Is LB 599 Pro-Life? Planned Parenthood would be eligible for funds under Illegal immigrant Prenatal Care law

LB 599 in the Nebraska Legislature has pitted foes on two different issues against each other. On the one hand is Governor Dave Heineman, who has stated that it is an immigration issue — he does not want to provide taxpayer funded prenatal care for illegal immigrants.

On the other side is those who state that it is a Pro-Life issue — that the child born will likely be a Nebraska citizen, and giving free care will more likely result in a healthy child.

But Leavenworth Street has learned of a third angle on this bill — one that the Pro-Life forces may not have realized:

Abortion provider Planned Parenthood would be eligible to receive state money for providing services to illegal immigrants under this law, if passed.

We have learned that an illegal immigrant woman could go into a Planned Parenthood clinic, receive whatever prenatal care she sought, then Planned Parenthood could bill the state for those services.

It should be noted that some argue that Planned Parenthood does NOT separate any funds they receive for providing prenatal services from those they receive for providing abortion services — that all the money goes into one account. So Nebraskans may ask if money would be mixed in to pay for prenatal services and for abortions.

Now it is our understanding that Planned Parenthood could not bill the State of Nebraska for performing an abortion on an illegal immigrant. But, an illegal immigrant woman could go into Planned Parenthood, receive prenatal care from them, then decide to abort (and pay PP out of her own pocket), and Nebraska would still have to pay the bill for the prenatal care.

And while some might question the likelihood of someone first getting the prenatal services and then aborting, the other side of it is Planned Parenthood using the lure of prenatal services to get the illegal immigrant woman in the door, and then counseling her to abort. Is this beyond what Planned Parenthood stoops to? You can be the judge on that.

All this being said, low income, LEGAL Nebraska residents can now go into Planned Parenthood, get prenatal care, and Planned Parenthood can bill the state. But the argument on the “Pro-Life” side of of LB 599 has been that it is purely a Pro-Life question. By the insertion of Planned Parenthood into the equation, it muddies the waters. How much? A drop? A handful? A shovelful? Does it matter? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t.

At this point LB 599 has passed in the legislature, and if vetoed, as planned, it cannot be amended in a veto override. So it is all or nothing here.

We have no idea where Nebraska Right to Life stands on this, or if they were or are aware of this situation. Maybe they feel they can just fight to keep illegal immigrant women from going to Planned Parenthood. Or maybe they figure that some money going to Planned Parenthood’s abortion services from Nebraska is worth it for the services that illegal immigrant women would get from the new law. Or maybe there is another way to look at it that we haven’t thought of.

But we have not heard this argument on this bill anywhere else. And if the opposition argument to the illegal immigrant argument is pretty simply, “support the Pro-Life position”, there is a a real question as to what the Pro-Life position here really is.

**UPDATE at 3:00pm**

We asked Julie Schmit-Albin of Nebraska Right to Life if she would like to comment on this post, and she forwarded the following to us:

This is nothing more than an 11th hour attempt to scuttle LB 599. Senator Fulton had General File and Select File to posit this theory if he thought it was such a threat. He hinted at it this week with me when he said something like, “why would Planned Parenthood like this bill?”

There is nothing to stop PP from putting its hand out for more public funds. I suppose for the past 30 years when prenatal services were provided under Medicaid that it’s a possibility that PP was getting reimbursed for some of those services. PPFA in its annual report always shows a small segment of services provided as being prenatal services. In fact, it is such a miniscule amount that they are ridiculed for it.

Likewise, if we could get our hands on Planned Parenthood of the Heartland’s (PPH) annual report, which they keep close to the vest, I suppose we would find some percentage on prenatal services. PPH has been receiving State funds for pap and chlamydia testing for years. Former GOP Senator LaVon Crosby instituted that and I’ve never seen Tony Fulton try to remove that from going to PPH, even though he sat on Appropriations.

You can’t cite PP in legislation (constitutional problem). The best way to handle this is to pass something like LB 925, which died in committee this year. That provided a tiered approach showing preference for public funding to first county and city health agencies, then public or private healthcare facilities that provide comprehensive primary care.

Is someone going to make the case that PPH is into comprehensive primary care like One World Health Center and the Columbus clinic which have been the two biggest proponents of LB 599 from the healthcare angle as they are the entities that have picked up most of the prenatal services that stopped under Medicaid two years ago.

PPH announced last year that they want to expand to six cities across the State. Pro-lifers in Fremont, Grand Island, Hastings, Norfolk, North Platte and Kearney have been meeting, forming new groups to be vigilant against PPH coming in. Our radar is up on PPH more than it ever was. So if they start advertising in Spanish that they do prenatal services, I think we’ll be on top of it.

It is troubling that a Catholic, pro-life senator continues to walk point against LB 599, a bill that not only will help unborn babies but will also acknowledge them as persons under the law.


  1. Anonymous says:

    The more the proponents for illegal immigrants go out and pre for Taxpayer funding, the more the People are going to see this for what it is. Mike Flood screwed the pooch on this, but at least he will be able to look back at what he did and say “I feel good”. If there was ever a rally cry for the liberal element it involved the words I and Feel Good.

  2. Been hearing this for a week says:

    I’ve been hearing this for the past week. I first heard Kay Orr ask ‘Why would Planned Parenthood be lobbying for this bill?’ at the Pacyderm Luncheon. Every discussion of LB 599, I’ve heard this brought up. Why isn’t it hitting the wider discussion? I’m not sure but I really appreciate seeing it here.

    This is going to be another way for Planned Parenthood to get money for their services from the government. That scares me more than the Illegal Immigrant issue. They will use it for prenatal care and will recommend their services. While some feel this bill gives them comfort as a Pro-Life voter, it will actually take us backwards in that arena.

  3. oh really? says:

    Fear. Fear. Fear. Doesn’t LB 22 passed last session already preclude this? At some point the state is going to have to just defund Planned Parenthood entirely! Why should they get a penny of state money if I object to it? Besides PP doesn’t really provide prenatal care, they kill babies, innocent children.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. PP grinds babys into pink slime and puts it in your hamburger. If your moms had gone to PP, maybe you’d have been born healthy and not suffer the mental problems you do now. Keep kicking women in the uterus and see who they vote with this November.

  5. My Own Senator says:

    My own state senator, Galen Hadley said that he voted for taxpayer funding for illegals because he is pro-life. So it has to be true if Senator Hadley said so.

    LB599 is the biggest scam ever played on the legal citizens and taxpayers of the state, and I sincerely hope that every voter keeps the list of senators who voted for it in their pocket as they walk into the voting booth.

  6. Too Bad says:

    Please comment on BCBS lawsuit against the State of Nebraska and the state GOP chairman’s lobbying on behalf of United Health Care etc.???

  7. John says:

    PP loves stuff like this, these seneators have come up with nothing but corrected old legislation and more ways to spend and tax(Ashford’s forte) reguardless of party, while providing care would be good, if you cannot pay for it what’s the point. These people want a raise and longer terms, what a farce.

  8. Flood was fooled says:

    Once again Mike Flood proves he is not ready for Prime Time. If Planned Parenthood gets one nickel of state money because of this, it is his fault.

  9. SS sets sail on the fail boat! says:

    It’s too bad you went through all of the effort to write that about PP providing prenatal care…because PP doesn’t provide prenatal care in Nebraska. If they did provide prenatal care, wouldn’t PP have been affected with the same high volume of women seeking prenatal care as clinics like Good Neighbor Community Health Center in Columbus and One World Community Health Center in Omaha have faced since the policy changed and low-income women’s coverage was shut off in 2010? It’s so much easier to make an argument when you just make shit up. Next.

  10. RWP says:

    Can’t do a link. but this is the list of services provided by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, offices in Lincoln, Omaha and Des Moines

    Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is here for you with completely confidential reproductive health care.  We offer high quality services to women, men, and families including: 

    Abortion (medical and surgical)
    Annual checkups/well-woman exams
    Birth control supplies and information
    Colposcopy/abnormal pap follow-up
    Emergency contraception
    HIV testing
    HPV vaccine
    LGBT health care 
    Male services, including testicular cancer screening
    Menopause services
    Pap tests/breast exams
    Pregnancy testing, full options referral
    Prenatal care
    Sexual assault exams
    STI testing and treatment
    Transgender support

  11. @RWP says:

    Actually – do what RWP suggested. You will see that the S 48th St location specifically lists “If you choose to continue a pregnancy, we will provide you with a list of resources to help you obtain prenatal care.”

