Scott Brown Cosponsors Blunt Amendment On Contraception Coverage, Elizabeth Warren Pounces

The Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON -- Senator Scott Brown, entering a political thicket pitting women's reproductive rights against beliefs of some religious institutions, is cosponsoring a bill that would allow employers and insurers to limit specific health care coverage, including contraception, based on religious or moral objections.

Read the whole story: The Boston Globe

Comments

[ApolloSpeaks2U]

10:02 AM on 02/17/2012

TED KENNEDY WOULD OPPOSE OBAMA'S BIRTH CONTROL MANDATE

As is evident from his letter to Pope Benedict and the bill that he sponsored in 1995 if Ted Kennedy were alive today he'd join with the Catholic Church and Republicans in opposing Obama's birth control mandate-which treats church affiliated religious institutions as non-religious entities.

[Downrivers]

11:36 AM on 02/18/2012

corporations charted by the state are secular in nature...it is settled law

[ApolloSpeaks2U]

01:28 PM on 02/18/2012

Still, the mandate requires Catholic self-insurance to cover birth control services which Kennedy would probably have opposed.

[ApolloSpeaks2U]

08:14 PM on 02/18/2012

It's not settled Canon Law.

[keithincali]

12:11 AM on 02/17/2012

How can Massachusetts citizens vote this pathetic cretin back into office when he's willing to allow employers to have this kind of control over their employees health care? Scott Brown, along with the rest of the GOP have lost their minds.

[kennyfasugbe]

04:24 PM on 02/16/2012

This bill guarantees that only liberal minded employers would accord their employees a descent coverage. All conservative employers will pocket more profit for lack of extending adequate coverage to their employees. What this bill is doing is shifting the costs of healthcare on the backs of liberals, while the conservative voters, as usual, suck up the largesse which they so vehemently clamor against.

[kennyfasugbe]

04:19 PM on 02/16/2012

I guess if my religion preaches not paying taxes to any "worldly" government, based on that logic, the government should oblige the member of my congregation tax exempt status based on conscientious objector premise.

[Pod-gers]

10:16 PM on 02/15/2012

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<

As far as I can see, this is a right granted to the people, and the government shall not interferr.

When issues go to court, one basis to decide is compelling interest. I can tell you all that since birth control is redilay available, the USSC is not going to rule that the US government can dictate to religious entities on this issue.

Now, I personally believe that BC should be free to all. perhaps we could get it at the pharmacy, Dr's office or hospital. I see no reason why we should get at at church.

I also believe we should have a single payer system to get the health care burdon off the backs of all employers.

However, here in MA, we already solved this issue years ago, so Elizabeth Warren, and/or her campaign has made a huge mistake on this issue.

[balihai2]

09:52 PM on 02/16/2012

Except that the compromise relieved religious org of paying for it or dealing with it at all.Employeenwill deal directly w/insurance company, who will not charge employee. So they have no reason to object except to deny all women of BC-because THEY don't believe on it.

The Church is who is trying to dictate in this case. Again-Pres. Obama said Churches do Not have to offer it or pay for it. the Insurance company will deal directly with employee separate from work.

Elizabeth Warren is exactly correct. Because in addition to wanting employers to not offer birth control, they also want to be able to deny ANY PROCEDURE,MEDICATION -Anything they dont agree with. Do You want your employer deciding if you can have say- a transfusion? k don't want mine involved in my personal medical decisions on BC or anything else.

Religious means each person is free to practice/believe what they want-not to oppose it on anyone else. Freedom OF Religion also means Freedom FROM religion.

[Pod-gers]

11:31 PM on 02/16/2012

Elizabeth Warren, bless her heart, will lose this election, because in MA, access to BC is not the issue.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/02/poll-puts-scott-brown-ahead-elizabeth-warren-senate-race/PcpUiX0lh0GoJmKCgWtjSP/index.html
.

[retromoderne]

06:50 PM on 02/15/2012

I think Elizabeth Warren should be sending Brown a thank you note... looks like he practically gift wrapped the election for her.

Doesn't he realize that the only way he got elected in MA in the first place was by appearing moderate? Guess all that just went out the window.

