Nelson Compromise – Sell-out or Stroke of Genius?

I’m reluctant to comment on something without knowing too much about the details. This morning, it seems that Ben Nelson has become the 60th vote for health care reform, which I regard as good news indeed. What remains murky is the abortion compromise he negotiated, given that he had rejected earlier compromises based on segregation of funds. It seems that the big thing is that states will be allowed to prohibit plans that offer abortion from participating in the exchanges that operate in their states. The difference is that Stupak would have applied this nationally.

Already, I see some of the usual suspects using the language of treason (it’s always a dark dualistic world for them, isn’t it?). But here’s the deal. The main objection to subsidized health care plans that offer abortion was that it would lead to a great expansion in abortion rates. I’m not convinced at all, but let’s go with it. If this expansion in abortion is in proportion to current abortion rates, then the Nelson language would not make much difference, as the large states that account for the most abortions would still allow coverage of abortion.

Does this ring any bells? It should. It is one of the main criticisms of the pro-life movement’s sole focus on eliminating Roe v. Wade and the fetishization of abortion industry subsidiarity. Here is the language of none other than archbishop Chaput of Denver:

““Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation.”

Now, can’t the same argument be made with the Nelson compromise? It sounds to me like if you are arguing that this is a chimera, and that moving the decision to the states will make no difference at all, then you are implicitly also criticizing the all-eggs-in-one-Roe-basket strategy? At the very least, expect some cognitive dissonance…

Update: If you want to comment, and you disagree with me, first tell me whether you would support this reform with ironclad abortion protections. I’m not giving any soapboxes to laissez-faire liberals to exploit the unborn for their own ends.