    Check it out and see what a crock RWP is. Next.

  12. Anonymous says:

    James M. Takacs
    Chair, Dept. of Chemistry
    University of Nebraska – Lincoln
    807B Hamilton Hall
    Lincoln, NE 68588-0726

  13. @RWP says:

    There is a difference between _providing a list of resource referrals_ to receive prenatal care at a federal health center like One World or Good Neighbor and actually _providing prenatal care_. You get that, right?

  14. ask not.... says:

    …what your country can do for you. Ask what your neighboring country can and will do–and even will pay for!!! -Mikey Mike Flood and the Julie Smuggy Bunch

  15. Anonymous says:

    So when an illegal living in CB Iowa needs some freenatal care is the some magic force that will keep them out of Nebraska? Come on people wake up and follow the $$$$. The lobby was full of people looking to cash in at the sate/federal trough. Campbell said the average payout for the eligible illegals is $2000.00, for prenatal vitamins? Its all about the medico’s geeting the cash. Why else would the Don of all lobbyists Walt Radclif be on board.? Follow the MONEY!!!!!

    FREENATAL is bog bucks for hospitals

  16. Kortezzi says:

    The support for LB599 by Julie Schmit-Albin damages her credibility in my eyes. What if this bill required paying to fly every pregnant woman on earth to Nebraska and pay for pre-natal care until the baby is born? Would it be a break of faith with the pro-life position to oppose that?

    The GOP phone poll showed 78% opposition to taxpayer-funded prenatal benefits to illegals. That political reality, and the taint of Planned Parenthood on this bill, ought to sustain Governor Dave’s veto.

  17. Kortezzi says:

    I should have clarified that the 78% opposition to taxpayer-funded prenatal benefits to illegal was in the GOP’s phone poll of Scotts Bluff, Kearney, and GI. Senators representing those residents should be paying attention to their constitutents on this one.

  18. RWP says:

    So when PP say they ‘offer’ prenatal care, that means they tell you the name of somebody else who offers prenatal care?

    Bwawawawaha! Let me offer you $100 to clean my car.

  19. Macdaddy says:

    Planned Parenthood claims to offer a lot of services that they actually don’t. The latest brouhaha over Komen cutting off funding easily illustrated that. Planned Parenthood claimed that they offered mammograms and that cutting off this funding was killing women. Komen pointed out that in fact, PP only refers people to other clinics and doesn’t actually do mammograms. Of course, no matter, PP got their way and Komen got owned. Lesson: don’t let Planned Parenthood get their nose under the tent because once they do, their goons will bust some kneecaps to make sure the money keeps flowing.

  20. Macdaddy says:

    Kortezzi and Anon 4:32 hit the nail on the head. We are going to be the magnet for thousands of illegal immigrants to come to Nebraska, stay hidden at friends and relatives houses, and deliver their babies here. All it will cost is the price of a ride from anywhere in the country to here. Preposterous, you say? Anybody remember the safe haven bill? Remember kids from Pennsylvania getting dropped off? This bill is going to cost way, way, way more than advertised. I have a better idea. How about the proponents of this bill set up a charity to pay for the prenatal care of these women? Why should this be the government’s responsibility?

  21. Macdaddy says:

    Oh, and remember that President Obama was ready to shut down the government over the $300 million Planned Parenthood gets from the feds

  22. Scam says:

    Julie and many others have been completely blinded by this bill. If NRTL supports this bill then as Kortezzi said at 4:35 it sets a precedent that you could argue many other things are a pro-life issue. Lets just open up the floodgates and give all illegals everything that we as citizens of the United States have. Or wait…. my wife doesn’t get free prenatal care does she? We have to pay for it. This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. In many instances we are giving more to an illegal alien than we are our own legal citizens.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Why do you invite that idiot BTO into this conversation? We are having a good conversation, why have BTO come on here and steal the stage, nobody cares about his pointless relationship with the Democratic party or what geriatric woman he’s attacking this week.

  24. RWP says:

    Macdaddy: IIRC, Brad Ashford was one of the geniuses behind the ‘bring your unruly teen to Nebraska and dump him’ bill, too.

    On the other hand, nobody better than PP to do prenatal care. PP takes care of the unborn the way the Mafia takes care of informers. No offense, BTO 🙂

    Planned Parenthood; saving mothers and kids from the trauma of childbirth since 1973! Over 30 million served!

  25. Anonymous says:

    Nebraska Right to Life is all about one person: Julie Schmidt-Ablin. Until she stops destroying her allies, she wont be able to keep friends in the legislature

  26. ricky says:

    Now even JSA is on Senator Tony (no relation) Fulton’s case. That guy can’t get out of the Unicam fast enough. Happy NR Fulton went out with a wimper and not a bang, not having any priority bill passed and Sec Gale shooting down his attempt to beg on.

    ricky from omaha

  27. Lil Mac says:

    The Illegal Alien side of the issue is straightforward. Pay illegals to birth anchor babies in Nebraska and the entire population of Guadalajara will sneak in here muy rapido. But wait, for it gets even stupider.

    Republicans Flood and Julie SA are trying to force taxpayers to pay people to have babies. These people who object to government using tax dollars to pay for abortions, want government to use your tax dollars, taken from you who have money precisely because you keep your own genitals under control, they want to use your money to reward those who don’t.

    So Nebraskans not only have Liberals forcing taxpayers to pay for murdering fetuses, but also Conservatives forcing taxpayers to reward and encourage irresponsible parenthood. Yet that is a fiscal battle Conservatives cannot win. For while an aborted fetus is forevermore off-budget, costing but sin and guilt, the dollar cost of paying to birth and raise live babies is incredibly expensive. Yet here are these NE GOP pseudo-conservatives demanding that Nebraskans pay to birth and likely raise other people’s kids. If that happens, they will force Pro Life taxpayers to become Pro Choice. taxpayers. Just because you hate abortion doesn’t mean you volunteer to raise the little buggers yourself.

    When GOP/Conservative leaders get hooked on spending Other People’s Money and perpetuating loose morals and encourage the worsparents to spawn — along with encouraging a flood of illegal intruders to come to Nebraska — then they are more damaging to NE and the GOP than any Democrat.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Julie is the Nebraska equivalent of Bart Stupak. And the aid to illegal immigrants bill is the Legislature’s Obamacare. How dare she imply that opposition to a big government spending program is in violation of Sen. Fulton’s own religious beliefs. On matters of adherence to Christian beliefs, Julie should be taking lessons from Sen. Fulton, not providing advice. It has been a typical liberal talking point to claim that when Jesus talked about helping the poor, he was REALLY advocating for massive government spending. I just never thought Julie would use the same tired rhetoric.

  29. I really don’t have much to add to this conversation, but “BTO” @5:20 asked, and Numbnuts @5:29 needs an Ozzie fix, so here goes.

    I don’t think I could say it much better than Lil Mac @6:33 did already. Personally, I’d just as soon everyone had their kids somewhere else, including the Nebraska mothers that plan on having their brats in their own home state. Bring ’em back when they’re old enough to contribute to society.

    I subscribe to the W.C. Fields school of thought:
    “I like children – fried.”
    “I never met a kid I liked.”
    “Anyone who hates children and animals can’t be all bad.”
    Children should neither be seen or heard from – ever again.”

    RWP @5:29, None taken. Che me ne frega?

  30. Investigative Journalist says:

    As always, excellent investigative journalism by Leavenworth St. That is, assuming you don’t care about little details like the truth.

    Planned Parenthood NATIONALLY provides some prenatal care services. Planned Parenthood in NEBRASKA (where LB 599 law would apply) only provides referrals for prenatal care services (i.e. they can give you the name of a doctor). They would not receive funding from this.

    I am amazed at the hatred and dishonesty directed at unborn children whose only crime is being conceived in the wrong womb.

  31. Investigative Taxpayer says:

    Investigative Journalist, how about doing a little investigation into what the term “illegal” means, and why so many of our state senators are so ignorant on what it means?

    And why does it seem so odd to you that Nebraska taxpayers resent having state senators hand out hard-earned taxes to illegals?….and at the same time have to watch all kinds of state government responsibilities go by the wayside because we don’t have the money to do them. And still we can find money to give to illegals to plant anchor babies all over the state.

    Bob Kerrey, the extreme liberal from New York City,will look like a beginner compared to Mike Flood and Galen Hadley.

