Under Nelson’s compromise, abortion access will fluctuate based on who the President is. A pro-life President will have the power to make it more difficult. A pro-death President like Barack Obama will make it exceedingly easy. The only constant will be federal abortion funding for Indians.
I guess Ben Nelson has no problem with the multi-century history of the feds trying to exterminate Indian populations. Surely Ben Nelson knew what he was agreeing to. The issue with abortions on Indian reservations is related to the reauthorization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is tied to the health care legislation and about which Nelson was fully aware of its implications.
This poorly constructed argument suggests that abortions are going to be forced upon Native American women or that because federal dollars may be used as supplementary funding for Native American healthcare that women are going to suddenly have the urge to abort their unborn children.
I can't think of a single grouping of people that want to preserve their race any more than the Native American. And Erickson essentially calling Nelson a "baby killer" - and wasn't the thinly veiled racial component in there a nice touch? - is kind of par for the course for commentary from the far-right.
But this all goes back to the central issue behind abortion - no one is "pro-abortion" or "pro-death". No one wants to have an abortion simply because they are available, no woman in America is like that. But conservatives paint liberal/progressive women as sitting around their houses telling their friends "hey, I just really want to get pregnant so I can have an abortion" and the reality is that it simply doesn't work that way. It's nothing more than a style of speaking that makes the conservative feel morally superior to everyone else.
I'm no expert in how insurance companies work, but I do know that they operate off of a profit-driven business model. You pay into insurance whether you use it or not and when you finally do, you pay in a set amount and the insurance company covers the balance based on the specific plan that you have chosen. It seems to me that all monies that are taken in by an insurance company make up not just the profits but also the pool of money that the company uses to cover the balance of bills from the procedure you have done from your particular choice in hospital. So, doesn't it stand to reason that you are giving money to an insurance company that is potentially used by someone else? What if that person has chosen to have an abortion? After they pay their portion of the cost and the insurance company has to cover the balance, who's to say that the money taken from the companies pool isn't your money?
Sure, it's not your tax dollars going directly to insurance companies to provide abortions, but the process is essentially the same since you pay your monthly premiums to go into the companies pool. Of course, this is "capitalism", as the insurance company is a private organization and not tied to the Federal Government. And there's nothing that conservatives love more than good ole-fashioned American capitalism.