones who do illegal abortions.

Doctors who can no longer get licenses and unqualified others are more likely to do them.

[pleah]

7. Damn them.

[Hatchling]

8. Pissed me off so much I almost un'recced.

K&R

[sandnsea]

9. An abortion rider. Duh.

Just as it should be.

[Neecy]

10. This assault on women's rights....

Will be passed by DEMOCRATS. I want to cry.

[AuntPatsy]

12. Why is this even still an issue? We need to stop them..

listening to reid right now

[hayu_lol]

14. Kill this bill...

it should not see the light of day.

Back to backstreet abortions so prevalent prior to R.v.W.

Actually, the thinking process in this part of the bill clearly takes us back to a time prior to Women's Suffrage.

Are there any women left in Nebraska?

[earthside]

13. I don't think so.

So a state can "opt out" (in other words prohibit) any insurance plan from covering abortion; and nothing requires any insurance company from offering abortion coverage in the first place.

Have I interpreted that correctly?

Where is the 'good deal' here? This basically sounds like a dream come true for the anti-choice forces. If this actually became law I foresee endless battles in every state in the country over abortion.

This legislation is a mess ... pass it? I don't think so.

[Lerkfish]

16. the other part of the double whammy is the part where

insurance companies can shop around to find a state with the laws they like.

[malakai2]

19. Yeah, I was curious about that

If a company can set up shop in Mississippi because it prefers writing under Mississippi's insurance regulations rather than, say, California's, does that mean the folks are stuck holding policies conforming to Mississippi's abortion restrictions?

[patrice]

17. Shared. - Thanks . . . I guess.

[tomm2thumbs]

18. if (3) says it has no effect on Federal Civil Rights Law, why does it

obviously appear to have an effect on Federal Civil Rights Law?

[greymattermom]

20. supreme court?

It may be time to focus on the supreme court. They'll be needed.

[SoCalDem]

21. pfffft

:rofl:

[bain_sidhe]

22. Wait, the headline says "NO DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION"

but the actual language only prohibits discrimination against providers that are UNWILLING to provide abortions. Where's the comparable language preventing descrimination against providers who ARE willing to provide abortions? Even if the plan won't pay for an abortion, can the customer go to a provider for other services if that provider DOES provide abortions? That's not clear to me.

Unfortunately, I'm going out of town pretty soon, so I'll have to leave the analysis to others for now. But this struck me as a possible problem...

[JDPriestly]

46. Don't ever have a baby in a hospital that does not do abortions

under any circumstances. Young women. Beware. Choose your maternity hospital carefully. This is very important. You never know what can happen at the last minute of a birth.

[branders seine]

24. fuck the lot of them.

may all their wives and daughters need abortions.

[jmowreader]

25. At the same time...

They don't appear to be mandating coverage for contraception, sterilization or anything else that might cut down on the number of elective abortions.

Nor do they seem to be mandating coverage for Plan B. (I think Plan B should be available without copay--but that's just me.)

Or requiring the education system in this country to offer sex ed that's not abstinence-only. They say a non-abstinence-only curriculum sends mixed messages...like, you know, having sex is more fun than reading a Bible or making popcorn balls.

Y'all who keep bringing up The Handmaid's Tale have it all wrong. Think 1984--where sex is reserved only for married Party members, and is only for making more of them. Remember when Winston talked about how repulsive his wife found sex, and how she referred to it as "Our duty to the Party"? That's what our religious leaders want.

[PeaceNikki]

26. And THAT proves that they are motived by religious zealotry

and not any kind of real effort to reduce the number of abortions, just restricting access.

It's 100% pure bullshit.

[Generator]

27. Of course not they need chattel for the war machine

The poorer the better. Who the hell do you think joins the military and works the lowest paying shit jobs to keep these political scum in power. (oh no we can never admit that can we-that if it wasn't for the poor there would be no one willing to fight their pointless wars) Poor is always good for politicians as long as they can control the message.

Of course the banana republic looms as well as the middle class is going bye bye. I would love to see this country in 100 years just for curiosity. Hopefully my children will get the hell out of here. This country is a stupid joke.

[jmowreader]

30. Gee...thanks for your appraisal of the military

Who the hell do I think joins the military? ME!!!

I'm a veteran, and I'm not from a poor family--definitely middle class. More to the point, I am in the process of reenlisting.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLDCVADem]

41. Wrong n/t

[Thickasabrick]

32. K&R.....Kill the Bill nt

[Odin2005]

35. Nelson needs a swift kick in the nuts!!!

:grr:

[madrchsod]

37. he`ll get wonderful tax payer insurance to fix them.....

hell he can get a penile implant on our dime.....

[madrchsod]

36. what it amounts to...

a woman has to beg,borrow, steal,or have the cash on hand to pay for an abortion. if you have insurance you may or may not be covered in an emergency medical procedure.

more fucking bullshit from a guy who does`t give a fuck about women and their child or children.


this just get`s more disgusting everyday.

[omega minimo]

42. These motherfuckers really view women as animals, don't they?

Thanks for posting this, WP.

[CRH]

48. This is not just about abortion, it is about a new national health care for all ...,

and unless there is a lot of work in compromising the House and Senate bills, that guts the insurance and pharmaceutical giants positions, then you have the same health care system and masters of the last 60 years, that has evolved into the highest price for health care in the world, that quite frankly have not produced superior results or statistics of other health care systems in first and second world countries.

Without the cutting edge sophistication of Stanford University Hospital or whatever blue blood research hospital, there are second world countries that do just fine by their citizens for much less cost. The citizens in Costa Rica live a longer average life span than the citizens of the USA, and their government health system survives, because they don't have insurance and pharmaceutical masters charging many times the costs of services and medications for their national suguro social. How can you justify the reasons for re importing medications from Canada cheaper than you can buy them across the street from the factory they are made. Wake up and smell the stench of thieves among yourselves, dressed as politicians, lobbyists, and commercial advertising agents.

This is your one chance at a national health care system equal to that of second world countries. Get a brain, if you don't get a very, very, good compromise from the two bills, that drives the insurance and pharmaceutical masters within the charter of the public, then the public will never be as important as, ... profits. Without a very good compromise of the two bills, it is best to defeat the 'trampa' proposal, the people have been provided.

If after eight years of the looting of Bush and his lawless administration, after bankrupting of the country even before the financial collapse, after thirty years of republican and republicrate rule, the people's representatives can't pass a national health care bill, then they never will. If the people and their politicians can't smell the destruction of the middle and lower class, and allow the money changers in their health care temple, then they will surely get what their insouciance deserves. They will get fucked.