
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) just told reporters that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shook hands last night at 10:30 p.m. with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) on an agreement that he would vote for cloture on health care reform, on the basis of the abortion language in the manager's amendment.
For those of you who understand legislative language, the text of the abortion amendment is below the fold.
Sounds like they've got 60.
''SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.(a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.-- ''(1) IN GENERAL.--A State may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition. (2) TERMINATION OF OPT OUT.-- A State may repeal a law described in paragraph (1) and provide for the offering of such services through the Exchange.
(b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.--(1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.-- (A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title)-- (i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and ''(ii) subject to subsection (a), the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.
'(B) ABORTION SERVICES.-- (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.--The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.--The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.-- ''(A) IN GENERAL.--If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services: (i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
(B) ESTABLISHMENT OF ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.--In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall-- (i) collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee's age, sex, or family status) a separate payment for each of the following: (I) an amount equal to the portion of the premium to be paid directly by the enrollee for coverage under the plan of services other than services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) (after reduction for credits and cost-sharing reductions described in subparagraph (A)); and (II) an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), and (ii) shall deposit all such separate payments into separate allocation accounts as provided in subparagraph (C). In the case of an enrollee whose premium for coverage under the plan is paid through employee payroll deposit, the separate payments required under this subparagraph shall each be paid by a separate deposit.
(C) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--The issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies shall establish allocation accounts described in clause (ii) for enrollees receiving amounts described in subparagraph (A). '(ii) ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.--The issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies shall deposit-- (I) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(I) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services other than services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i); and (II) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(II) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i).
(D) ACTUARIALVALUE.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--The issuer of a qualified health plan shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under the qualified health plan of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i). (ii) CONSIDERATIONS.--In making such estimate, the issuer-- (I) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care; (II) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and (III) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.
(E) ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--Subject to clause (ii), State health insurance commissioners shall ensure that health plans comply with the segregation requirements in this subsection through the segregation of plan funds in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office. (ii) CLARIFICATION.--Nothing in clause (i) shall prohibit the right of an individual or health plan to appeal such action in courts of competent jurisdiction.
'(3) RULES RELATING TO NOTICE.-- (A) NOTICE.--A qualified health plan that provides for coverage of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) shall provide a notice to enrollees, only as part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment, of such coverage.(B) RULES RELATING TO PAYMENTS.-- The notice described in subparagraph (A), any advertising used by the issuer with respect to the plan, any information provided by the Exchange, and any other information specified by the Secretary shall provide information only with respect to the total amount of the combined payments for services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) and other services covered by the plan.
(4) NO DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.--No qualified health plan offered through an Exchange may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions
(c) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.-- (1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding-- '(i) conscience protection; '(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and '(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.
(3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.--Nothing in this subsection shall alter the rights and obligations of employees and employers under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Hussein Stemper
December 19, 2009 9:21 AM
Woo hoo!
Santa's coming... :-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 19, 2009 10:29 AM in reply to Hussein Stemper
Yeah, with a great big lump of coal, because this bill is more unpopular than Dick Cheney.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
December 19, 2009 10:39 AM in reply to masanf
Bill has a 33 prcent approval rating, Cheney 19. TRY AGAIN MUDDASUCKA. Still shitty approvals though
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 19, 2009 2:09 PM in reply to theone718
Doesn't change the message. This bill is a giveaway to (a) anti-choice Jesus freaks, and (b) insurance companies. It's a piece of shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
December 19, 2009 9:28 AM
Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Doug Telling
December 19, 2009 9:37 AM
Is there any significance to Lieberman going back to Connecticut? Is this a new obstruction move?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
December 19, 2009 10:34 AM in reply to Doug Telling
Channukah - and then the snowcopalypse - no real significance
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
December 19, 2009 10:38 AM in reply to Doug Telling
He won't filibuster on Shabbat
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
December 19, 2009 11:01 AM in reply to jeffgee
Are you kidding? That bastard would filibuster his mother's funeral if he thought he'd get five more minutes on the teevee!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
December 19, 2009 11:35 AM in reply to Doug Telling
IDK? Goes back to Conn. and can't make it back for the vote?? Gives the excuse that he was going to vote, but now??? Just couldn't make it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 19, 2009 9:38 AM
Allowing states toprohibit coverage of abortions is a good thing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
December 19, 2009 9:39 AM
Maybe Maritza and Hussein Stemper can explain to me just what that legislative language above actually says in words I can understand.
I know they must understand it as they are apparently happy this language will pass the Senate.
Thanks in advance...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 19, 2009 9:41 AM
It is amazing any Democrat would cheer this. Get ready to own one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation of the past decade.