[Joe Attardi]

05:29 PM on 02/15/2012

Only in a Republican's twisted mind would "freedom of religion" translate to "freedom to deny things to others based on my religious beliefs"

[planetjeffy]

05:24 PM on 02/15/2012

caption on picture above
Warren describes Brown's shortcomings

[revr]

05:19 PM on 02/15/2012

The battle lines are clearly drawn and the question is - Are Americans going to ratify Republican social engineering and big government intrusion?

[iridium53]

04:47 PM on 02/15/2012

This would seem to be a good political move by Brown.
His base is the Republican right.
He can court the right-wing men and all the Catholic women that like being subjugated by Priests.
He can do all that while taking the position on First Amendment rights.

The counter position is women's equality, women rights, employee rights, privacy rights.
But, I'm sure he's done polling that would suggest that Catholic women will vote Catholic and not for their own rights and their own self-determination and their own best interests.

Catholic men have already gotten their back up on this subject because their priests have told them that even Catholic businesses should be able to not provide their women - wives, girlfriends, sisters and mothers- with contraception - and that they should all just suck up the costs themselves to protect the religious ethics of their church. Either men can take the pratical side of their women and their own wallets, or they can be bamboozled by the church into accepting that the church has a real reason to not pay for the full healthcare of women.

The net effect is that it makes those women who work for such businesses have to seek socialized support of non-Catholic businesses that will actually pay for them - beggars to non-Catholic businesses that will pick up the tab for their irresponsibility to their women.

[Pod-gers]

09:31 PM on 02/15/2012

ROFL Brown's base is NOT the Republican Right.

[-swift]

04:40 PM on 02/17/2012

It was when he got elected. He was backed by the Tea Party. Now he's trying to distance himself from them and play the moderate.

[efffox]

04:33 PM on 02/15/2012

What about a person's freedom FROM religion? This bill is a JOKE. What if your boss is a Jehovah's Witness? Are they going to be allowed to deny blood transfusions to their employees if their life depends on it? If Churches want to go into business, they should have to follow the exact same rules as every other business, or they should lose their tax-exempt status!! I'm sick and tired of Christians shoving their religion down my throat!!!

[Pod-gers]

09:32 PM on 02/15/2012

What does that amendment in the bill of rights say, anyway?

[sindurrella]

04:27 PM on 02/15/2012

Under this foolish bill, if my employer is a Wiccan and believes forest spirits and a little poltice can cure me, he can be exempted from providing even basic coverage!?!
...and Scott Brown is so dense, he couldn't wait to sign his name to this outlandish piece of legislation -

Just one of the ever increasing reasons to vote WARREN 2012

[notsostimulated]

09:50 AM on 02/16/2012

If your don't like your employer's health plan, get a job somewhere else. Why should your employer provide you with any health insurance whatsoever? Does he pay your rent or mortgage, your grocery bill etc?

[sindurrella]

11:23 AM on 02/16/2012

your comment is about as foolish as this bill. do you think jobs grow on trees?
Our health care system is based on employer provided coverage so there need to be certin standards, not coverage that can be modified to suit the employers "moral convictions". And, yes, my employer does, indirectly pay my mortgage and grocery bill....that's what paychecks are for!!

[Ladyrantsalot]

04:21 PM on 02/15/2012

Scott Brown is wrong if he thinks this will help him with the Massachusetts Catholic vote. The only Catholics who support the Vatican's teachings on the use of birth control (5% of Catholics) already vote Republican. This will just drive more women to the polls, and they won't be voting for the patriarchs. We won this battle decades ago.

[Pod-gers]

09:33 PM on 02/15/2012

ROFL Here in MA the issue is not birth control, the issue is hands off my religion.

[Ladyrantsalot]

02:45 PM on 02/16/2012

You're obviously not Catholic.

[dfranz]

04:13 PM on 02/15/2012

I really want to be able to put the caption under that photo of Elizibeth Warren on the main page.

"This is Scott Brown's definition of 6 inches." LOL

[jay1975]

03:58 PM on 02/15/2012

The real problem is our dependence on our employers to "provide" health benefits in the first place. This is just a symptom of a larger problem, which is that health insurance is too expensive in the US. It's ok though, as long as we, the peons, keep fighting over this BS, DC will keep steamrolling us to get their way. Silly lemmings, left and right.