RSS
To view Senator Nelson's speech on YouTube, click here.
December 7, 2009 – Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson spoke on the Senate floor this evening to discuss an amendment he introduced today with Senator Hatch, Senator Casey and others. His remarks as prepared for delivery are below:
“Mr. President, before the Thanksgiving break I voted with a majority of my colleagues in favor of beginning this debate. Debate is essential in our democracy. It keeps our country resilient and strong through changing times.
Before that vote, some argued here on the Senate floor that we shouldn’t hold this open and full debate. They seemed to suggest that obstruction was better than action. Some also argued here on the floor that the November 21 vote was really about abortion.
They were wrong.
That vote was just whether to begin a debate on an issue that has consumed the American public.
Now is the time to start debating the issue of abortion as we are addressing many other issues in health care reform.
Mr. President, I would like to discuss an amendment I propose, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues. They include senators Hatch, Casey, Brownback, Thune, Enzi, Coburn, Vitter, Barrasso and Johanns.
The amendment we offer today mirrors the Stupak language added to the House health care bill.
For more than three decades taxpayers’ money hasn’t been used for abortions and it shouldn’t under any new health reform legislation. Some suggest that the Stupak language imposes new restrictions on abortion.
They are wrong.
We are seeking to just apply the same standards on abortion to the Senate health care bill that already exist for many federal health programs. They include those covering veterans, all federal employees, Native Americans, active duty service members and others.
Mr. President, I’d note that the Senate health care bill, if enacted would indeed chart new ground—it covers abortion.
The language in the bill goes around the federal standard disallowing public funding of abortion. A clear majority of Americans, including my constituents in Nebraska, support this prohibition against using public money to cover abortion. Our amendment formally extends that standard to this health reform bill.
The United States Supreme Court has held that government may regulate abortion and may disallow public funds being used for elective abortions. Beginning in 1976 with the Hyde Amendment, Congress has prohibited public funding for elective abortion in all significant health-related bills. Exceptions have been preserved for when the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape or incest.
Except for those exceptions, public funds may not be used for any health care benefits package that covers abortion.
Some have cited the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as a possible model for health care reform. The FEHBP helps pay premiums for many different private health insurance plans. That way, federal employees may choose the insurance plan that best suits their budget and personal needs.
It is important to note that none of the benefits packages offered to federal employees provides health insurance coverage for abortion.
I repeat, none of the benefits packages offered to federal employees provides coverage for abortion. Nor do benefits packages that are offered to individuals in other federal programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, Veterans Health, and military health care programs.
Mr. President, some have argued that the Stupak language imposes tougher restrictions than in current law. That is not the case. Our amendment merely aims to extend the current standard to this new legislation.
On another point, under federal law, states are allowed to set their own policies concerning abortion.
Many states oppose the use of public funds for abortion. Many states also have passed laws that regulate abortion by requiring informed consent and waiting periods, requiring parental involvement in cases where minors seek abortions and protecting the rights of health care providers who refuse, as a matter of conscience, to assist in abortions.
Perhaps most important, there is no federal law, nor is there any state law that requires a private health plan include abortion coverage.
Mr. President, I believe that the current health care reform we are debating should not be used to open a new avenue for public funding of abortion. We should preserve the current policies prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for abortion that have existed for more than three decades.
A number of polls this year have again shown that that most Americans do not support using taxpayer money for abortion.
The Senate bill, as proposed, goes against that majority public opinion.
The bill says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may allow elective abortion coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option – the public option – if the Secretary believes there is sufficient segregation of funds to ensure federal tax credits are not used to purchase that portion of the coverage.
The bill would also require that at least one insurance plan covers abortion and one that does not cover abortion be offered on every State Insurance Exchange.
Federal legislation establishing a public option that provides abortion coverage and federal legislation allowing states to opt out of the public option that provides abortion coverage eases the restrictions established by the Hyde amendment.
Our amendment would prohibit federal funds from being used for elective abortion services in the public option and also prohibit individuals who receive tax credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions.
The bill, as now written, allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.
That is out of step with the majority views of Nebraskans and the majority views of all Americans.
Mr. President, I have always been pro-life and have a strong record opposing abortion.
As governor of Nebraska in the 1990s I signed into law the parental notification law and the ban against partial birth abortion. In the Senate I have cosponsored and voted for legislation that prohibits taking minors across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and voted for legislation creating a separate offense for harming or killing an "unborn child" in utero during the commission of specified violent crimes.
Aside from my personal views, however, I think most Americans would prefer that the health care reform we are working on remain neutral on abortion.
Public polls suggest so. So does the fact that over the last 30-plus years Congress has passed new federal laws that have not provided public funding for abortions.
The question has been settled: most Americans—even some who support abortion-- do not want taxpayer dollars to be used for abortions. We should not break with precedent on this bill.
Finally, as President Obama has said, this is a health care reform bill. It is not an abortion bill.
It’s time to simply extend the standard disallowing public funding of abortion, which has stood the test of time, to new proposed federal legislation.
I look forward to debating this and other issues in the health reform bill as we work to address solutions to our troubled health care system. Today it costs too much and delivers too little to the people of my state, and to most Americans.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.”
###
Search: Health Care, Social Issues, Press, Speeches, Op-Eds, Columns