Yeah, is right, because that is what I will be saying come Nov. 2010 when the Dems get killed over this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 19, 2009 10:21 AM in reply to masanf
Keep dreaming!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
December 19, 2009 10:42 AM in reply to masanf
And the GOP didn't even need to force the Dems to produce a bill that sucks. The Dems did it on their own.
Good going Dems. What a way to piss away your majority power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Doug Telling
December 19, 2009 11:30 AM in reply to masanf
We don't know how popular it is since the public only knows a distorted and dishonest account of it. It is important that the left pull behind it since that is where a lot of the disapproval is. By their standards, we wouldn't have passed several civil rights bills. Politics is a series of steps. This one is bigger than most. That said, I agree with Josh that the benefits need to kick in sooner. That, of course, would probably have costing problems, although that too is a red herring.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
December 19, 2009 11:39 AM in reply to masanf
What has the GOP honestly offered into this discussion? Business as usual mode of operating? Let's think MORE about this issue, cause it's sooo important? Please - bring something to the table to contribute that's a genuine offering - not last years, leftover fruitcake that nobody wants anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 19, 2009 9:41 AM
So a state gets to override a woman's right to choose and refuse to have qualified plans cover abortion ?!?
Pro-life forces and politicians trying to duck a woman's right to choose as a national issue have been trying to dump it to the states for decades. This would make a horrible precedent.
Chuck Schumer has betrayed women, choice and religious liberty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 19, 2009 9:55 AM
They can put any anti-abortion language they want to in there.
It still has to pass muster relative to the inevitable legal challenges this will create.
Just give Ben what he wants so we can move on to conference.
We'll try to kill this later in court if it makes it into the final version.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 19, 2009 10:06 AM in reply to willia451
Just wondering, the make up of the Supreme Court doesn't concern you? It's seen as a 5-4 conservative court by most.
"This has been the most overwhelmingly, consistently conservative term of the Supreme Court in recent memory," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar at Duke University's law school.
Maybe your hoping it doesn't go that far. My guess is many are hoping to push it that far because of the consistent conservative 5-4 votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 19, 2009 10:08 AM in reply to Indie Pro
This is far and away the most conservative Supreme Court since the New Deal. Don't look for any help there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 19, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to wbgonne
Yes, and now that Ben and Joe have proved that they are the Democratic Party, look for the next justice to be BFF with the 5. You think this can't get worse? We're still in year one of the Lieberman-Nelson administration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 19, 2009 10:28 AM in reply to willia451
It amazes me that anyone thinks the court would kill language that prohibits the federal government from using funds to pay for an abortion. An individual does not have a Constitutional right to have someone else pay for her abortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tlees2
December 19, 2009 10:10 AM
Anybody have any clue what that amendment is saying?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 19, 2009 10:15 AM in reply to tlees2
Allow me: This amendment is intended to obfuscate the question of public funding and abortion rights so that Liebercare can be delivered unto the American people. The lawyers will have lots of work to do afterwards. But, shit, it's SNOWING in D.C.!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texar
December 19, 2009 10:14 AM
If Nelson's in, you KNOW the bill is a piece of shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
December 19, 2009 11:06 AM in reply to Texar
Then given that DeMent slammed Nelson for now being in, you KNOW it is at least not the worst piece of shit.
I mean seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarciaJ720
December 19, 2009 10:16 AM
I wish these people were more Pro-Life than Pro-Birth. There is a big difference.
Seems the corporations are winning - they just have to pay off 60 Senators and they control our Government. Why spend money on all 535 members of Congress....?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 19, 2009 10:21 AM in reply to MarciaJ720
It's even worse because they only need 40 senators. At, let's say, $2,000,000 per senator that adds up for normal people but $80M is still chump change for the Oligarchists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 19, 2009 10:23 AM
Yippy!!!! Now pass the piece of shit bill and move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 19, 2009 10:23 AM
The cake isn't baked yet folks. This still has to go back to the house. It could get better. It's a start and the best thing of all the thuglicans are messing in their pants.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 19, 2009 10:31 AM in reply to lousgirl84
This is a false argument. The conference committee report can be filibustered in the Senate, but can't be amended. Do you really think you are going to be able to slip in a Medicare buy-in or a public option and then have it get sixty votes in the Senate? It will never happen because it will be filibustered, and since you can't amend a bill that comes out of the conference, it would kill the bill entirely
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
December 19, 2009 10:42 AM in reply to masanf
Actually it can't be fillibustered or amended.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 19, 2009 10:47 AM in reply to theone718
it can be brought to the floor without fear of being filibustered. After that it can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
December 19, 2009 10:52 AM in reply to theone718
Actually I stand corrected...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 19, 2009 10:41 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Not gonna happen. Nelson explicitly stated in his press conference that if the bill changes in the conference committee, he would not vote for the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
December 19, 2009 10:24 AM
You know. There is no PO, no Medicare buy in, and this bill can't be called REAL reform. But for some reason when I read the headline I got so happy I screamed out "YEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!" it isn't REAl reform. But it IS REAL PROGRESS. It'll make it a little easier the next time we come back to add some reforms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 19, 2009 10:36 AM in reply to theone718
This will not make it easier to pass real reform for several reasons, the most obvious being that there is no way the Dems will have this large of a majority in the coming years. Unless the filibuster is done away with, something about as likely as President Cheney, you are not going to reform this thing any time in the near future. The turd that is emerging from the Senate is the best the Dems could get and they have a filibuster proof majority.
