Blunt Amendment Vote: Contraception Measure Fails In Senate

The Senate voted on Thursday 51 to 48 to reject a controversial amendment sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would have overridden the Obama Administration's new contraception coverage rule and allowed any employer to refuse to cover any kind of health care service by citing "moral reasons." Three Democrats, Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), voted with Republicans in favor of the amendment, and only one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), voted against it.

Although Obama's contraception mandate includes a broad exemption for churches and faith-based employers, Senate Republicans argued on Thursday that requiring any employer, even a non-religious one, to cover health services that they oppose is an attack on religious freedom.

"This is just the beginning," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor before the vote. "If the government is allowed to tell people to buy health care, it won't stop there. I wonder what's next? This isn't about one particular religion -- it's about the right of any American to live out their faith without the government picking and choosing which doctrines they're allowed to follow."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), one of the few Senate Republicans who identifies as pro-choice, reluctantly voted in favor of the measure, even though she admitted that it was "flawed." She said she was dissatisfied with the administration's response to her question about self-insured religious organizations, which may still be required to cover contraception for employees under the new rule.

"I feel I have to vote for the Blunt amendment with the hope that its scope will be further narrowed and refined as the legislative process proceeds," she said. "I do this with a lot of conflict, because I think the amendment does have its flaws, but when the administration cannot even assure me that self-insured faith-based organizations' religious freedom is protected, I feel I have no choice."

Opponents of the bill pointed out that the amendment not only would have allowed employers to cherry-pick women's health care options based on moral beliefs, but it also would have rolled back some of the basic anti-discrimination protections in the Affordable Care Act. For instance, under the amendment, an employer could refuse to cover things like HIV/AIDS screenings, prenatal care for single mothers, mammograms, vaccinations for children and even screenings for diabetes based on objections to a perceived immoral lifestyle.

While Republicans have been trying to frame the issue as being purely about religious freedom and not about women's health, female lawmakers and Democrats have argued that the amendment is the latest front in the so-called war on women.

"Women and families across America can breathe a sigh of relief that this radical amendment was blocked by Senate Democrats today," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) after the vote. "It was absolutely appalling that Republicans forced us to spend days and days dealing with contraception and women's health, but I am hopeful that we can now get back to work on legislation to create jobs and invest in communities across America."

Comments

[justin bieber wifey]

09:36 PM on 09/29/2012

lol blunt is a drug lets get high on this blunt andrewharland1 u with me???? lol

[cheepseat]

08:17 PM on 05/08/2012

hi HP

[cheepseat]

08:11 PM on 05/08/2012

As Sen. Murray said. It's appalling the Republicans forced the senate to waste days upon days on contraception and woman's health when they could be working on a legislation to create jobs and invest in communities across America. We need legislation that includes words like " job-holders" and " job-embracers" We need the moral majority in the House of Representative to propose a bill that is not a fail.

[ifished]

02:45 PM on 04/13/2012

Snowe blows.

[johndpieper]

02:19 AM on 03/19/2012

You right wing crazies like your separation of church and state right now, don't you?

[ifished]

02:47 PM on 04/13/2012

And you left wing crazies like your gays and Planned Parenthood, don't you?

[retiredfemale]

02:01 PM on 04/26/2012

Yup; I believe everyone has the right to love whom ever they choose and it is guarenteed under the 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' clause. I also believe that places like Planned Parenthood are needed to provide services to low income men and women including family planning, cancer screening and screening for STDs. I also believe all children should be wanted and loved which I will admit is a bit idealistic but I am allowed to be.

[Open Minded in MO]

01:43 PM on 03/14/2012

The employer-employee relationship is at the heart of this issue. As an employer of 1,000 people, mainly women, I do not believe that I should be required to provide an employee with any benefits other than fair and equitable pay. If I elect to provide dental insurance, it is my decision. If I elect to provide paternity leave, it is my decision. If I elect to exclude gall bladder surgery from my benefit plan, it is my decision. Any law that specifies the specific content of a health benefit which I either provide or underwrite is interferring with my relationship with my employees. There is no prohibition on an individual purchasing and using medications which are not inlcuded in a health benefit. For instance, vitamins and dietary supplements which may be very important for some with a dietary insufficiency could be purchased by the individual.
This is a very challenging issue and I appreciate the positions taken by all other than the radicals who are at either extreme of the issue. Let's not confuse issues nor attempt to solve other problems with the current topic of discussion.

