Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Much has been made of Senator Ben Nelson ‘holding up’ the Dems on passing scam health reform. Could it be that Senator Nelson simply wants stuff for his vote? Is this any different than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid buying Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote or Obama buying Cao’s vote? That includes the bogus Stupak Amendment in the House. So what does Senator Ben Nelson say in his own press release on the topic?

NELSON COMMENTS ON ABORTION COMPROMISE

December 17, 2009 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson praised provisions in an abortion compromise adding new teen pregnancy initiatives and tax credits for adoption, while saying that the language working to ban public funding of abortion is not sufficient at this point.

Senator Nelson said today a proposed compromise he’s studied does not yet ensure that a longstanding federal standard barring public funding of abortion would be maintained in the Senate health care bill the Senate has been debating this month.

Nelson said without further improvements the compromise is not sufficient.

“The compromise adds important new initiatives addressing teen pregnancy and tax credits to help with adoptions,” Senator Nelson said. “These are valuable improvements that will make a positive difference and promote life. But as it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient.”

Senator Nelson reiterated that he will not be able to support a cloture motion needing 60 votes to end debate on the underlying Senate bill if certain language in the bill remains. The existing language allows public funds to pay for abortion, thus relaxing the longstanding Hyde amendment.

He said today that he is open to looking at additional attempts to maintain the federal restriction on public funding of abortion.

###

If Ben Nelson is so concerned about abortion, where is his concern, outrage or even mention of the following:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.” The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the “Mexico City Policy” directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.

These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.

That’s right! With each successive change in presidential administration in the US the abortion tennis match continues. When a Republican occupies the White House the Mexico City Policy is reinstated. When a Democrat occupies the White House it is rescinded. So where’s your concern about that Mr Nelson?

Another item related to the never ending abortion debate is the Hyde Amendment. It captures the conservative compromise on the topic. Agreeing to certain limited uses of abortion for circumstances that do not demonstrate abortion’s usage as contraception for dummies.

reference to The Hyde Amendment…..

H.AMDT.185 (A008)
Amends: H.R.2518
Sponsor: Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] (offered 6/30/1993)AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated in the bill for any abortion except, when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Hyde Amendment (identified by CRS)

STATUS:

6/30/1993 3:00pm:

Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Hyde.

6/30/1993 3:26pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by recorded vote: 255 - 178 (Roll no. 307).

6/30/1993 3:28pm:

Mr. Armey demanded a separate vote on the Hyde amendment (A008).

6/30/1993 4:00pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 256 - 171 (Roll no. 309).

And even though one could make a reasonable argument in support of the Hyde Amendment there are othe equally reasonable arguments to the contrary. Meaning those who face the above challenges still have other choices albeit problematic ones.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another sneaky Saturday in the Senate — and Teddy K’s ghost rises again (Michelle Malkin) 

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 9:50 am and is filed under Public Affairs, Health, wordpress, Politics, Democrats, liberal, Kennedy, disclosure, ethics, obama, Pelosi, Reid, Congress, Legislation, Abortion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.