This bill is so unpopular everyone here knows it will become a campaign issue in 2010, and several Senators, including Kent Conrad just last night, have indicated the Dems will more than likely suffer even bigger losses if this thing passes. This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a good bill, and the Dems fucking blew it because they caved to crass opportunists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
December 19, 2009 10:45 AM in reply to masanf
I have no problem with someone making this argument. Nonetheless I believe that that if this bill failed to pass 1994 will look like Childs play. Letting this bill fail would be CATASTROPHIC. We need to get this bill done. It's progress, and when it's the status quo at least we will be closer to where we need to be. Would you rather have the status quo?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 19, 2009 10:57 AM in reply to theone718
It's taken some time and soul searching, but I'm forced to agree with you. The status quo can't stand. Taken holistically there ARE good things in this bill I can support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
December 19, 2009 11:08 AM in reply to masanf
A public option or medicare expansion can be done later through reconciliation with a simple majority. The insurance company regulations in this bill--no pre-existing condition refusals, etc.--cannot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 19, 2009 10:52 AM in reply to theone718
theone718 and masanf, you're BOTH right. The bill IS progress on some level. And yes, the corruption killed most of what was good about it.
Now what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Daugherty
December 19, 2009 10:27 AM
At least until his toupee escapes and mauls somebody.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dragnet
December 19, 2009 10:37 AM
At least until Lieberman decides to pull the rug out from under thing yet again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 19, 2009 10:44 AM
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! FINALLY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
December 19, 2009 10:46 AM
believe Nelson has agreed to the so called Casey Compromise - allowing anti choicers to opt out of govt funding for Choice -
also some education provisions for pregnant women (teens?) and tax credits for adoption - do I even want to know what they mean by "education" ??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
December 19, 2009 11:22 AM
Here's the translation for subparagraph (A):
(A) A qualified health plan is not required to provide coverage for abortions for which public funding is prohibited or for which public funding is allowed. Health plans determine whether or not to cover abortions for which public funding is prohibited or allowed. States can void the determination made by health plans by enacting laws to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans in the Exchange.
If you want to verify my translation:
Which translates to:
Which leads us to the translation at the top of the comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BelieveInAmerica
December 19, 2009 11:48 AM
I've been a defender of the Senate bill, even after losing the public option and Medicare buy-in.
I think this compromise stinks. I could accept a state opt-out from the public option, but cannot accept a state opt-out of abortion rights.
Olympia Snowe, it is up to you.
Do you want to set this precedent that basically says "any woman who has received even $1 from the federal government can be barred from having an abortion" (if they happen to live in Alabama)?
We are going to pass this bill, with or without Nelson's hangman's noose. If you have still have a conscience, if you don't want the ultra right wing to rule your party, it is time for you to show up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
December 19, 2009 11:49 AM
The only thing I've truly wanted these past 7-8 years (months???) is for this damned thing to get OUT of the @#(&% Senate
Oh Happy DAY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
December 19, 2009 11:50 AM
FYI
Patty Murray and Barbara BoXer have blessed the abortion compromise
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 19, 2009 2:11 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
So the rapist gave you a kiss. It must be love. Did you like it?
Of course they've blessed it. The Dems are following Obama's "Any bill at any cost, do it for political points" lead. Weak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leo12
April 10, 2010 1:17 PM
I believe nelson and his every words. Its really an interesting news and quite informative. I really stumble upon with the uniqueness and informative information. Thanks for this.
Forexyard
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 1:40 AM
Just wondering, the make up of the Supreme Court doesn't concern you? It's seen as a 5-4 conservative court by most.
"This has been the most overwhelmingly, consistently conservative term of the Supreme Court in recent memory," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar at Duke University's law school.
Maybe your hoping it doesn't go that far. My guess is many are hoping to push it that far because of the consistent conservative 5-4 votes.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
November 8, 2010 11:20 AM
I don't understand this sort of language. I have to write some terms and conditions for a cast iron radiators
manufacturer so maybe I could learn something here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?