  32. Bob Quasius says:

    Gov. Heineman and GOP State Chairman Fahlson do not respect the Nebraska Republican Party platform, which states:
    “The NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY reaffirms our commitment to the principle that all people have the inalienable right to human dignity and equal treatment under the law. We believe that the concept of equal rights and equal responsibilities under the law is basic to a free society. There should be no discrimination against anyone because he/she is physically or mentally challenged, or because of race, religion, color, creed, ethnicity, gender, age, marital status or national origin. ” and
    “We believe that life begins at conception, and that all innocent human life is precious and should be protected. We support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade and an amendment to the United States Constitution banning abortions except those genuinely needed to save the life of the mother.
    We endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to the unborn.”
    The fourteenth amendment states:
    “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    If we follow the GOP platform and apply the 14th amendment to the unborn, then we cannot discriminate based on their national origin. Shame on Gov. Heineman and Chairman Fahlson for not respecting the GOP platform, approved by a majority of delegates at the state convention.

  33. Macdaddy says:

    Investigative Journalist, nobody hates them, we just can’t see why in the world we have to pay for them. Oh. Some people hate them. That would be the abortionists who like to rip them limb from limb.

  34. Some Thoughts says:

    I’m not saying that financial considerations are the only thing that matters here, but I’m curious about how the financial argument actually shakes out. Aren’t we taxpayers likely to end up footing the bill for health care for these kids after they are born? So if financial considerations are the question, I wonder if it will save money in the long run to offer the prenatal care, sparing the taxpayer from greater expenses later, or if it will save money in the long run to avoid this?

    Here’s another question I don’t know the answer to: what states have a law like this? Any states in our area?

  35. Macdaddy says:

    Bob Quasius, how you get to the conclusion that illegal aliens should get free taxpayer provided health care is beyond me.

  36. Macdaddy says:

    Some thoughts, it will save way more money in the short and long runs to avoid this. In study after study, the value of prenatal care is equivocal. There are a certain percentage of birth defects, premature births, etc that will be completely unaffected by top notch prenatal care. Have more births, get more kids born who have major medical problems that cost lots of money. The whole contention that we are harming children by taxpayers not paying for this is highly debatable.

  37. Bob Quasius, Don’t even waste your breath trying to make logical sense to these haters. I went on my own crusades against my fellow Democrats for ignoring THEIR own Constitution and Bylaws, and all I got for my efforts was a reputation as someone that “wanted to destroy the Nebraska Democratic Party.”
    I was doing some work cleaning out my digital sock drawer today and came across copies of the incriminating posts that I put on the (now defunct) NDP blog that caused Vic Covalt to censor the comments of EVERY Democrat that wanted to post there. (You know, the people that OWNED it!) I’d forgotten the part of my argument where I supported my statements based on the fact that I was defending what the NDP State Central Committee had VOTED on! It was more important for Vic to defend the NDP’s “most important Democrat, Ben Nelson” than it was to defend the people that make up the Nebraska Democratic Party – Covalt’s bosses – those people that I consider the “most important Democrats” – the rank and file.
    Let’s face it, the leadership of both the NEGOP and the NDP could give a rat’s ass what the average registered voter in their party thinks. Both parties are run by oligarchs, mostly attorneys in LIncoln and Omaha, that expect their herd of lemmings to do their bidding and to like it. If they aren’t waving their pom-poms for the people that the oligarchs picked, then they are “destroying” the party. Those “rules” in the C&B are just for window dressing. State Conventions serve only to distract the “activists” with a bunch of brouhaha that makes them believe they are actually doing something constructive. Any platform or resolutions passed by the body are universally ignored by the officers of the party.
    I’m willing to bet that if I attended one of the NEGOP State Central Committee meetings, I wouldn’t notice a nickel’s worth of difference between it and an NDP meeting. There’d be a bunch of lemmings, sitting around munching doughnuts, waiting to be told what to do. The people that are supposed to be subservient to the SCC would be sitting on a raised platform at the front of the room, with all of the microphones, looking down their noses at them with disdain.
    Am I right?

  38. RWP says:

    I am amazed at the hatred and dishonesty directed at unborn children whose only crime is being conceived in the wrong womb.

    By that tortured ‘logic’ we discriminate against hundreds of millions of unborn children a year, merely because their mothers live in the wrong country. Heck, we deny the rights of American citizenship to 7 or 8 billion people, who never asked to be born somewhere else, but are denied birthright citizenship because Mommy never bothered to slip over the border. It’s not fair!

    Let’s confiscate everyone’s wealth, and ship it down to Mexico,so the women who didn’t break our laws can get prenatal care too!
    Yeah, let’s raise taxes to 100%, and treat the whole world!

  39. Bob Quasius says:

    Prenatal care is for unborn children who lack an immigration status. However, the GOP platform calls for 14th amendment protections for the unborn. The 14th amendment provides for birthright citizenship and equal protection. The state of Nebraska cannot treat the unborn of undocumented immigrant mothers any differently than any other unborn child.

    Besides the moral and ethical issues, prenatal care is much more cost effective than neonatal care. Denying prenatal care to poor immigrant women will actually cost taxpayers more.

    Not a wise decision Gov. Heineman. Shame on your for not respecting the platform passed by a majority of Republican state convention delegates.

  40. RWP says:

    Besides the moral and ethical issues, prenatal care is much more cost effective than neonatal care. Denying prenatal care to poor immigrant women will actually cost taxpayers more.

    Care to prove this in any way that wouldn’t send an economist into fits of laughter?

  41. Let's See says:

    Julie’s tax returns. Let’s see them. How much have the senators who support the funding given of their own wallets? It’s easy to hide behind votes and call people out on blogs…how much have you given? It’s easy to say you’re pro-life when you are spending other peoples’ money. Julie throws Tony Fulton under the bus without his name even mentioned…classy. Then she writes some manifesto but still doesnt address the fact that PP is going to get money. Why didnt she bring this up at select & general file? Her nose was so pointed up smugly to the sky that she didnt realize the reality of the bill. Great leadership, Julie. What a joke.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Julie, what’s it feel like being thrown under the bus by the NEGOP, the same way they ordered you to do to Ben Nelson?

  43. Anonymous says:

    BTO has clearly lost his mind and people should stop provoking him. When he finally does lose it and ends up hurting himself or others, it’s likely the authorities could subpoena to get all the IP addresses of all these anonymous stalkers of his. BTO is a walking time bomb. When it all goes down you don’t want to be associated with it.

  44. Brian T. Osborn says:

    I have indeed lost my mind Anony@1:01 and I’ve already intercepted your IP address. It’ll take me a couple of hours to get there, but I’m coming for you first!

  45. RWP says:

    I have indeed lost my mind Anony@1:01 and I’ve already intercepted your IP address. It’ll take me a couple of hours to get there, but I’m coming for you first!


  46. Investigative Taxpayer says:

    This is very difficult for me to say as a life-long conservative Republican, but if there were an independent or even a Democrat running for state senator from Kearney, I would vote for him/her. Galen Hadley’s vote to give taxpayer funds to illegals is simply overwhelming, and he needs to be returned to the private sector.

  47. Macdaddy says:

    Are we going to buy these pregnant women food so they’ll eat right? Exercise classes? How about a bus pass? And who came up with that $2000 a person nonsense? When it becomes “free” that 2 grand is going to get jacked up to at least 4 g’s per person. Do you think a doctor can just check their blood pressure, give them vitamins and send them out the door? No way. Everyone of them will get at least one ultrasound and a certain percentage will end up admitted to the hospital just-to-be-on-the-safe-side. You people think prenatal care fixes everything but it doesn’t. There is a study that showed that for prenatal care to be cost effective among teenage moms, the cost would have to be $95 a person. We’re already 20 times that before the usual 1000% markup for a government program sets in. The estimated 1100 women is probably 2200 since illegal immigrants are usually undercounted in just about any survey you can think of. Besides, the moment this gets passed, the next day people will be in the car on the way here. Heineman is right to veto this.

  48. RWP says:

    Macsaddy is dead on. Preventative care costs money . It doesn’t save money. There may be other reasons to do it, but cost effectiveness isn’t one.

    Major prenatal threats to illegal immigrants’ babies are meth and alcohol. Prenatal care won’t help with either of those.

  49. Every time a liberal puts “facts and figures” up here, they are asked by you two to prove their point with references. OK. I’ll bite. Where are the corroborating “facts” to show a “1000% markup for a government program” and “major prenatal threats to illegal immigrants’ babies are meth and alcohol.”

