TPMDC
Nelson: I'll Filibuster A Health Care Bill That Doesn't Include Strict Abortion Restrictions
Brian Beutler | November 9, 2009, 6:32PM
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Share
Send to a friend!
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) wants Senate health care legislation to contain strict restrictions on abortion funding, much like the House bills now does. And he says he'll filibuster if he doesn't get his way.
"As a pro-life person, I believe that something like the [Rep. Bart] Stupak amendment should be included in the Senate version," Nelson told reporters this evening. "But if it isn't included to that effect, to make it clear that no government money should be used for support, for the subsidies, or direct payments, or even tax credits, should be used to support abortions," he will oppose it.
"If it doesn't make it clear that it does not support abortion, does not pay for abortion, you can be sure I will vote against it."
I asked Nelson if his promise extended to procedural supermajority votes. He had a one word answer: "Yes."
To be clear, he did not go so far as to say that he will block anything less restrictive than the Stupak amendment in the House bill. "The [less-restrictive] Capps language, we'll continue to look at, but I think that there has to be some additional strengthening of that language," Nelson said.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Gavin Newsom Throws Tantrum In First Interview Since Dropping Gov. Bid
- The Public Option Dead End
- Al Gore: I'll "Outcrazy the Crazy"
- Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option
- Schumer: We'd Like Republican Support, But 'We're Not Going To Not Pass A Bill'
- Bachmann: 'I Don't Understand Why The Democratic Party Would Be Opposed To Me'
- What Did We Learn From Saturday's Health Care Vote
- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Loses Patience in CBS5 Interview
- Dean: There's No Real Insurance Reform In Health Care Bills
- Coburn: I Acted As Ensign-Hampton Go-Between
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Bernie Sanders: 'My Vote For The Final Bill Is By No Means Guaranteed'
- November 22
- I Call Bullshit.
- HCAN: "It's a Shame Not a Single Republican" Voted To Allow Debate
- Steele: 'Moderate Democrats Sacrificed Their Principles'
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- Intel Inside? Prove It.
- Where Does This Leave Us?
- Filibuster Thwarted ... For Now
- I Call Bullshit.
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Establishment Reality
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- The Cast Has Assembled
- Bernie Sanders: I Want My Leverage!
- Clinton Not Attending Health Care Event Because it's Politicized?
- Time to contact the FCC
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Walter Mitty
November 9, 2009 6:43 PM
President Obama weighted on in this issue and has said Stupak Amendment goes too far, however said that this is not an abortion bill and he wants the health bill to keep the status quo - which I think both sides will begrudgingly accept.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 9, 2009 7:16 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
It is not that easy. Most people on both sides don't see the distinction that the President rightly points out.
Conservative Dems, esp, will say the Stupak Amendment in fact will keep the status quo, which of course is blatantly wrong.
Obama has walked the tight rope on Health Care magnificently so far, but this will be his toughest challenge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 9, 2009 7:17 PM in reply to kash79
and oh..while I was a little hopeful earlier, now I'm convinced the bill will not be on the President's desk this year. This will easily go into the election year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
November 9, 2009 8:14 PM in reply to kash79
And in that case, this would be even more difficult.
We know WH is working hard to push it both publicly and privately, but are those conservadems and the liar from Conneticut any way persuadable without watering it further down? Highly doubtful. Those guys make no rational sense whatsoever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
November 10, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to geofu54
If the bill can't pass this year, then it can not pass in a election year. Anyone who is talking about waiting is trying to kill this bill PERIOD.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
November 10, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to kash79
How does it change it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 9, 2009 7:42 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
do you have a link on this? From the gaggle this morning, it seemed Obama was taking his same hands off, just pass something approach.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 9, 2009 8:01 PM in reply to Indie Pro
perhaps you mean the Jack Tapper interview. What I've read so far is the same mealy-mouthed Obama we've experienced through this whole debate.
"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices,"
perhaps there is more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 10:13 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Obama does explicity state the language needs to be changed. Too bad he didn't fight for cost controls or a real public option, instead of what the house delivered, which will do nothing to keep the insurance companies honest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LuxVeritas
November 9, 2009 6:44 PM
Reconciliation time, screw conservatives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
November 9, 2009 7:04 PM in reply to LuxVeritas
Co-sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 9, 2009 8:08 PM in reply to geofu54
Co-Co Sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
November 10, 2009 12:53 PM in reply to kash79
Co-Sign
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
November 9, 2009 10:02 PM in reply to LuxVeritas
Then you better hope the Republicans don't retake control of the Senate before 2015. Because if they go for reconciliation, they'll have to reauthorize the spending after five years. And we know a Republican-controlled Senate won't go for that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
November 10, 2009 12:55 PM in reply to jdb316
Of Course they will, if the universal health care is already in effect. There is no way they will cut people's health care. That would political suicide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 9, 2009 6:46 PM
So nice to see that Nelson is ready and willing to do the Pope's bidding with alacrity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
November 9, 2009 6:50 PM
If anything vaguely resembling that odious Stupak Amendment ends up in the final bill I WANT it to fail. No way do the 'pro-life' (except for the 45,000+ who die every year) get to backdoor their personal religious views in exchange for a bill that isn't even that good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
November 9, 2009 7:03 PM
We've given Ben-Ben a nice bone to throw his filibuster bone around.
Ironically, some of his fellow potential filibuster pals (Blanche and Lying Lieb) are staunch Pro-Choice.
Watch these strange bedfellows hope in the sack, similar to Fiscal Conservative Blue Dogs being against the Medicare + 5% Public Option that would have... you guessed it... saved $100B+.
Conservatives: Never A Need To Be Consistent
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 9, 2009 7:07 PM
Conservative democrats, with assistance from Repugs, have positioned the debate where they always wanted it to be. Now this is going to become a full debate on abortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
November 10, 2009 10:13 AM
Yippee skippy, Ben. You've been handed an excuse for blocking the bill.
Whew! It was starting to look like you'd have to support it when your 'fiscal responsibility' argument got blown away. Lucky for you some dipshit blue dogs in the House thought to tie it to abortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CJ
November 10, 2009 10:39 AM
One word: reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?