Sen. Ben Nelson
Senator Nelson has agreed to vote for the revised version of the “Health care” bill. What it does as described by a Congressional aide:
The Manager’s Amendment does NOT contain language similar to the Stupak amendment approved by the House. Instead the section on abortion (starting on page 38) adds a provision allowing states to opt out of providing abortion coverage through the exchange and adds further layers of accounting requirements. The result remains the same, contrary to longstanding policy, the federal government will subsidize private health insurance plans that cover abortion, and Americans will facilitate abortion by making it more easily available. The result will be more lives lost to abortion and more wounded mothers.
Why the sudden change? According to National Review:
The deal for Ben Nelson includes additional Medicaid funding for Nebraska and carve outs for physician owned hospitals in Nebraska — and Nebraska only. Uncle Sam will take the hit for 100% of the Medicaid expansion for Nebraska, forever. Nebraska is the only state to get this deal.
If the bill is good for America, then vote for it. If not, then don’t. Selling your vote in order to get special treatment for your state may be legal but it is morally bankrupt. I have no problem with Congressmen trying to getting money for their state and even stating he will oppose the bill unless there is more for his state. But when you express moral opposition to a bill and that moral opposition suddenly evaporates when your state gets enough money – that is a whole different matter. In Alabama, we have a word for a person who sells his self for money – a whore.
Good graphic of Nelson in action
HT: Dave in Texas and Slugblog at Ace.
” In Alabama, we have a word for a person who sells his self for money…”
That same name applies to a person who sells his self to win an election, too.
I’m fairly certain that opposition from NARAL and Planned Parenthood to this bill is a farce and a smokescreen, designed to make everyone think it’s not a pro-abortion bill. Despite what Senator Nelson and NARAL, it will indeed authorize taxpayer-funded abortion.
I blog about the details here.
[...] Sen. Ben Nelson - Southern Appeal [...]
In addition to the strong points made in the last statement against selling one’s moral principles, I think this points to a larger issue with continually adding line-items to bills.
If we are to believe his original statements, we can fairly conclude that Nelson finds the Health Care Reform legislation as morally objectionable. However, would it not also be morally objectionable for him to reject the Medicaid Expansion, if his constituents were legitimately in need of more funding? In a way, Nelson was potentially put between a rock and a hard place, in which he may have had to choose between two things he found morally repugnant.
This is, in no way, to turn Nelson into a victim. I doubt this decision was forced upon him, as I’m sure he was involved in the negotiations to include the desired provisions. Rather, I think it demonstrates the problem with slapping together otherwise unrelated legislation into one bill, therefore forcing some of our Congressmen/women to choose the lesser of two evils and potentially violate one moral obligation to fulfill another. Is that really how we want our system to function?
Nelson should be rightly denounced for what he’s done. Hopefully this brings to light the flaws in the system that allow such whoring to happen.
If people weren’t pissed enough at the power-drunk Dems before, they likely are now…
These tools like Nelson will regret the day they did this for Obama, he’ll pull all them right-over the abyss with him… and then watch the coming GOP majority rescind it anyway-
”In Alabama, we have a word for a person who sells his self for money…”
Same in Virginia – whore.
Rather, I think it demonstrates the problem with slapping together otherwise unrelated legislation into one bill, therefore forcing some of our Congressmen/women to choose the lesser of two evils and potentially violate one moral obligation to fulfill another. Is that really how we want our system to function?
Right on. But it appears Nelson simply sold out.
BSK – I don’t remember Nelson making any statement before he switched that he had a moral objection to the bill because it didn’t provide enough funding for Medicaid which suggests that the rock and a hard place you are concerned about doesn’t exists. PG
TVD and PG-
I clearly recognize that Nelson it due the criticism articulated in this post, and possibly more. I was positing that, hypothetically, Nelson might have morally objected to the legislation, and then been tempted by a morally justifiable desire to better fund his states medicaid, and, as such, had to choose between a rock and a hard place. I acknowledge that I don’t think this was the case, as I’m sure Nelson deliberately sought the buy-out he ultimately accepted, rather than had it foisted upon him. Rather, I was simply attempting to draw attention to the fact that the way in which our government handles the writing of such legislation leaves itself vulnerable to putting politicians in such a predicament.
Do I think that happened here? No. Is it possible? Sure, I guess. The fact remains that bundling together legislation that is otherwise unrelated and potentially morally divisive can put politicians in a position where they must ultimately contradict their own morals.
Contradict their morals? Sure, BSK, if one all “morals” are equal, and one is interchangeable with the next.
But that would be relativism, eh?
Or, put another way, one might lie to save Anne Frank, or tell a million or a billion lies to save Anne Frank. Surely, in this case, there’s no difference between one or a million or a billion, although lying is bad, and a compromise of one’s principles.
[...] my fellow Alabamian pointed out [...]
TVD-
Good point. You are right that not all morals are equal. Still, with the current system as is, we risk putting elected officials in the position of having to choose between the lesser of two evils, when this does not necessarily need to be the case. Sometimes, it is absolutely necessary, and hopefully we have chosen a leader who has the judgment to make these decisions. But sometimes, otherwise false dichotomies are created when unrelated bills are slapped together.
Vicodin….
Vicodin. Vicodin without prescription. Cheap vicodin. Vicodin addiction. Online vicodin….