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  50. Macdaddy says:

    When Medicare was passed, it was only supposed to cost $12 billion in 1990. It actually cost $107 billion, an increase over projection of 900%. That’s close enough to 1000% for government work. As for the drug problem issue in pregnant women that RWP brings up, are we going to test all these women for drugs? If they are positive, are we going to incarcerate them so they can’t get any more drugs? No? What?!?! You really aren’t pro-life.

  51. RWP says:

    17% of Mexican migrant women in California use meth. or cocaine (and let’s face it, few of them can afford cocaine), according to Hernandez et al, 2009. LaGasse, looking at mothers in the midwest who used methamphetamine during pregnancy, found their children had substantial developmental problems. Morgan in 1997 found one of the major groups using methamphetamine in California were welfare mothers. Most of the methamphetamine now used in the US is smuggled by undocumented aliens, not cooked here.

    Want me to go on? It’s not as if any of this is startling.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Can any proponents of 599 put up any facts for the cost to taxpayers for healthy illegal immigrants?

    Also if we are going to give them this, what will be given next? How about a ticket to anywhere else?

  53. Anonymous says:

    Great picture today of Omaha’s Democratic State Senators at a press conference to support 599. There was Burke Harr, Gwen Howard, Jeremy Nordquist, Heath Mello and … Bob Krist. Why doesn’t that guy just make it official and switch his party affiliation to Democrat? It would be the honest and honorable thing to do.

  54. Disappointed says:

    I remember Julie Schmidt-Albin feeling ‘betrayed’ after she had trusted Ben Nelson so much. She couldn’t believe Ben Nelson would betray the Pro-Life community and vote for Obamacare. Really?!?

    I was baffled after she gave Ben Nelson cover in 2006 with endorsement from the Nebraska for Life. I’m baffled now.

    Why is Julie pushing for a bill that would potentially lead money to Planned Parenthood. After looking at her leadership in totality and looking at what she’s done over the years, I question her wisdom.

  55. RWP says:

    The pro-life movement should remember that while it’s sometimes expedient to lie down with dogs, it’s almost inevitable that one wakes up the next day with fleas.

  56. Anonymous says:

    Well the answer to the question, why doesn’t Krist do the honorable and honest thing and change is party affiliation, can be found in the question. Honorable and honest are two words Krist, and many Liberals, have found new and creative ways to define. Kind of like the meaning of “is”.

    Krist is a tool for both sides of the isle, and he thinks he is winning the hearts of both. Little does he realize he is not well thought of by either side…… and so he will get tossed around and feel good about being used.

    It will be interesting to see what happens in the next session as far as Krist and Gloor go.

    Hey at least Ken Haar will be gone, and that friends is a good thing. It won’t be too long until Avery, Conrad, McGill, and Lathrop will be chasing Ashford out, leaving the liberal brain trust in Mello and Nordquist’s hands, with help from the ever so witty Burke Harr.

  57. Investigative Taxpayer says:

    Why is it that Julie thinks Senator Fulton is the enemy and not Planned Parenthood? Perhaps she should change the name of the organization from Nebraska Right To Life to Nebraska Free From Fulton. Yikes, Julie, get back on track. Your work is too important for you to slide into the ditch like you have on LB599. Planned Parenthood must be raising their glasses to you on this one.

  58. Isn't it time? says:

    It is time for Julie Schmidt-Albin to the resign. The ED of a right to life group supports a bill to fund Planned Parenthood. That’s a fact. Wow.

  59. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Keep harping that theme, operatives. NRL is standing with the three Catholic Bishops on this one and you’re not going to be able to fool pro-life Nebraskans into thinking we’ve all taken a walk on the dark side. The mere fact that this charge is thrown out in the 11th hour after two years, two hearings and two full stages of debate belies the veracity of the claim. But I’m sure you can try to make the case should you throw together a referendum on 599.

  60. Anonymous says:

    Julie, I don’t give a fig for what any of the bishops say. If its such an important thing for them, why won’t they offer to pay for the prenatal care of illegal immigrants? I have completely lost any respect I had for NRL with your handling of this issue

  61. Facts says:

    Planned Parenthood can get $ from this bill. Fact. Planned Parenthood kills babies. Fact. Nebraska RTL supports this bill. Fact. Julie Schmit-Albin advocates for this bill. Fact. NRTL dropped the ball in these same 2 years, never mentioning PP can get funding under 599. Fact. Julie, never ever wrong, leads by not debating the facts but by responding with ‘the bishops are for it’. Great leadership, Julie.

  62. RWP says:

    Well, having just done my taxes, and given the State of Nebraska the right to pull a huge chunk of money out of my bank account. I must say it does my heart good to know that some of it will be funneled via a few cursory examinations of illegal Latinas to a motley collection of left-wing ‘non-profits’, who will be back, cap in hand, next year for more. To say nothing of anchoring said Latinas firmly in the US, whence, because every American child needs a Mommy, they’ll never be evicted, destined for the next 50 years to suck on the ever-munificent gummint tit, constantly replenished with borrowed Chinese milk. Well, maybe not so constantly. I’ve met Chinese fools, but China isn’t run by fools.

    But hey, three ancient and comically self-described celibate men from a vast international pedophilia ring think we should get ourselves some more young vulnerable minority children. Can’t imagine why.

    Funny old thing, life.

  63. Bob Quasius says:

    During the first half of 2011, DHS deported 45,000 parents of U.S. Citizen children. Contrary to your statement, parents of citizens are often deported, and having a citizen child does not protect an undocumented immigrant from deportation. Judges have very limited discretion to not deport immigrants of good moral character, and then only if they have been here more than ten years, and subject to a quota of several thousand per year nationally.

  64. They still don't get it says:

    Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide prenatal care in Nebraska. PP won’t get any money under LB599. This is what is called grasping for straws. Nice try – no one is buying it.

  65. Investigative Taxpayer says:

    Julie, you and Nebraska Right to LIfe seem to think that not supporting LB599 means we are not pro-life. I am pro-life and have been all my life, and will always be. And have always supported you and Nebraska Right to Life….until now. To infer that those of us who, because we do not support LB599, are anything less than pro-life is a very sad mistake on your part and the part of Nebraska Right to Life.

  66. TexasAnnie says:

    I stand with Julie in ascertaining that LB599 -IS- a pro-life issue. And I’d readily bet that most pro-life Nebraskans will stand with Julie as well. In years past, Nebraska Right to Life has been remiss with it’s reckless disregard for LIFE beyond embryos and lesser fetal cells. But this new affirmation of post-fetal LIFE seals NRL’s credibility!

  67. TexasAnnie says:

    RWP: Concerning your post at 8:48pm yesterday, first, I agree that the Catholic Church’s meddling is inappropriate. (Not because of pedophilia, though!) That vast organization doesn’t even pay it’s fair share of taxes while simultaneously extracting tax dollars in support of it’s projects. And second, your first sentence of that same comment contains an error of syntax. (Not that I truly care, but since you obviously do, -given your aggressive monitoring of syntax here at Leavenworth St., I thought I should write to let you know!).

  68. RWP says:

    Bob, Please don’t deflate their fantasies with information from the real world.

    Not a concern, BTO. As usual on seeing any number from the left, I checked the source. There were actually a tad under 23,000 deportation/removals of parents of US citizens in that period, and the category actually includes voluntary returns. The rest is made up of exclusions and a whole host of minor subcategories. ICE didn’t break down the 23,000 by sex, but I’d be willing to bet a large fraction are men and a large fraction committed crimes.

  69. TexasAnnie says:

    Lil Mac: I had to go back over this long list of comments to find your post because I did remember that it made an impression. You said: “When GOP/Conservative leaders get hooked on spending Other People’s Money…” WHEN, you say? When haven’t GOP/Conservative leaders been hooked on spending? It’s not WHEN, it’s WHAT they spend other people’s money on that matters. I for one appreciate ‘people’ spending over ‘corporate spending,’ if there is to be any spending at all. Sometimes I trace libertarian thought processes within your comments, but you do not sufficiently object to corporate welfare. Please clarify your position in this regard.

  70. RWP says:

    TA, I don’t aggressively monitor syntax, and if I did, I would find nothing wrong with the syntax of the sentence in question. I suspect you are looking for a dangling participle, but I’m afraid ‘having just done my taxes’ quite securely modifies the subject of the sentence — ‘I’.

    Having just knocked the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic, I will stipulate that there was little wrong in the way their schools taught English grammar.

    The point about taxes is a good one.

