Nelson Restrictions Most Likely Outcome of Reconciliation Process

[jonathon]

Why don't we just require women to wear a big scarlet letter A on their chest, and be done with it? This legislation should be opposed for many reasons, but this discriminatory language against women stands out as particularly atrocious.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/03/03/health-reform-lumbers-forward-stupak-allies-ratchet-efforts-deny-basic-health-coverage-women

It is almost certain, especially given an announcement this morning by Senator Tom Harkin, that the health reform bill will have to be passed through a process known as reconciliation, a parliamentary procedure through which a bill is passed with a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster.

For this to happen, the House of Represenatives would first pass the Senate bill originally passed in late December last year. Both the House and Senate would then have to pass a "reconciliation bill," one that literally "reconciles differences" between the House, Senate, and White House proposals. Unfortunately, however, reconciliation means that it will be nearly impossible, at least in the short term, to remove restrictions on women's health coverage now contained in the Senate bill.

This is because the reconciliation process can only be used to address subjects germane to the budget. The Nelson language, which has a zero net effect on spending by the federal government, is not germane and therefore can not be addressed as part of reconcliation. It could only be addressed in a future bill aimed at making technical fixes to health reform. While many hope corrections to health reform passed now will be made later, there is no guarantee of having such a bill introduced or passed.


The Nelson language does the following, as described in more depth here:

Requires every enrollee--female or male--in a health plan that offers abortion coverage to write two separate checks for insurance coverage.
-Includes "conscience clause" language that protects only individuals or entities that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortion, removing earlier language that provided balanced non-discrimination language for those who provide a full range of choices to women in need.

-Prohibits insurance companies by law from taking into account cost savings when estimating the costs of abortion care and therefore the costs of premiums for abortion care.

-Eliminates the provision in earlier versions of the Senate bill and in the original Capps language in the House bill to ensure that there is at least one insurance plan in each exchange that offers and one that does not offer abortion coverage.


Bottom line: in terms of abortion coverage, women will not only be worse off with this version of health reform, they will also face institutionalized sex discrimination for basic reproductive health care in a sweeping law passed by a Democratic White House and Congress.

[jonathon]

1. Self kick for important information

[NC_Nurse]

2. Scarlet letters would be cheaper...AND get their underlying point across.

I wish that people still respected other's privacy in this country.

[jonathon]

5. It truly is an outrage and the lack of unified protest from democratic groups

...it is telling.

It has just become accepted that women's rights are expendable in the face of political expediency.

[NC_Nurse]

11. We've been under the bus for a while now...sigh.

[dkf]

3. Does this mean I need to do separate checks even though I do everything through my employer

And will be getting no subsidies and have no preexisting conditions or any other provisions that benefit me personally? Is this what the bill means to me? Just Extra hassles in my life?

[jonathon]

6. Yes, if you want to have abortion coverage and two checks completely expose your privacy

It is an outrage.

[dkf]

10. The only reason I'd get an abortion is the offchance I get raped.

Other than that I'd have a baby.

It's sick we now need to pay for basically rape insurance.

[saracat]

4. K+R. Just one of the many ways this HCR is worse than nothing.

[jonathon]

9. It is shocking to me that so many on DU want this bill to pass -

[harkadog]

7. This is not just the language of the Hyde amendment as many

on this board have claimed. The separate check requirement will mean many insurance companies will stop covering abortion because the financial cost and hassle of dual payers.

[jonathon]

8. That is precisely the goal of the anti-choice zealots who advance the inclusion of the Nelson

language in the bill.....

It is awful.