Nelson ridicules pro-lifers: “Apparently I didn’t say, ‘Mother, may I?'”
On December 22 at 4:45p, pro-life traitor Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) gave a speech on the Senate floor.
Obviously, he had read the voluminous critiques of his “compromise” that enabled a socialized healthcare bill to pass in the Senate that included public funded abortions.
He had something to say about that…
I think my colleagues know that we introduced legislation that is comparable to the Stupak legislation in the House dealing with barring the use of federal funds for elective abortions.
We introduced it over here. It was bipartisan. It was Hatch – it was Nelson – Nelson-Hatch-Casey, and it didn’t pass. So I began the process of trying to find other solutions that I thought equally walled off the use of federal funds and made it clear that no federal funds would be used….
Now, apparently I didn’t say, “Mother, may I?” in the process of writing that language because others took issue with it, even though they cannot constructively point out how it doesn’t prohibit the use of federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated. They just didn’t like the language.…
Well, you know, if in the conference the Stupak-Nelson-Hatch-Casey language passes, I’ll be happy, and so will Congressman Stupak and so would, I would imagine, those who signed on to that legislation.
You know, it’s unfortunate, though, to continue to distort and misrepresent what happens here in the body of the Senate. It’s difficult enough to have comittees, difficult enough to have cooperation. It’s difficult enough to have collegiality. When politics are put above policy and productivity, this is what we get….
Excuse me? We cannot “constructively point out” his compromise’s flaws? How’s this, from a December 22 Washington Times editorial?
On Page 41 (lines 5-8) of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s manager amendment, the proposed rules mandate that everyone buying insurance through new exchanges or through the new government-run plan must pay a monthly abortion premium to be used for elective abortion services. This fee applies “without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex or family status.” That means that people who have no possibility of wanting an abortion themselves will pay for others to have them.
On Page 43 (lines 1-7), insurance companies will be required to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage, and on Page 43 (lines 20-22) they are mandated to charge a minimum of at least $1 per enrollee per month to cover abortion.
Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who led a House revolt against abortion funding, calls the Senate language “a dramatic shift in federal policy.” The type of amendment approved by Mr. Nelson was voted down in the House.
For corroboration watch this December 21 video of pro-abort DHHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius agreeing with WT’s explanation of taxpayer funding of abortion in the Senate healthcare bill.
And that “Mother, may I?” line not only insulted pro-life groups and legislators involved in this process, it grossly undervalued their expertise.
[HT for Nelson quote: Senate friend; HT for Washington Times piece: Jivin J; Nelson photo via the WT]

Well, coming from this Catholic boy, had Nelson taken that question “Mother, may I?” to prayer, I’m sure Mary would have prevailed upon her Son to make the answer unequivocal.
It’s as I said in the family dog post. He continues to betray the smug attitude of perversion. He has the relationship backward. He SHOULD have asked that question. We’re his employer, after all. He’s hired to do OUR bidding.
The answer to this mentality is an electoral smack-down this November the likes of which Washington has never seen.
But for now, we turn our attention to the birth of one child who rescued us from ourselves. I’d like to leave the gentle denizens if Jill’s blog with this beautiful Christmas meditation from Sigred Undset:
“And when we give each other Christmas gifts in His name, let us remember that He has given us the sun and the moon and the stars, and the earth with its forests and mountains and oceans–and all that lives and move upon them. He has given us all green things and everything that blossoms and bears fruit and all that we quarrel about and all that we have misused–and to save us from our foolishness, from all our sins, He came down to earth and gave us Himself.”
Merry Christmas all!
Hey, at least we’ve been upgraded. We’ve gone from the “family dog” to “Mother.”
Really, I wish he would stop being reductionary! This is not just another political compromise. It is a Big DealK. So in answer to your question, Nelson: no, you may not. Go to your room.
It’s quite obvious Nelson wasn’t thinking of mothers or their babies, hence the lost question of “Mother may I?”
Gerard: I see you are a Sigrid Undset fan! Yeah! Did you know her bio of St. Catherine of Siena was recently published?
He sounds like a man whose guilty conscience will not be assuaged. I guess it’s hard to live with the knowledge that you sold innocent life – and your own integrity – for millions of dollars. He’s pitiful.
Now’s the time, folks, to keep Bart Stupak in your prayers. St. Michael, defend him in this battle and strengthen him!
Did Mr Nelson even think about the post abortive women who won’t want to pay for abortions? I’m thinking of those who deeply regret their abortions or were injured.
Christian Prolifers please pray for Rep. Stupak he is under enormous pressure to cave in. They are going to use any means they can to get him to cave in. Those prolifers who are not believers I respect your rights and hope you will send good wishes to this man. The “Chicago Way”, thug-style political machine has gone national. Al Capone and The Godfather are not dead they are alive and well in D.C.
Agreed, Liz!!!
Nelson should have asked his CONSTITUENTS, “may I?”, instead of asking the monied influence peddlars. If he had, he would not have done what he did. He is trying to portray himself as the independent minded man defying the restrictions and oppression of the church. The phrazing, “Mother may I” is suffiently religious sounding to awaken the latent anti-catholicsism of the sisters, yet sufficiently vague to avoid any unpleasant reactions from committed Christians whose votes he wants. Many a politician has hidden behind this screen before, when, like Nelson, they desperately needed cover.
