immoderate "moderates" like Nelson and Lieberman have been holding their votes hostage for reasons of extreme ideology, personal pique and showboat narcissism. If Ben Nelson scuttles this bill merely because he wants more extreme anti-abortion language than currently exists--the Hyde Amendment forbids the use of federal funds for abortions, which is more than enough, thank you--then his "pro-life" position somehow neglects the millions of people, already born, whose lives are in danger because they have no access to preventative and chronic care.
Klein is wrong. There is not one "Hyde amendment" that applies to all federal programs--the Hyde language must be attached to various appropriations bills to keep tax dollars from paying for abortions, for example, through Medicaid, the federal employees health insurance program, or Indian Health Services. So the Hyde language also needs to be applied to the Democrats' health-care bills--which is exactly what the Stupak/Nelson amendments would do. Klein would do well to read the text of the Hyde, Stupak, and Nelson amendments rather than believing the Democrats' propaganda. Or, at the very least, he might want to read his colleague at Time Michael Scherer: "The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government's role in the financing of abortions." And, of course, Klein's assertion that the health-care bill is objectively "pro-life" is absurd: see Tom Coburn's Wall Street Journal op-ed on rationing in Obamacare.