Tweet
Harry Reid has scheduled a vote on the Blunt amendment, which would allow employers to refuse insurance mandates on virtually any medical service simply by stating a moral objection to the practice, for tomorrow. Reid actually introduced the amendment himself when the Republicans wouldn’t:
“We’re having our usual productive time in the Senate. Monday, no votes. Tuesday, no votes. Wednesday, no votes,” he said. “But I’ll tell you, we’re going to have a great Thursday morning. I finally figured out a way to — [the Republicans have] been stalling for a long time, since February 7, when we tried to move the highway bill. They’ve been holding this up because of contraception. They wouldn’t bring it up, couldn’t work anything out. So I did. I filed the — I brought the amendment up myself, and we’re going to vote on that on Thursday and get rid of that, and we’ll be able to do a highway bill. So, you guys, thank you very much for all you do.”
This forces everyone in the Senate to take a stand on allowing employers to impose their personal beliefs to deny medical procedures for their employees, even if they don’t share those beliefs. And at first, it appeared that Republicans would run scared from this thing. Certainly a couple female members of the Republican caucus appear opposed to the measure:
On MSBNC just now, Senator Olympia Snowe confirmed she’ll oppose the measure, echoing the Dem argument against it: “It’s much broader than I could support.” Snowe announced yesterday that she’s retiring out of frustration over “partisanship,” which has led to some (unconfirmed) speculation among Democratic aides that the Blunt amendment is one reason why.
Senator Dean Heller’s campaign has said he hasn’t yet taken a position. Senator Lisa Murkowski appears to be undecided, but the quote she gave to the New York Times suggests she’s pretty irked over having to deal with this right now. “I don’t know where we are going with this issue,” she said. “We’ve got way too much else to be doing.”
But this is not uniform. In fact, Democrat Joe Manchin, who will seek re-election in the fall, plans to vote for the Blunt Amendment:
“While I would have preferred that both sides would have come together around a solution like we had in West Virginia, I am voting in favor of this measure to protect the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America,” Manchin said in a statement.
Manchin also notes that in his home state, West Virginia law requires contraceptive coverage but also guarantees “religious freedom for employers or institutions that object to such services.” The law requires health insurance companies to also provide contraceptive care but exempts religious institutions that object based on “religious tenets.”
This suggests the limits of just making this about contraception. The truth is that the religious freedom issue is as much on the Democratic side as it is on the Republican side. Under the Blunt Amendment, a women working for a religious man who decides that pap smears are unclean, or that vaccinations violate his religious precepts, will have that coverage banned for her, regardless of her own views. That’s a serious religious freedom issue, and it’s a side of this that has not at all been hammered home. Indeed, this may be why Rep. Kathy Hochul, who won a special election in a right-leaning district back in 2011, got roundly booed talking about the contraceptive mandate in a town hall. Right now, only Republicans are owning the religious freedom aspect of this issue, and playing upon the familiar themes of discomfort with mandates and big government. Contraception should not be a controversial issue at all, and the revelation that Democrats have delivered free preventive services like this in the health care law will garner some support. But they’ve framed it quite narrowly, and that’s why it’s not an unqualified win.
The House may be treading lightly on this bill, but the confrontation in the Senate is more complicated than it appears.
UPDATE: Wow, Mitt Romney just threw most of the Senate Republican caucus under the bus on this. I guess he must think he’s got the nomination wrapped up.
UPDATE II: OK, Romney cleaned it up.
18 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Wow, Mitt Romney just threw most of the Senate Republican caucus under the bus on this. I guess he must think he’s got the nomination wrapped up.
You knew that wouldn’t last long, right?
Right now, only Republicans are owning the religious freedom aspect of this issue, and playing upon the familiar themes of discomfort with mandates and big government.
And once again, Democrats come off as the worst communicators in the history of politics. Which is why I’ll never, ever donate a dime to that rotting carcass of a party.
Mitt’s entire body must be one big whiplash. If six positions were possible on an issue, he would take them all.
Religious Freedom = Everyone else must obey Republicans and blue dogs and worship them as Gods.
Wow
That Kabuki Theatre gets complicated at times, doesn’t it?
