Birth Control Amendment 'Dangerous,' Obama Spokesman Says

WASHINGTON -- Unbowed by the dust-up from last week’s contraception debate, the Obama administration has jumped feet-first into the next round.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in a statement to The Huffington Post, weighed in heavily against a toughly-worded measure being considered in the Senate that would greatly restrict women's access to critical health care services.

"Let's be clear about what's at stake," said Carney. "The proposal being considered in the Senate applies to all employers -- not just religious employers. And it isn't limited to contraception. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. That is dangerous and it is wrong. Decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss.”

The measure, proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) would amend the Affordable Care Act to allow any employer to exclude any health service coverage, no matter how critical or basic, by claiming that it violates their religious or moral convictions. Moreover, according to the National Women's Law Center, the amendment would remove critical non-discrimination protections from the Affordable Care Act. For instance, an insurer could deny maternity care coverage to a same-sex couple, an interracial couple or a single woman for religious or moral reasons.

Coming just days after last week's debate over the White House decision that religious-affiliated hospitals and schools had to provide contraception coverage in plans for employees, the Blunt amendment resembled a serious ratcheting-up of the culture war debates. But if the GOP calculation was that the Obama administration was in retreat (the president was forced to revise the ruling on Friday under political pressure), Carney's statement suggested the opposite.

Beyond philosophical support for the idea of expanding health care access for women, the White House recognizes that polls are on their side. And in the case of the Blunt amendment, there had already been backlash against Republican overreach before Carney's statement.

"[I]t's unbelievably broad," said Judy Waxman, vice president for health and reproductive rights for the National Women's Law Center. "I hear some people framing this about religious freedom, but I think it's really about undermining health insurance in an extremely dramatic way and letting individual people decide what is moral for everybody they employ or insure."

"Sen. Blunt’s proposal would render the notion of health insurance meaningless, and give businesses and corporations effective veto power over their employee’s health care decisions," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The legislative future for the Blunt amendment was, as of Tuesday afternoon, not entirely clear. The senator had attached his proposal to the massive transportation bill to give it the best chance for passage. It's a "vehicle that this president must sign," Blunt said. "If that doesn’t happen, I hope to get the next president to sign it."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid initially blocked Blunt's amendment on Thursday, calling it "senseless." But on Tuesday he agreed to allow a vote.

"This is a terrible vote for them," said a Senate Democratic aide, explaining why Reid relented. "We are thrilled at the prospect about spending as much time as possible talking about this vote. They are caught between their base and a hard place."

While the Senate has a Democratic majority, a handful of moderate Democrats initially opposed the Obama administration's birth control rule and demanded that it be repealed. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) co-sponsored the Blunt amendment with 19 Republicans, including moderate Scott Brown (R-Mass.). The number of GOP sponsors may grow.

Some Democrats who initially opposed the birth control rule, including Sen. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, and Sen. Bob Casey, of Pennsylvania, have not commented on Obama's revised decision or indicated how they will vote on Blunt's amendment. Neither senator responded to calls for comment. Other Democrats were outspoken in their concerns about the reach of the amendment's language.

"This would gut the protections that were established in the Affordable Care Act and open a Pandora's box that allows employers to deny coverage for virtually anything they might object to," said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). "I think this is really out of touch with where most of Americans are."

CORRECTION:An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) as Bill Nelson.

Comments

[sarahdavis1625]

04:27 PM on 03/01/2012

If women are going to have to kiss their birth control goodbye, then lets hope that men have to do the same with their Viagra. Because really, what is the sense in prescribing a man pills for his erectile dysfunction, if they are coming home to their wives, girlfriends, whomever, that refuse to have sex with them anyway for fear of getting pregnant with their 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th.... child. This economy is tough enough without more children running around. If you are unemployed, and land a job with an employer that refuses to cover OB/GYN needs, or lets say cardiac meds.... do you really have the ability to keep looking for an employer that will? In this economy I don't think anyone has that luxury.

Just remember this doesn't just affect women and birth control, this bill could allow any employer to refuse ANY type of insurance coverage on the grounds that it conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs.

[Jasmine777]

01:07 PM on 02/19/2012

Who is to say who helps a woman make health decisions about pregnancy? If you say it should only be a woman and a doctor you are over simplifying a very complicated issue. If a woman wants birth control or an abortion in this country, she can get it legally! Insurance companies and employers have never paid for everything people want all the time. They didn't pay for surgery to correct nearsightedness because glasses and contact lenses are the cheaper solution. This whining about handouts for birth control makes women look so weak and stupid. Plan medical expenses and unplanned sex binges into your budget before you commit to a lease or mortgage! Get a smaller house! Keep your pants on (both genders) if you can't afford the possible consequences of a natural act.