  71. Grasping for Interns says:

    So all we have to do to guarantee funding from 599 is ‘provide prenatal care?’ Time to head to the nursing college, get a couple ‘pre-natal’ interns, get a couple W2s and grease up the motor on the abortion mill. -PP of Nebraska

  72. Kortezzi says:

    Birthright citizenship is a major problem that gives rise to many others. Many years ago US courts misinterpreted the 14th amendment by treating children born on US soil as citizens even when their mothers were illegal aliens – – something never intended by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a short leap from there to “anchor babies”, free public education for illegal alien children, and hospital emergency room care for illegals.

    The Feds are responsible for controlling our borders. But the states can’t keep blaming Washington if they foolishly adopt policies like instate tuition for illegals and free prenatal care for pregnant illegals.

  73. Kortezzi (aka Carnac the Magnificent) is capable of discerning what the “Framers of the Constitution” were thinking a couple of centuries ago, but couldn’t come up with the winning numbers to the recent Mega Millions lottery. What a waste of talent!
    All this blather about “illegal” aliens makes me wonder what the Lakota of the 1800s would think of it all. Maybe Carnac can help us out there, since he seems so in touch with the spirit world.

  74. Paula says:

    I find it funny that you call them “Abortion Provider” as if that’s the main thing they do, of course it’s a very small part of what they actually do.

    Here’s what PP does: they actually help women who want to have their baby by finding them doctors that will take them. Their counseling was invaluable to me when I was 24. I was scared, and I didn’t think I could do it on my own, they told me I could and then helped me do it.

    I choose life and PP helped.

  75. Anonymous says:

    So your complaining about paying taxes to help out some poor woman. Whose children when born will be American citizens. But you have no problem paying taxes to attack nations . Or to give the super rich more money to pollute our great country. Values, some have them, some don’t.

  76. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Investigative: I didn’t infer that anyone opposing 599 is “less than pro-life.” You said that. NRL’s position is that LB 599 is a pro-life bill and the pro-life position on this particular bill is to support it as it adheres to pro-life principles of protecting the life and health of the unborn while at the same time recognizing unborn babies as persons under the law. That is our position on a public policy decision before the Legislature. Back to your lament that I have “inferred” people are less than pro-life. You should note that NRL PAC released its list of endorsed candidates on April 6th and no where did we withhold an endorsement of a current pro-life incumbent senator who had voted against LB 599 on General and Select File. Our PAC determined that the prenatal issue would not be weighted along with the four major “deal-breaker” issues dictate who is endorsed and who isn’t. It is not unusual not to have legislative issues on our candidate survey as we did not weigh the fetal pain ban, web cam abortions, ultrasound viewing or abortion opt out of insurance issues in the past two election cycles either. You seem to be most defensive for our calling Tony Fulton out as a floor leader against LB 599. Others on here have disparaged Mike Flood for his role in support of the bill. So it’s okay for the NEGOP to list Speaker Flood and the other GOP senators who have voted for LB 599 in their press release calling people out but it’s not okay for NRL to note that Sen. Fulton is leading the charge against 599 with the help of five other senators who have introduced or prioritized pro-life legislation? There is no difference in what the NEGOP did to senators for 599 and what NRL did to senators against 599. At least NRL is still endorsing those LB 599 opponents who are running. What will the NEGOP’s response be in the Primary and General Elections for those GOP senators who are running and who voted for LB 599?

  77. So Julie... says:

    Aren’t you the one who insinuated that since Sen Fulton is a Catholic, that he should support LB599? To me, that’s a tad different than calling people out for supporting the bill, or even simply stating that Fulton is among those fighting it.

  78. Despite being in the midst of a tornado warning, and there really being no debate as to whom the candidate might be, I’d say we had a pretty good turnout (around 15 plus one new Democrat that I signed up.) Maybe they came for CHEEX’s pizza.

    Several of the folks I talked to shared my belief that the NDP doesn’t do enough to communicate with the average Democrat, especially here in the 3rd CD. Basically, all they’ve heard from the Lincoln office is an exhortation to send them more money and volunteer to be freebie grunt workers on campaigns.

    This will be a crossroads year for the NDP, since pretty much the entire hierarchy, no longer buttressed by the NDP’s “most important Democrat” will be stepping down. It will be interesting to see whether we can turn the corner, become a valid statewide party, or merely continue to content ourselves as the Committee to Elect Mayors of Lincoln and Omaha.

  79. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    12:18 p.m. I’m Catholic, he’s Catholic. I’m pro-life, he’s pro-life. Yes, it remains troubling that a fellow pro-life Catholic is leading the charge against a pro-life bill that would help unborn babies. We’re not just talking voting against the bill because he is conflicted. We’re talking about him coming up with argument after argument on why they need to kill the bill. We’re talking jumping up asking for record votes (for who?) so those votes can be used politically against 599 supporters. If one is as morally conflicted over a piece of legislation as he has claimed he is, why is he asking for recorded votes. They weren’t even on his motions/ amendments. If one remains conflicted and could go either way, as he stated a couple weeks ago, why has he been leading the opposition. I think it’s our perogative to hold pro-life leaders to a higher standard given what has happened with this bill. Seems others were doing the same in singling out the Speaker for his role as a proponent.

  80. So Julie... says:

    Being Catholic has nothing to do with being pro-life, or supporting or opposing LB599. And this bill is not a pro-life bill. It is designed to give benefits to illegals, paid for by the taxpayers.

  81. So Paula says:

    Paula, surely you must know that Planned Parenthood is the biggest provider of abortions in America. Really Paula, take some time to read and research.

  82. So Julie... says:

    You claim that Senator Fulton and five other senators who have either introduced or prioritized pro-life legislation are set on defeating 599 (how many pro-life bills do they represent?). I can think of only one senator in the past 2 years who has introduced pro-life legislation from the current group of senators supporting 599.

    If these senators continue at their current bill introduction for pro-life bills, right to life causes will be set back in Nebraska.

  83. Anonymous says:

    BTO is sort of like the George Zimmerman of the Democratic party, self appointed enforcer of his own morals contrived from his twisted worldview.

  84. Julie, you've gone too far says:


    So far I’ve stayed out of this, but getting a bit tired of your judgmental tone. I understand you’ve taken Jim Cunningham’s sense of ‘Social Justice’ where the only way to achieve it is through governmental means. You and Cunningham may want to look into the doctrine of Catholic Social Justice a bit more closely, pay attention to principal of ‘Subsidiary’. Cunningham has a tendency to find any way he can to push the progressive’s view of ‘Social Justice’. The actual doctrine is much more elaborate than your simplistic view of what Cunningham has explained to you. Attempting to fix every social issue through government means has seemed to erode some aspects of how we work together as a community to address social issues:

    The following is from Centesimus annus (48):
    By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

    The above quote was written in a Encyclical Letter by Pope John Paul II. Even Pope John Paul II is concerned about the same thing as we are, government isn’t always the solution for solving every social issue. While in the same Letter he does state concerns on how to protect the most vulnerable, we do need to find ways to do so. We must address these issues as a community, government may not necessarily be the one and only solution.

    You stepped too far, Julie. Fulton has a completely reasonable view as a Catholic. While Cunningham may also have a reasonable view. Cunningham’s view isn’t necessarily stating the one and only ‘Higher Standard’ that you think you’re referring to. The issue is much more elaborate and complex than you’ve attempted to simplify it to.

    Give yourself a chance to reset. I understand you’ve probably got defensive in this situation and have succumbed to the urge to lash back. I recommend that you take a different tack in how you lash back. I expect more from you.

  85. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    SoSo: We’re talking 4 bills over past three years. Your two year limitation also doesn’t include the 2008 intro of the cloning ban by Sen. Christensen, another 599 supporter. Your theory that pro-life bill intro will suffer doesn’t take into account that two introducers and one prioritizer are term limited out this year. In other words, new replacements will come in as always happens and they will have to be encouraged to step up to the plate. No one is irreplaceable. Ending one’s otherwise pro-life legislative career by abandoning the pro-life position happens infrequently and it is always concerning.

  86. Lil Mac says:

    7:05 AM. You want me to say government helping people is good but that government helping business is bad. Yet business is people and people are business. We are not apart from our economy. You want something simple, like good vs. evil, but such qualities exist within all people and groups. Perhaps you wanted me to hand you a Boogie Man, an evil cartoon enemy to vilify rather than face the awful truth that simple solutions don’t exist and your best intentions can have tragic results if you don’t know the right answer. But that is the case. There is an overabundance of dangerous naïvety that starts with us believing people are somehow different than people, and ends with us thinking money is an answer when money is really just a bucket of fuel.

