[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 201 (Thursday, December 24, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14134-S14135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, during the consideration of 
the health care bill, one of my primary concerns has been ensuring that 
the longstanding Hyde amendment would be incorporated into the bill. I 
have strongly held views on the subject, and I fought hard to prevent 
tax dollars from being used to subsidize abortions.
  I was pleased that the House included strong abortion provisions in 
its health care bill in the form of the Stupak amendment. I modified 
this language to meet the Senate bill and offered the Nelson-Hatch-
Casey amendment to prohibit Federal funding of abortion, and I was 
disappointed to see that amendment was tabled by a vote of 54 to 45.
  I knew then that the underlying bill did not adequately prohibit 
Federal funding of abortion and, consequently, I would not be able to 
support it. So I began to look for other language to accomplish the 
goal that no public funds should cover abortion in the new health care 
bill. After long days of negotiations, I believe we came up with a true 
compromise that stays faithful to my principles.
  I want to be clear, I stuck to my guns and stood for my pro-life 
principles. I did not look for weaker language. I looked for clearer 
language, and my goal stayed the same: to maintain the standard that we 
have had in Federal law since the mid-1970s.
  While I respect the opinion of the Senator from Kansas, I have to 
respectfully disagree. The Senate language fully upholds the Hyde 
principle like the language in the House bill. The wording may be 
different, but the principle is, in fact, upheld.
  Under the health care bill, if you cannot afford insurance, you will 
receive Federal assistance to help pay for a private health care plan. 
The Stupak language prohibits that Federal assistance from paying for 
insurance that covers abortions. If you like a plan that covers 
abortion, you must purchase a rider or an endorsement to your plan with 
your own funds. You could do that as well by writing just one check to 
the insurer. For that you get a separate piece of paper addressing 
abortion.
  The Senate language, with my added compromise, also prohibits Federal 
funds from paying for private insurance that covers abortion. The only 
difference is that in the Senate bill, if you are receiving Federal 
assistance to buy insurance, and if that plan has any abortion 
coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must 
pay separately from your own personal funds--perhaps a credit card 
transaction, your separate personal check, or automatic withdrawal from 
your bank account--for that abortion coverage.
  Now, let me say that again. You have to write two checks: one for the 
basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion. The 
latter has to be entirely from personal funds.
  So under both the Stupak and the new Senate language, no Federal 
funds can be used to pay for a plan that covers abortion, and if you 
choose to purchase abortion coverage--if it is available--you must pay 
out of your own pocket.
  Furthermore, the Senate language allows States the right to ban 
public and private insurance from supplying abortion coverage. Already, 
12 States ban abortion coverage on public plans and 5 States ban 
abortion coverage on both private and public plans. So, in short, the 
Senate bill ensures, once again, no Federal funds would be used for 
abortion.
  I would like to note that the Senate bill goes beyond Stupak in two 
life-promoting ways. One, it adds funding to support pregnant and 
parenting teens and women and, two, it expands the adoption tax credit 
to help adoptive parents with the considerable expense of adoption by 
making that credit a refundable tax credit. This means many potential 
parents who lack the regular resources to adopt will now be in a better 
position to do so.

  The Senate bill also contains the same strong conscience protections 
included in the Stupak language. We tried winning approval for the 
Nelson-Hatch-Casey abortion language in the Senate, but we were 
unsuccessful. However, we did not give up. I know people have very 
strong feelings about the issue of abortion, and I respect those who 
disagree with my position, but I could not support health reform that 
did not maintain the 30-year standard barring public funding of 
abortion. I did not compromise my pro-life principles; we just found 
different wording, different language, and both will work. I believe 
people will see that no public funding will go to abortion.
  In addition, my provision empowers the States to pass laws banning 
the sale of insurance that covers abortion. We make it clear that this 
new law, this new bill does not in any way preempt the rights of States 
to be able to continue to make that ban in the decisions they might 
make legislatively, and we want to make certain there is no doubt but 
that this bill has no preemption of the States rights.
  Despite what some partisans and talk show hosts say in their scare 
tactics, the conscience clause remains. Also, despite what those same 
people and even some of my colleagues have said, the bottom line is 
that the Senate health care bill will not allow taxpayer money to pay 
for abortion, period.

[[Page S14135]]

  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________