” Religion has killed more people in the history of mankind than any other known disease. ” And it looks like it’s about to kill some more if the zealots have their way. Jefferson and Franklin are spinning like a warped roulette wheel right about …now!
I just fooled myself? To incredible to believe. Approval rating for senate lowest evah..http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance
Surprise surprise but then why should they care they are corporatists.
This is NOT a religious freedom issue. The GOP/TEAparty has just made it one for this election cycle. Thirteen states already require that if an insurance policy covers viagra, it must also cover birth control pills. These states have had these mandates in place in some case for decades. And until this year – it has never been an issue.
Health insurance is an employee benefit. It has nothing to do with religion. If the person objects to contraception – they are free to not use it. As far as the employer objecting to paying for it – most employers don’t pay the entire cost of their employees health insurance any more – so let’s ‘pretend’ that the contraceptive coverage is in the part that the employee pays for. There. Problem solved.
If you are an institution who hires employees that are not adherents of your particular faith, and who also provides goods and services to people who are not of your particular faith – you must follow the secular rules that all other institutions follow, including these insurance mandates and all other employment law.
This is NOT a religious issue. It is a dog whistle. A straw giant godzilla. A completely phony controversy.
And also – the best argument for Medicare for All – complete uncoupling of health insurance from employment there is.
Thank you, lokywoky! I have never heard it explained that way.
Wow, talk about a Blunt Instrument, but instead of baby seals being bludgeoned to death by a blunt instrument, arch-conservative religious Republicans are taking aim at the rights of American women with their Blunt Instrument.
How many men, women and children in America will die if this Blunt Instrument amendment passes in the U.S. Senate tomorrow?
This issue isn’t about contraception, or women’s rights. In reality its saying that your employer should be given the power to decide what you think or believe.
This is a vote that the Democratic Party can take to the next election. Looky how POS Repubtard voted.
Well it is fairly broad.
What if an employer only chooses to cover certain medical issues?
Isn’t this what this amendment allows.
If they say their religious issues don’t allow the coverage of someone who needs a triple bypass if they are extrememly overweight, then …?
If individulaism and being responsible for one’s actions, ie. being overweight to name one of many issues this can apply to, then …?
What about HPV? Promiscuity could be brought as an issue. And then wouldn’t the person have to prove they are not promiscuous? What about Chlamydia and Ghonorhea? Promiscuity?
How about covering people who are gay? AIDS/HIV, or fuck, any issue with gay people can be twisted down the the “religious freedom” idea.
How about heathens? WHy the fuck not? I’m not the same religion as the boss so they can say fuck no?
Well at least if we’re going down, we’re going all the way down. I hate to do anything half-ass. So let’s press even more on the accelerator as the bus heads towards the cliff. What could possibly go wrong???
They wouldn’t be required to determine how you think or believe but they would be able to determine what you have access to based on their own religious beliefs.
Basically, they can infringe on your right to have a different moral stance by proxy.
Uh Manchin is a Democrat and he’s voting FOR it. Snowe is a Republican and she’s voting AGAINST it. So this isn’t a party issue per se. Yes, many Republicans are demagoguing over this but there is a chance that as usual there are enough Democratic idiots for something like this to pass.
Have I mentioned that I dislike Reid and the Democrats for making it appear that women’s reproductive choices are something that should be treated as some sort of side game in political oneupmanship
It is a phoney issue. A distraction from the other awful things that are going on.
It’s not religious freedom. People have freedoms and rights and liberties.
States and the Fed have powers, and authority.
That’s what this is. Not just Religious “moral” authority to try to affect your behavior with guilt, shame and fear by threatening you with power over your soul.
But now through the government, they have religious power to deny rights, liberties or choices here on earth.
Cheap Trick Harry Reid. This shouldn’t be treated as a serious issue. Democrats need new leadership in the house and Senate even more than in the presidency.
UPDATE III: The Romney camp now says he’s for it:
Good grief — does Romney have any principled thoughts, statements? I have a feeling the only area where he has a clear idea of what he stands for is 1) Mormon issues (which he will not discuss) and 2) that any way he has maade money is absolutely good and ethical.