[RaceCondition]

04:17 PM on 03/15/2012

If you don't pay your employees with a fair compensation package, that is to an extent your right. It's also the right of your employees to walk away from working with you.

[KDMac]

04:22 PM on 03/15/2012

Exactly! Let thefree market decide. If your benefits stink, you won't be able to attract good employees, so you'll either improve your benefits or accept lackluster employee performance.

[lindlolly]

08:00 AM on 03/14/2012

Why are women always getting blasted because they use birth control?? Last time I checked, MEN are 50% responsible for any sex that is likely to produce an offspring, therefore, MEN should be just as responsible for birth control!! Given this fact, why don't men pay for birth control???

[retiredfemale]

02:16 PM on 04/26/2012

Married men who have thier wives under thier insurance do pay and if they have a family plan and a daughter they cover her's as well; the majority of insurance companies have been covering family planning for over 40 years because it makes economic sense to do so.

[lindlolly]

02:56 PM on 04/26/2012

True. I guess I'm referring to all of the uninsured people, such as poor women & college students. They use planned parenthood for contraception. If planned parenthood is gone, they won't be able to afford pills. My husband's insurance is through a catholic institution and they won't pay for anything- not my endometriosis, hormone shots to treat it, etc. My daughter has irregular, heavy, painful periods but insurance won't cover pills to control it.

[bynddrvn5]

08:09 AM on 03/05/2012

This guy and people like him, should be kicked out of office.

Their outdated politics belong in the unemployment line and they should never be allowed anywhere near a position of power ever again.

Coming collapse of the middle class by Professor Elizabeth Warren: http://youtu.be/akVL7QY0S8A

[JulieB of CO]

03:30 PM on 03/03/2012

I know this subject is very "two days ago", but I thought of something I don't recall seeing discussed. Regarding this issue's impact on men, several writers mention banning Viagra. But have there been opinions on whether the Catholic employers are opposed to vasectomies? If not, that procedure would be a solution for women who would be impacted by lack of contraceptive coverage. A new day in women's rights would occur if throngs of wives demanded that their husbands have a vasectomy prior to any further relations. Of course, I realize that only pertains to a small percentage of women, but hey, it's a start!

[retiredfemale]

02:45 PM on 04/26/2012

The Catholic Church opposes any form of birth control, including vasectomy; the focus on 'the pill' is a blind, a slight of hand to trick so people don't realize it is all reproductive healthcare they want to prevent women (and men) from having access to under thier insurance. Insurance they pay for. That means no IUD or Depo shots for women who cannot take the pill, no tubal ligation or vasectomy for people who have decided they have had all the children they want. If reproductive healthcare/contraceptive care is not covered that mean no contraceptive counseling by the Doctor to determine what type of pill or other option would be the best is covered, nor would insurance cover the pelvic exam and cancer screening etc that are required before a birth control presciption is even written. It is not just the cost of the pill like they have tricked some folks into believing, it is the entire scope of services that comprise reproductive healthcare.

[mandabear21]

11:44 AM on 03/03/2012

I've always been interested in politics, but I was never passionate about it. I felt like nothing that would happen could affect me personally. Well this has done it. I'm not on birth control myself (or sexually active), but I can't believe the ignorant things I've seen Republicans saying about this issue. It's like they don't know anything about birth control and what it can prevent or that it can help with a plethora of medical issues. My sister went on the Depo at 15, not because she's a 'slut', but because she couldn't get out of bed from horrendous cramps during her period. Normal medication wouldn't help. You Republicans just don't care or have compassion for anyone other than yourselves. You would let someone die if they didn't have health insurance, and yet you call yourselves Christians. I'm just disgusted by all of it.

Obama/Biden 2012! First time voting!!!

