Pelosi signals acceptance of Nelson abortion language and immigrant restrictions

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has a longstanding pro-choice record, has signaled that in order to pass health reform she is ready to accept the Senate bill's Nelson abortion coverage restrictions. Moreover, the House Speaker appears ready to accept the Senate bill's prohibition on undocumented immigrants purchasing health insurance through the new exchanges, even with their own money.

“This is not an immigration bill. It is not an abortion bill. It is a bill about affordable health care for all Americans,” Pelosi said. According to a story in Roll Call, she explained that neither the abortion nor immigration issues can be addressed under a separate reconciliation bill that both the House and Senate are expected to pass in order to fix problems in the Senate legislation. That is because stringent rules governing such bills require provisions to have a direct budgetary impact. RWV colleagues in Washington have suggested that the abortion and immigration issues might be able to be addressed in some fashion in a separate "technical fix" bill down the road.

The Nelson language was adopted in the Senate bill after an intensive 11th hour negotiation marthon between Senator Ben Nelson, an anti-choice Democrat from Nebraska, and Senator Barbara Boxer, a pro-choice California Democrat. New York Senator Charles Schumer, a pro-choice Democrat, acted as mediator, according to reports. Boxer and her pro-choice colleagues in the Senate have defended the compromise as the best they could do to stop adoption of even-worse abortion language similar to the Stupak abortion ban included in the House health reform bill.

But the Senate Nelson language has been widely criticized by women's health organizations, including Raising Women's Voices. The provision allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in private insurance plans offered through state insurance "exchanges," and imposes a burdensome 2-check payment system in those states that decide to allow abortion coverage. Analysis by a George Washington University health policy professor concluded that the requirement for health insurance purchasers to submit two checks -- one for abortion coverage and one for everything else -- would provide to be so unworkable that most insurers would simply drop abortion coverage.

Raising Women's Voices has also raised concerns about potential privacy violations, as women would have to send in what are clearly checks for abortion coverage. Anti-choice employees of insurance companies or banks processing the checks could harass these women, RWV has warned.

How should women's health and immigrant rights advocates respond to what feels like being thrown under the bus? Raising Women's Voices is working on strategies to hold our pro-choice leaders accountable. Visit this blog in the days ahead to see what we come up with!

Comments

[Jo]

I don't care what you call it anti-choice is anti-choice no matter what bill it is written into. Nancy, this stinks.