[margiebe]

01:16 PM on 02/20/2012

Is your middle name "Compassionate"?

[Angela Whitehead]

09:42 AM on 02/24/2012

This isn't just about birth control. It is about any thing the insurance company does not want to pay for. If you have ovarian cancer and the insurance company decides it is moraly wrong or conflicts with their religous beliefs you do not get the surgery. This is a wide open policy to allow all insurance companies to deny payment for any prosedure that they do not wish to pay for. This act would basicly make health insurance useless. You will pay for a service that you will never recieve. You seriously need to read the Amendment again and carefully. This is not just about birth control.

[guynamedjoe]

10:26 AM on 02/19/2012

This is being framed as a debate on contraception/abortion when it is actually a debate on if the government can force you to support policies that go against your conscience/personal beliefs.

It's a sleight of hand technique, that enables people to change the subject and muddy the water to conceal what we should be focusing on.

People should be able to follow the lifestyle they see fit as long as it doesn't harm themselves or others.

If the Rs or the Ds or any politician wants to run on a policy they believe in, we as the voters get to decide if we want to support them by voting for or against them. These elections come around every 2 years and we get to decide.

[metzlerd]

08:24 PM on 02/29/2012

No! It is not a debate about whether the government can force you to support policies that go against your belief. It is about whether you can impose your religious beliefs on another person's healthcare policy. Pure and simple. My answer is this: Either give me a healthcare policy or not. Don't pretend to give me a "health"-care policy that is really a "Catholic"-care policy or a "Christian Scientist"-policy. I determine what my healthcare is going to be; not my boss!
No insurance policy demands that people use contraception even if it is covered.
The stomping of religious rights happens only by imposing them on the coverage of the policy.
If Republicans want to be Big Government, Constitution Trashing sellouts then lets go to a one party system! I mean if the Democratic party is both the Conservative party and the Liberal party, then what use is the Republican party!
Give me Liberty or Give me Death!

[pmag88]

03:04 AM on 02/18/2012

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

Highest rates of teen pregnancy occurred during the late 50's. Also, more shotgun weddings that probably had a lot to do with increasing divorce rates starting in the 60's.

[Old Dirt]

08:07 PM on 02/17/2012

Obamacare is dangerous and it is wrong. Decisions about medical care should be made by an individual and her or his doctor, not the federal government, the President, or the Secretary of HHS.

[johnhensoninc]

10:10 AM on 02/18/2012

And not by his bank account or religious beliefs...

[elizabeth gerteiny]

12:04 PM on 02/17/2012

What could be more ludicrous than the foes of President Obama casting him again as a failure when again the facts bear out the opposite?

The current hysteria is not about "religious freedom," as both his political opponents and Catholic bishops assert. These are fraudulent words, still used, even though the president has offered a very acceptable compromise to the outdated controversy over birth control. Recalcitrant Catholic institutions, while providing contraceptive services covering total women's health, would not be obliged to act against their principles by paying for them; insurance companies would, a far cry from the expense of abortion, pregnancy and delivery.

Yet Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) is now introducing a bill that would not only deny all health services, in any given circumstance, to women, but violate one of our basic tenets---separation of church and state.

Extreme Rightists are using the lives and well-being of women to try and topple President Obama and distract attention from the real issue of the day---jobs---because they have no viable solution themselves.

What better way can we attest
To what The One we have's the best
Than pointing out his leadership
Provides much more to us than lip

And still his foes seek to distract
With arguments quite inexact---
The clear intent that we forget
Our most important issue yet--

Their vapid words are just a way
To try and make it go away.

Elizabeth Gerteiny
Author of The President of War
www.bushandcompany.org

[julierthanyou]

10:45 AM on 02/17/2012

if birth control violates your moral convictions, then don't use them.

i think it would be morally wrong to prevent access to birth control based on the extreme beliefs of a few.

also there is this little word called "overpopulation" to consider.

[MyDriveIsGreen]

11:31 PM on 02/16/2012

Please re assert a Women's Choice by voting in this poll and consider sharing it among your communities. A Public service of Sophia Sirius Publishing of Germany and New York. http://www.sophiasirius.net/
http://bit.ly/WomenRight2Vote2012

[The last sane American]

04:13 PM on 02/16/2012

""This would gut the protections that were established in the Affordable Care Act and open a Pandora's box that allows employers to deny coverage for virtually anything they might object to," said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). "I think this is really out of touch with where most of Americans are."