[Christopher Hitchler]

01:08 AM on 03/05/2012

I'm a repub and I give a crap about many people whom I've never truly known. But to force me to care makes me apathetic. I pay taxes so why should I give donations to charities anymore. I still want to EARN the American dream and have personal pride in my life from my own successes. I'm against this mandate entirely. It's really just a coup to give more power to big pharma companies anyway.

Ron Paul 2012. The only guy who will let you discover your own freedoms without government intervention.

[Paeng S del Rosario]

11:36 AM on 03/05/2012

How people could be against this mandate and be okay with faith/church-based organizations providing insurance for their male employees with health insurance that covers VIAGRA and VASECTOMY.

These same faith-based organizations argued that they were NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE CHURCH when they asked for taxpayer subsidies. Isn't this a classic example of "having your cake and eating it too"?

If these organizations believe this mandate violates the tenets of their beliefs...THAT'S FINE. But return the billions of taxpayer money with which they CONNED the public. Or...they can create their own insurance companies that [only] pro-life supporters can purchase. If they're getting health insurance from companies that sell insurance to pro-choice supporters, drug addicts, alcoholics, and convicts, then these church-based organizations are nothing but HYPOCRITES.

[wick786]

10:55 AM on 03/03/2012

I don't understand the rabid opposition to the medical insurance mandate and its provisions. I live in Texas, not exactly a bastion for progressive thinking--although our Houston mayor is a lesbian--and we are mandated to purchase auto insurance. It's that way in most states. It protects not only the individual but those who do have insurance from taking on someone else's burden. I'm not allowed to opt out because I have a moral objection to, say, drinking, even if I don't drink myself. All drivers provide proof of insurance, or they don't get a license. Period.

[JNarragansett]

04:54 PM on 03/02/2012

I'd like legislation that would force other people to subsidize my alcoholic intake. Anyone who opposes such a measure is obviously a neo-prohibitionist that is trying to impose their teetotalism upon me.

[Samcat604]

11:08 AM on 03/02/2012

It is good to know that Government morals have officially replaced individual morals.

[Lady1genius]

12:14 PM on 03/02/2012

No, that is incorrect. Personal morals aren't being replaced by the morals of someone else. Big difference.

[LaureenMillarHolt]

01:29 PM on 03/02/2012

You must be referring to Dictator-in-Chief Caesar Obummus who started all this nastiness by declaring outright war on religion & the free exercise thereof when He decided that religious institutions/organizations HAVE to provide coverage for things that their church teaches against or otherwise believes is wrong.

[Honey Bucket]

05:52 PM on 03/02/2012

If those religious organizations want their tax write off they had better take care of insurance for their employees.
Obama 2012

[retiredfemale]

02:59 PM on 04/26/2012

Larueen: you really need to educate yourself on these issues; it is not the President who 'invented' this mandate, it is a provision of the Affordable Care Act that went into effect the first of the year that states all women are to receive equal access to reproductive healthcare: see the All women and the EQUAL parts please. No one is making a women who does not want to use contraceptives use them, that would be unconstitutional, however it is also unconstitutional to use religion to deny women access to the healthcare they chose.

[JACK DOYLE]

11:08 AM on 03/02/2012

LOGIC deliberately escapes them.If the employer has any no morals and wanted to avoid health care totally he could claim to be a Christian(LOL) Scientist and prayer would cure all ills.And then send a donation to the Republican kill the middle class party.
All civilized nations in the world have national helathcare but then we are not civillized the Republican party proves it.

[Shari Greer]

10:30 AM on 03/02/2012

Consider this: Insurance will not cover anything related to cigarette smoking... afterall it's your choice to smoke this and cause lung cancer, heart disease, stroke.... Questionaire reads:
'Have you ever smoked?' Yes, No. If you check yes.... you are screwed... albeit this 'drug' is legal, and available to anyone with the money... Or not cover 'erectile dysfunction'... " You don't have to have a hard-on to be healthy... no coverage'.... If we allow the companies with the most money to determine who gets health care for lifestyle issues.... we might at well hang it up. It's wrong. The issue should be about safety, life, and the value of good health. Not who or what is going to be 'okay' with this do nothing group in Washington.