    You ask me which smoldering problem I’d throw the bucket of tax dollars toward, on the assumption that money’s potential energy is enough to fix problems. Yet when was the last time you had a flat tire and you threw a bucket of gas onto your car and that made it run? If your car ignited, we’d not be surprised.

    This isn’t about the where you throw the money. This is about not understanding that money is sheer distilled human energy; volatile like gasoline and addictive like sugar. You can put a gallon in and drive forward, or drive it off a cliff. But throwing a bucket of it onto a smoldering problem won’t extinguish the problem but rather will ignite and burn that money and often destroy the very thing you were trying to save.

    Corporate bailouts feed the economic cancers that are America’s worst-run businesses. Welfare patronizes to victimhood and dependence entire populations of Americans. Paying unprepared parents to bear children, and uncertain parents to abort them, fuels more of the same behaviors. — Which should anger us more? Burning up our taxes or wasting them while crippling people and our nation? Or the tragic fact such awful things are done with the very best political intentions?

    The volatility of the money we throw at problems burns away self-respect while its sweetness addicts its targets, turning them into victims of government largess; a tragedy spawned by the kindest hopes of those who don’t think things through. And among them are plenty of members of all political parties. But of course, the bigger the government the more they attract those who would throw tax dollars at problems, hence I’d guess Socialist, Democrat, Republican, Constitutional, Libertarian, Independent, in that rough order. But it is really anyone who thinks throwing money at a problem makes it go away.

  87. LIl Mac, you left Conservative off of your list. But of course, they don’t want ANYONE to have ANY of THEIR money, and they think they got all of their money from their own hard work, with nobody else having a thing to do with it. But of course, if it weren’t for all the other folks in the society they live within, they’d have nothing but their own ugly mugs to claim as their own.

    Otherwise, that was a great analysis of the issue. Complimenti!

  88. Reality check says:

    Julie, Have you surveyed pro-life Nebraskans on this issue? Since when did you become spokesperson for us?! Have you even surveyed your own membership? You just said, “Ending one’s otherwise pro-life legislative career by abandoning the pro-life position…”. Are you saying that anyone who opposes LB599 has abandoned the pro-life position?

  89. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Opponents to LB 599 have abandoned the pro-life position on this particular issue. Too Far: In a letter to the Governor in March, 2010, when this issue first surfaced, Nebraska’s three Catholic Bishops described this as “an important and urgent pro-life matter.” The Bishops wrote: “The immigration status of their mothers should not be allowed to adversely affect the health and well being of the unborn children. When balanced against the legitimate public policy concerns about illegal immigrants, caring for the unborn children should be the higher priority, as the right thing to do.” While you might refer to other standards found in Catholic teaching, the distinction is this is what Nebraska’s Catholic Bishops have stated. The fact remains that the two most recognized pro-life lobbying entities in the State, the Nebraska Catholic Conference representing the three Bishops and Nebraska Right to Life, are in solidarity that LB 599 is a pro-life issue.

  90. Macdaddy says:

    “Opponents to LB 599 have abandoned the pro-life position on this particular issue.” Julie, you are absolutely wrong. Somehow you got it into your head that the pro-life movement is a socialist movement. It is not. It is a movement to keep babies from getting sucked out of the womb and tossed in the incinerator. There used to be an argument that was used to say that welfare is awesome and shouldn’t be cut otherwise women will opt for abortion. But you aren’t arguing that providing this will decrease abortion because you know that that argument is false. Now you are arguing that a baby will come out healthier and that the pro-life thing to do is have government provide some services for free. This is an argument for socialism and is the same argument underpinning Obamacare. Your logic leads directly to a totalitarian government. Do you let children ride bicycles? Hundreds die in bike accidents every year. You aren’t pro-life. Do you let kids ride in cars? Thousands die every year. You aren’t pro-life. Do you allow a religious exemption to skip vaccines? You absolutely aren’t pro-life, hell, that’s even child abuse. Pools should be outlawed. Fat should be outlawed. Refined sugar. Guns, knives, bats, husbands. If you don’t go to the dentist twice a year, you should go to jail. Your logic leaves absolutely nothing off-limits to the reach of the government. Oh, wait. How many people die due to government mistakes each year? This is not a pro-life bill. It is a pro-socialism bill. I thank the government for vetoing it.

  91. Macdaddy says:

    That should have read, I thank Governor Heineman for vetoing it. Had one too many Heinekens. Got to before they get outlawed under the guise of being pro-life.

  92. Anonymous says:

    I am not Catholic, but I am pro-life. And I don’t give a rat’s behind what any ‘bishop’ says, especially over two years ago.

    And shame on you Julie for saying we opponents of LB599 have abandoned our pro-life positions.

  93. Anonymous says:

    Julie, you are really screwing up here. You have just stated that those senators in opposition to LB599 have abandoned the prolife position? You arrogant, self rightous bigot. Pro life for most people is defending the right for a baby to live and not be burnt out of the womb. Now you have uped the ante. Can you garuntee that all women receiving this prenatal care, at an average of $2000 per, will have healthy babies? You are what defeats the Pro Life movement, with your endorsement of Nelson and now making this bill a pro life issue.

    LB 599 is nothing more than a means to put $$$ into the hands of medical providers. We’re you in the lobby during debate? Maybe you noticed all the lobbyists out there who work for medical providers. Waiting to see if they could get their heads into the public trough. You all act as if it were about the children when in reality it’s just about the MONEY.

  94. Anonymous says:

    Julie is right, she is showing guts and not backing down to the Governor or the NEGOP. She’s a genuine pro-life activist doing the right thing.

  95. Reality check says:

    So Julie Schmit Albin hasn’t surveyed her own membership. I noticed she dodged that question. And since when did Nebraska Right to Life become an entity of the catholic bishops? Seriously, you are hiding behind the catholic church here. What percentage of your membership support this bill?

  96. Anonymous says:

    Turns out the chairwoman of the Health and Human Services committee voted for LB599! No surprise there. But did you know Senator Campbell works for Cedars? Hmm…… And that Cedars will make $$$$$ from LB599 !!! So she is voting to give her company the money!!

    From Cedars web site tonight.

    Parenting Support Project (PSP)
    At-risk teen moms and single-parent families receive critical prenatal and post-natal services, provided in collaboration with Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department at 3140 N Street. Nurses and social workers use a proven case management model to help young parents respond to children’s needs while offering supportive guidance. This is a home visitation program designed to prevent child abuse.

    So is or does she have a conflict of interest? You bet she does!!!!

    Does Senator Flood represent any medical interests in Norfolk? Hmmmm Conflict of interest Mr Speaker?

    Did you all know the Catholic Church stands to make Millions$$$ with this bill?

    St. Francis in Grand Island will have their noses in the trough, and hmmm Senator Mike Gloor used to be the head honcho there? Wait he is a supporter too. Hmmm no wonder the Bishops support the bill $$$$$$$$


    Senator Campbell should NOT vote on LB599 like she did on all prior votes!

  97. Anonymous says:

    Did you know Speaker Flood’s law firm Jewell, Collins and FLOOD, represent Insurance firms like Employers Mutual?

    Now that Faith Regional is just like its name don’t you think they will receive a bunch of tax payer dollars from Seaker Mike Floods endorsement of LB599????


    Flood has received a LOT of $$$$ from medical types and now he wants more!!!

  98. Anonymous says:

    Are you serious Senator Campbell voted for a bill that will affect her company? Where the heck is Common Cause? Where is the outcry for “Transparency”????? Jack Gould are you just going to lie down and take this because you prefere it. Common Cause has lost all credibility, or what little they had left.

    I hope the Governor calls Senator’s Campbell, Flood, And Gloor On this serious breach in integrity. Talk about conflicts of interest!!!!

  99. Anonymous says:

    Follow the money cuts both ways. Let’s follow the money when some of these anti-prenatal care senators are term limited and see where they end up. Hmmm, is right! You’re naive if you think they aren’t setting themselves up for their next big run for office or a cushy job by virtue of having been in the Legislature. It’s the name of the game and it happens all the time. So when you’re pontificating about those senators who may have ties to medical entities that could benefit from this bill, look in your own backyard. Why hasn’t AFP weighed in with their position on LB 599? Any other time they’re right there on an immigration issue. This would be the same AFP that has a $600,000 media buy against Kerrey right now. You don’t think that kind of endless pockets organization looks attractive to those who do its bidding? What about national organizations that have a hard line against illegal immigration? Is it possible someone might get a consulting job from them, even while they’re still in the Legislature? Why isn’t the media asking AFP and immigration groups if they have a position on LB 599? Would that then beg the question, who do the opponents of the bill have in their corner when they leave the Legislature? Deep pockets can be found on the anti-LB 599 side too.