McClatchy News is reporting that Barbara Boxer
describes the “Nelson Compromise” as “only an accounting procedure that will do nothing to restrict abortion” (Sacramento Bee, Dec 24th 2009). As you might suspect she was responding to the disgruntled sisters upset at having to write a separate check for ‘reproductive health services’. So Nelson is telling his supporters (not buying his baloney of course) that the “historic” compromise really prohibits use of federal funds for abortion and keeps them segregated. Meanwhile Boxer is busy convincing her supporters that the same “historic” compromise does not restrict federal funding of abortion but merely looks like it does by tweaking the book-keeping a little. And that, children, is how “historic” compromises are reached. It is surprising that Boxer made such a candid admission, since the Democrats are doing all they can to make it look as if the agreement bans federal funding of elective abortion. Will there be a later “clarification” saying that she really meant to say something else?
Let’s now pray that Pro-Lifers will concentrate their energy on the House. Rep. Bart Stupak seems to be taking a principled stand. Let us stand with him. It will take courage and commitment on his part, and that of his followers. So let’s pray for and support him.
You’ve got to give some credit for Nelson in regards to actually being part of the system and working against a lot of pressure to get any sort of compromise. The GOP folded – they took their dolls, put them in the backpacks, and went home. By pulling out the process entirely, they decided to see if the Democrats would unite to pass a bill at all. The Democrats had two options – go it alone or bail out entirely – and they did what the Republicans would have done – they continued on in the process. I think it’s foolish to continue to hammer on Nelson when he at least worked as hard as he could through the process. What about the GOP? Where were they, besides making snarky little speeches on the floor?
And don’t say they were kicked out of the process – this went for a long, long time, and GOP folks were at the table for a while. I guess a bill for the American people was not their goal – the goal was to defeat Obama’s number one domestic priority. It was sad to see.
“Mother may I”..make a way for your free tax-payer paid abortion?
“Mother may I”..be responsible for this horrendous bill passing to kill your innocent child?
“Mother may I”..go down in history as thee sell-out who could be bought like Judas Iscariot?
“Mother may I”..act like I am the victim when actually I am the greatest VICTIMIZER!
“Mother…how do I wash the BLOOD OFF MY HANDS?”
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 24, 2009 11:44 AM
——
That’s a complete mischaracterization of the events so you’re being utterly disingenuous.
Of course if every time you posted I removed your post, but responded you weren’t listening, you might be closer to the truth of what happened.
Not listening to the population is a favorite ploy of those obstinate “rulers” and “leaders” and is a precursor to revolutions.
This is not about politics – one side or the other. It hasn’t been in a long time.
It’s purely about worldly power without an ounce of principle.
Defiance runs both ways.
Chris – I apologize if I was way off. How did the abortion language play out, and what was the role of Republicans in getting to the language that was in the final versions? Were there GOP members negotiating alongside Nelson that I hadn’t heard about?
Again, I’ll admit I could be wrong – in the final month or so of each bill, there appeared to be nobody from the GOP doing anything but complaining – so if there were folks negotiating language, I’d be interested to read on it. Thanks and Merry Christmas.
Ex-GOP,
I remeber reading somewhere that there is no glory in dying like a fool.
I see some wisdom in the republicans refusing to be used as props in their progressive/liberal/humnists propaganda production.
If the Obama ‘hellth scare scam’ is as great as it’s proponents claim, then let them have full ownership.
If it is as bad as the opponents claim then wash should oppose it at every turn and do nothing to change it creator’s ‘love child’.
In the generations to come let these misguided ‘progressive/liberal/humanist mac daddies acknowledge their bastard child.
When this ‘chicken’ comes home to roost make sure there is no doubt just who conceived, incubated and hatched it.
yor bro ken
kbhvac –
I don’t think you need to let the Dems have full ownership – I mean, they’ll have full ownership of it, good or bad. The thing is, even members of the GOP say health care reform is needed. Every sane American in the country says health care reform is needed. What became clear early though was that even though it was an issue, defeating this bill was defeating Obama – and that’s what I have an issue with. When we have massively expensive healthcare, it becomes an issue to families – and I know a lot of families in which it has become a very personal, very dire issue. So I’m happy the Dems went forward and did something – but wish the the GOP had chosen to be part of the process.
I’m quite sure though this will be of benefit to the GOP in the short term, but a massive step to the left in the long term as many are already saying this is the biggest piece of legislation in decades.
You know though that people’s memories are short lived. Look at the debate itself – you had members of the GOP yelling about the cost and expansion of the debt when many of them personally voted for the medicare expansion bill just a few years back.
And speaking of medicare, many who wanted to cut it, and even campaigned for cutting funds from it (McCain) now speak that cuts are foolish. So memories are short – though I hope that all remember who fought to pass, and who fought not too.
Thanks for the comments though and Merry Christmas.
Yor
bro
B
(is your name Ken – it’s like a shout out, texting style) :-)