That is an unbridled speculation Senator which can very easily be tested

Allow a conscientious objection to the mandate. Then see if anyone tries to expand it from "reproductive rights" to any other part of health care.

[bcruder]

07:57 PM on 02/16/2012

Why should reproductive rights have any special status?

Either the "conscience" of one person (which might well be biased by a profit motive) outweighs the conscience of a dozen or a thousand others or it does not.

Is it perhaps that denial of reproductive choice keeps those women in their place and denial of other services harms men as well?

[The last sane American]

05:44 AM on 02/17/2012

Please explain how me asking not to have access to certain "MEDICAL HEALTH SERVICES" while the rest of the population readily accepts it, is a denial of YOUR rights?

[france111]

03:44 PM on 02/16/2012

This is what I asked Rep Issa.
If I am understanding properly you think religious beliefs trump equal rights. So::: A muslim can wear the habib while getting a driver's license and Mormans can practice polygamy. Right? I can hardly wait to see that come up. Sharia law vs the constitution. Go religion.
And let's make sure women have no say.

Why aren't more people putting these bozos up against the wall?

[The last sane American]

04:17 PM on 02/16/2012

When it come to conscience, the First Amendment seem to be on the Congress-man's side.

[non fiction]

10:13 AM on 02/17/2012

The First Amendment allows you to practice your religion as you choose. It does not give you the right to impose it on others who may disagree with you. That's called theocracy, e.g., Iran...and we do not live in one, no matter how many people would like that nor how many try to rewrite history. france111's comment may have been a bit hyperbolic, but I find it an apt analogy, given the fact that the only rationale many on the right seem to find in a legislative debate come from religious texts.

[The last sane American]

02:08 PM on 02/16/2012

Is no one in America allowed to question your divine wisdom, Mr President,

Or should I address you by some other title?

[non fiction]

10:20 AM on 02/17/2012

What are you doing here, if not publicly questioning the President?

[The last sane American]

10:42 AM on 02/17/2012

That is one of the remaining freedoms we have in this country.

[BetweentheLines]

10:24 AM on 02/16/2012

The day after the 2000 election I said that Bush would destroy America, and he lived up to that expectation beyond my wildest dreams. Then the day after the 2010 election when people stayed home thinking it was not an important election, and the tea baggers took over, I said that America would become a dangerous and hostile place for women. Normaly I like being right, but not on these two occasions.

[speedyfastcat]

02:36 AM on 02/16/2012

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
And I believe all ED meds are covered by all insurance companies.
Isn't this rampant discrimination?
I don't hear anyone talking about that.
Hypocrisy on an appalling scale!

[non fiction]

10:22 AM on 02/17/2012

Yep. From what I've read, vasectomies (the ultimate birth control...with no other benefits, as far as I know) are covered, and no one - including the catholic church - seems to have any problem with that.

[pmag88]

03:09 AM on 02/18/2012

he truth is hard to hear for those who don't want to hear it.

[arogthagriot]

01:12 AM on 02/16/2012

let me put this in perspective for conservatives. blacks and minorities have kids a 3 times the rate of you, and we have access to birth control, abortions, etc. do you really want to stop that. it would speed up the time to when you become the minority.

[TheDRBostonGuy]

12:49 PM on 02/16/2012

LOL!

[arogthagriot]

01:09 AM on 02/16/2012

there comes a point in any couples life when they cant afford any more kids. even if they make 50 grand a year. why should that couple not be allowed to express their love without the church deciding form them whats wrong or wright. sounds like religious oppression. dont we have some kinda rule against that

[The last sane American]

02:14 PM on 02/16/2012

There is and you know it.

The "Church" (actually a collection of religious organizations) Is simply requesting an opt out from a mandate which is contrary to those, whose conscience cannot allow it.

The rest may continue to act as they see fit. (we are somewhat surprised that the President seems unable to frame the issue as such)

[austxjr]

02:31 PM on 02/16/2012

Let's see 98% of Catholic women in America admit to using birth control at some time in their lives. It seems to me 280 old men called Cardinals are about the only ones whose "conscience cannot allow it".

[arogthagriot]

08:25 PM on 02/16/2012

I was being sarcastic, of course I know there is a rule against it. ob did give the church a means to opt out. but that wasnt good enough for them. and now congressman blunt want to let any employer deny any coverage to any thing they see as morally wrong. that means anything the want to deny they can. that will leave us hoping they would be good guys and pay for things critical to someones health, now giving big business track record do you think they will do that. their using religious reasons to deny any coverage they want, you cant opt out when someones health and even life may be on the line