  100. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Reality Check: When did the NEGOP survey its entire membership about LB 599 to come out against it? Nebraska Right to Life is following its own mission statement. The NEGOP has conflicting policies regarding benefits for undocumented individuals and protection of the unborn as well as a policy statement citing the 14th Amendment (see Bob Quasius above) on protections for the unborn under birthright citizenship and equal protection. I have heard from Republican pro-lifers upset with the NEGOP for taking a position against LB 599 when the NEGOP is supposed to adhere to its platform re: the unborn. As for whoever called me a bigot. I never suggested that non-Catholic senators had to fall in lock step with the Catholic Bishops. Tony Fulton is the most visible Catholic pro-life leader in the Legislature and certainly among the Catholic community in Lincoln. As a fellow Catholic, pro-lifer I am troubled about his leading the way against LB 599, as are other Catholic pro-lifers I have heard from.. Likewise, his own Bishop is for LB 599. Citing the Catholic Conference’s support for LB 599 as it pertains to a Catholic legislative leader like Tony is not the same as telling non-Catholic senators they’d better follow the Bishops’ on this.

  101. Investigative Journalist wrote: “I am amazed at the hatred and dishonesty directed at unborn children whose only crime is being conceived in the wrong womb.”

    Wait…are you talking about illegal immigrants here? Or are you talking about the hundreds of thousands of unborn children that aborted every year in this country by legal citizens? A great many of those abortions are performed by Planned Parenthood.

    BTW, I see a few people constantly hammering the point that PPH doesn’t provide prenatal care, and because of that, they won’t get any money under this bill. Ahem…anybody want to guess how long it will be before they start? “Here you go Señora Gonzalez, a bottle of pre-natal vitamins!” And, through the magical power of creative accounting, PPH gets a cool Benjy from the guv.

    Indeed, since Julie keeps bringing the Catholic Bishops up, I feel I have to ask this question again, as someone else asked it and never got a serious answer…if the Bishops are so concerned about these women and the cost of prenatal care is as low as they claim, why doesn’t the Catholic Church pay for it? It seems that Catholic Health Initiatives, with about $8 billion in annual revenues, would be well-positioned to begin providing this care out of their own pocket. I mean, 1100 women x $2000 each = $2.2 million…a pittance compared to $8 billion.

  102. Anonymous says:

    How many of these kids will be aborted if the bill does not become law? Is that what we want to happen? Or since these kids are brown skinned and not white who cares is the attitude?

  103. oh really? says:

    Listen to Blessed John Paul II from Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel Of Life papal encyclical) paragraph 24: “When conscience, this bright lamp of the soul (cf. Mt. 6:22-23) calls “evil good and good evil” (Is. 5:20), it is already on the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest mortal blindness.” I would argue that is what is happening here with those who oppose LB 599. Pray for our senators and for everyone working on this issue searching for the light and for truth. LB 599 is in the best interest of the state. Override the veto! It’s the right thing to do!

  104. @Oh Really says:

    John Paul II was more elaborate in his views on this. He always pushed us to help the vulnerable, but also (from his experience in Poland) saw the trouble caused by too much intervention by government in solving social issues. The same John Paul II wrote from Centesimus annus (48):

    By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

    He gives a framework to look at the issue with a larger view. So, yes we should do what we can to help the vulnerable. But no, government is not the one and only solution to do so.

  105. oh really? says:

    But even the principle of Solidarity demands that we “defend the weakest” (see Centesimus annus paragraph 15). Subsidiarity doesn’t automatically win in every balancing test with solidarity. Unborn children certainly fall into that category (the defenseless weakest among us). Do you want to know what the bill will be to pay for hundreds of prematurely-born kids in neonatal intensive care units partly because they did not receive adequate prenatal care (state taxpayers will get that bill and it will be vastly larger than the fiscal note on LB 599 I guarantee you)? Do you want to put hospitals and medical providers out of business with people being unable to pay for their neonatal intensive care? Do you want to give unborn children the best possible start in life?

  106. @Oh Really says:

    These women and families are vulnerable beyond simply being pregnant. You’re focused is too acute on how to get government funding for prenatal check-ups. Where are you building the community to help serve these women? This is what I’m referring to. You solution tends to short circult the community from taking charge of a difficult issue, because it only focuses on a single aspect of how their vulnerable. Instead of creating a more comprehensive community based framework, you’re inclined to throw them into an expensive bureaucratic system that is very effective in the first place.

    I want to place an emphasis on community, which isn’t necessarily the government. This is family, churches, friends and other organizations.

  107. Macdaddy says:

    Julie, the NEGOP has not taken conflicting positions. There is a big difference between protecting the civil liberties of the unborn and having the government pay for something that is the responsibility of the mother. In general, civil rights include the right to life. They do not include the right to get free health care. It’s disappointing that you cannot grasp the difference, but very disturbing that you are willing to toss large numbers of people out of the pro-life ranks over a side issue.

  108. Some Thoughts says:

    I asked for some evidence about the financial argument against LB599, and all I got were unsupported assertions that LB599 would be more expensive for the taxpayer than the status quo, and RWP citing random statistics about California meth users.

    Let’s try this again: what is the actual evidence that this bill is going to end up costing Nebraska taxpayers more than not passing it would?
    The argument from the other side is that the taxpayer ends up paying for medical care for these children once they are born, and the care (including the birth itself) is more expensive because of the failure to have prenatal care. Evidence for that is available based on what we are actually spending now for kids on Medicaid, and studies of whether prenatal care reduces costs at birth and beyond for these kids. So… surely there is some kind of evidence on the other side, right? The argument is that this bill is socialism, bad for taxpayers, and so forth. Well, we already get plenty of socialism when the newly born infants go on Medicaid. So that leaves bad for taxpayers–can we have some evidence for that? I honestly don’t know whether this bill is a good idea or not. Another question is whether other states around us have coverage like this. Does ANYONE know?

  109. Reality check says:

    Julie Smith-Albin’s once again dodging the question. Did you survey your membership? Weather the GOP did or didn’t does not address YOUR group. I’m pro-life and I support pro-life groups like yours and I am against this bill. I’m willing to bet a majority of your members are against this bill also and are wondering what you are doing.

  110. Macdaddy says:

    Some Thoughts, I already addressed your concerns. I can’t link to the studies so you will have to google them yourself. Try “what’s the value of prenatal care?”. What you will find are some small studies that get extrapolated to say that prenatal care is of value, but the large, well-designed studies say that it’s a wash. In all likelihood, prenatal care is of economic benefit for normal pregnancies but of no economic benefit for complicated pregnancies. Why? Because pre-term and low birthweight babies, i.e., the ones that cost the most are very hard to prevent and prenatal care has not been shown to have much effect on those births. In fact, as more women have been getting lrenatal care, the percentage of preterm labor and preterm babies is going up, too. Sorry to burst all the do-gooders bubbles, but those are the facts.

    You can also google “what states provide free prenatal care to illegal immigrants?”. There are 14 that do. We would be a little island in a sea that do not.

  111. Flippety Flop says:

    LWS Red Herring alert: PP CEO Jill June says outright in LJS article that PP does NOT provide pre-natal care in Nebraska.

  112. @Flippety Flop says:

    Then it comes back to an earlier question: “Why have people Planned Parenthood lobbying State Senators for this Bill?”

  113. Anonymous says:

    JSA- You didn’t address the FACT that Sen Campbell will reap a benefit with the passage of LB599! So too will all the medical providers who were in the lobby.

    Pro life means NOT KILLING BABIES! Simple as that. You can’t make the argument that it is about the quality of life otherwise you would DEMAND gold plated plans for ALL babies until they are no longer babies which is??????????????

    Stop being a moron and using such flawed logic, it only damages your position on PRO LIFE. Right now you are no better than Sen Snowplow, kill all the babies you want, Conrad.

  114. Flippety Flop says:

    @@FF: Who cares? Call up Jill June and ask her. But one thing we know, it’s not b/c they will get pre-natal dollars out of this as some would like us to fear.

  115. Jill June needs to update her Website says:

    It’s really weird that I go to the Planned Parent Hood of the Heartland Website, click ‘Patient Resources’, then click ‘Services’ and I see Prenatal Care in the list of services on their website.

    She’s going to have to call up their web guy and have him remove that from their website. You know, because Jill June said they don’t do Prenatal Care, so they shouldn’t be advertising as such.

  116. Anonymostly says:

    Pre-natal care is an interesting concept. Back in the day, women smoked (a lot) while pregnant. And drank booze, too. Didn’t know they weren’t supposed to. Doctors used to not want women gaining weight during pregnancy. Thought it was bad. They didn’t take no stinkin’ vitamins, either. Just ate broccoli. I’m pretty sure babies were still born back then. In fact, several of us posting on here are living proof that babies were still born back then. And they will be still, even without expensive intervention. I think I tend to agree with Tony Fulton and other pro-life-types on this board who are saying this is not about being pro-life but more about being pro-immigrant and pro taking money away from taxpayers and redistributing it based on the fiscal priorities of the social liberals.

  117. Anonymous says:

    I would bet that most of the posters on this site had mothers like Anonymostly describes. That explains a lot, especially in the brain development area.

  118. Some Thoughts says:

    Macdaddy, I looked it up, and all I can find are statistics saying that prenatal care is ultimately a cost savings. I found one fairly recent study that was equivocal about the overall medical benefits of prenatal care, because of many problems assessing the data (for example, higher birth weights could be associated with more prenatal visits, because the farther along the pregnancy is already, the more often the woman goes to the doctor). But I didn’t find any information or studies saying that pre-natal care is NOT cost-effective, and many that say it is.

    Ok, the next question is whether the medical or financial results are different in populations receiving Medicaid, or among illegal immigrants. The only info I can find about this in particular says that “every dollar spent on prevention care for undocumented women, including prenatal care with screening for STD’s, saves over $13; and each prevented case of fetal HIV saves an estimated $400.” I don’t know what actual study that statement is based on so I don’t know whether it’s true.

    So, I still feel that we don’t have enough facts. I know this is a pipe dream, but wouldn’t it be nice if our lawmakers were making this decision based on facts about how much it really costs taxpayers, and what medical benefits we are actually talking about? I would like to know this kind of information. Without it, we’re really just playing politics with the gung-ho pro-lifers on one side and the gung-ho anti-illegal-immigrant people on the other side. How do the Senate candidates come down on 599? Has anyone asked?

  119. Some Thoughts says:

    Anonymostly, you do realize that back in those good old days when people were smoking and drinking and not gaining enough weight, they had babies that were premature, and low birth weight, and had fetal alcohol syndrome? Before people took folic acid and other pre-natal vitamins, we also had more babies with spinal defects? I will never understand the anti-science, head-in-the-sand mentality like this. If things were so good in yesteryear, why did we lose more babies and mothers, and have higher rates of these medical problems?

    I’m not sure whether the govt. should be paying for these things, but that doesn’t mean prenatal care is bad! If your wife was pregnant, would you think it okay for her to hit the bottle, smoke, and skip the vitamins? Honestly!

  120. How dense are you? says:

    Anonymous @ 113 and 134 show how dense folks really can be – Cedars doesn’t have anything to do with prenatal care or pregnant mothers. How in the hell would they benefit?

    Alright, maybe we need to make you folks a simple – REALLY SIMPLE – flow chart:

    Question: Is the child in the womb or unborn?
    YES: It’s prenatal care! NO: It’s not prenatal care!

    First the claim about PP and now Cedars?! We’re far past the point of absurdity.

  121. LindaR says:

    As for the “savings” argument advanced by supporters of LB599, that’s like Imelda Marcos buying yet another dozen pairs of shoes and justifying her behavior by saying, “They were on sale.” That whole “savings” excuse rests on the presumption that these children will be born and will remain on the dole their entire lives, which may or may not prove true. But without the LB599 subsidy and others like it, the affected women and their partners would be more likely to “plan” parenthood without ignoring financial considerations as they now do. Remove the subsidy, and having a family you can’t afford might actually appear to be the irresponsible, unfeasible, and unwise decision that it truly is. The prospective parents might then consider taking the necessary steps to delay conception until such time as they can truly afford to support themselves as well as a child. And if the prospective parents make the responsible decision, when their child or children are born, the entire cost of pregnancy, birth, and medical costs into the future will be borne by the parents, not one dime being financed by each of us with state funds. Now, that would be a real savings.

    Now, you may say that’s all well and good, but what data is there that specifically supports my contention that people would think twice about getting pregnant if welfare subsidies did not exist? Well, there’s this U.S. Census report that says that women who are dependent on public assistance are approximately three times more likely to give birth than women who are not. See page 7 of the report at this link:
    Interestingly, this census data seems to jive with what we’re seeing here in Nebraska. About 12 to 14 percent of Nebraskans are currently receiving Medicaid. BUT they account for an average of 43 percent of all the births that have occurred in Nebraska over the last six years. (I chose that time period because that’s the average for available data since the Unicameral’s attempt at welfare reform in 2005.)

  122. Bob Quasius says:

    Assertion #1: Planned Parenthood can get $ from this bill. Fact.
    Wrong, not unless PP starts providing prenatal care. If PP started providing prenatal care even without LB599 taxpayer funds could to to PP because all LB599 does is extend prenatal care to the unborn children of undocumented immigrants. Unborn children of citizens and legal immigrants could go to PP now.

    Assertion #2: Planned Parenthood kills babies. Fact.
    Yes indeed. PP does kill babies, and mothers who cannot afford prenatal care are more likely to go to PP and allow PP to murder their baby, so in fact LB599 takes business away from PP.

    Assertion #3: Nebraska RTL supports this bill. Fact. Julie Schmit-Albin advocates for this bill. Fact. NRTL dropped the ball in these same 2 years, never mentioning PP can get funding under 599.
    Any provider of prenatal services can get funding under existing Medicaid/CHIP. All that LB599 does is extend coverage to unborn children of undocumented immigrants. PP doesn’t provide prenatal care in Nebraska, so what’s your point?

  123. Whatever says:

    The problem with JSA is that she’s refused to criticize Governor Heineman on this issue. You can be for or against her position, but if one’s truly going to be consistant, they must be willing to go after every politician that disagrees with their position. She goes after Tony Fulton, but has not once gone after the Gov for being the leader in the opposition to this issue. All the other groups have, but not JSA and her group. She purposely avoids any direct criticism of the Gov. Wonder what promises he’s made to her to get her to do that?

  124. @ Bob says:

    Think about it. National PP provides care…so what if NE PP doesn’t yet….you don’t think they will? You are a business guy think—free $ from the govt, if we provide prenatal care? Other ‘franchises’ provide such service? Sounds like it’s time to ‘expand our services’ to get more women in here and ‘explore all options.’

  125. Some Thoughts says:

    LindaR, I appreciate your explanation of the financial issue. I am not yet convinced that 599 won’t be cost-effective, though, and here’s why. I do think these children will be on state medicaid when they are born and at least for some period while they are infants needing health care. If they have worse health problems because of lack of prenatal care, then I think we taxpayers will be covering it. Second, I think these mothers were going to have the babies regardless. They aren’t waiting and planning for a good time; they’re illegal immigrants as it is. Maybe those financial considerations affect other people, but those are likely not the ones we have to worry about with 599. The Census data shows a correlation but not a cause. Women aren’t more likely to give birth while on public assistance because they’re on public assistance; rather, they have other worse issues that are causing both problems, or indeed the public assistance happened because they had an ill-planned pregnancy.

    One other piece of data you posted is absolutely ASTONISHING: people on medicaid account for 43% of all births in the state of Nebraska? We’re paying for 43% of all births, really?

  126. Whatever says:

    RWP, not sure which PP website you’re looking at, but when you go to the PP of the Heartland, it does NOT list prenatal care. When you go to the main PP site and enter “Nebraska”, it brings up two main locations, both of which list:

    Abortion Services
    Birth Control
    General Health Care
    HIV Testing
    LGBT Services
    Men’s Health Care
    Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception)
    Pregnancy Testing & Services
    STD Testing, Treatment & Vaccines
    Women’s Health Care

    When you look at “Pregnancy Testing & Services”, it clearly states for the Nebraska sites: “If you choose to continue a pregnancy, we will provide you with a list of resources to help you obtain prenatal care.”

    NOWHERE does it say they directly provide prenatal care. Not in Nebraska.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.