iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

GET UPDATES FROM Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
 

Standing Strong Against the Extreme Blunt Amendment

Posted: 03/ 1/2012 10:12 am

In recent weeks, I've said repeatedly that I was dumb-founded that in 2012 we are actually debating whether women should have access to contraception. I had no idea I'd be even more dumb-founded today, when, instead of coming together to fix our economy and strengthen the middle class, the Senate is considering a measure so extreme that it would allow any employer -- religious or secular -- to deny their employees coverage of any preventive service, including contraception, mammograms --anything the employer deems unfit to be covered.

Let me say this once and for all: the power to decide whether to use contraception or any other preventive care service should be up to each individual woman, not her boss.

Of course, the Blunt Amendment is just the latest attack on women's health from the far right wing in Congress. Whether it's their attempt to defund Planned Parenthood or to roll back a common sense preventive care provisions in the Affordable Care Act, make no mistake about it, this concerted effort to reduce women's access to essential preventive care demonstrates a callous disregard for the health and safety of women.

Attacks like these are why Senator Boxer and I started One Million Strong For Women, to build a grassroots movement of Americans fed up with the far right's attempts to undermine women's health. We've been joined by several champions in the Senate including Senator Schumer, Senator Reid, Senator Franken, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murray, the DSCC as well as over 260,000 of you. I hope you'll add your voice today as well.

Let's be clear. Neither the recent controversy over the HHS contraception rule or this week's Blunt Amendment has anything to do with religious freedom. You don't have to take it from me, just ask Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In the majority decision of the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith, Justice Scalia wrote, "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting that the State is free to regulate."

The extreme amendment Republicans are bringing up for a vote makes it clear as day -- this is a political and ideological overreach -- not a religious issue. The fact they want to exempt all businesses from providing any preventive care for women is outrageous.

Please know that we will not stand for these attempts to undermine the ability of women to make their own decisions. If our Republican colleagues want to continue to take this issue head on, we will stand up as often as necessary to draw a line in the Senate and oppose these attacks against women's rights and women's health.

I hope you'll join us at OneMillionStrongForWomen.com.

It is time to agree that women deserve access to preventive health services, regardless of where they work. And it is time to agree to get back to work on legislation that can create jobs and grow the economy.

I hope you'll join the conversation today on Twitter at #1million4women.

 

Follow Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenGillibrand

In recent weeks, I've said repeatedly that I was dumb-founded that in 2012 we are actually debating whether women should have access to contraception. I had no idea I'd be even more dumb-founded today...
In recent weeks, I've said repeatedly that I was dumb-founded that in 2012 we are actually debating whether women should have access to contraception. I had no idea I'd be even more dumb-founded today...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 598
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
myhomeo
My micro-bio is empty
11:22 PM on 03/04/2012
It would be interesting to know what kind of health benefits The Christian Science monitor gives their employees. According to Republican rhetoric they shouldn't have to provide any benefits at all. If this birth control as a religious issue becomes a precedent, what is there to stop every business owner and corporate CEO from claiming that they've converted to Christisn Science so they don't have to pay health benefits? Will the government get to decide who are the real Christian Scientist? Sounds like a bit of a First Amendment problem. Will we them start seeing new religions pop up for business owners that don't want to pay health benefits? Will there be a government agency to sanction these religions. And what else will these religious organizations start refusing to cover? Prenatal care and birth for unmarried mothers? Sexually transmitted diseases? Can Jewish and Muslim organizations get policies that don't cover diseases that are caused by eating bad pork? Can an Amish business owner buy health insurance that doesnt cover employees hurt in automobile accidents? There are a lot of religions. This could get complicated.
11:05 PM on 03/04/2012
Employment should not be tied to health care, this isn't fair to all of us who don't have that option. Why should it be a non taxed perk. We use our fEw dollars after taxes to buy our high priced, high deductible ins. It's wrong.
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
10:25 PM on 03/04/2012
Employers should just stop providing health insurance and get away from this neverending hornet's nest.
photo
Nonyabizz
Facts are really just a liberal plot
04:33 PM on 03/07/2012
I have no doubt that employers would seriously like to do that. Unfortunately, unless there were a viable alternative, no one would do it unilaterally. It would become a serious employment bargaining chip... which is how it all started to begin with...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kimmiesm
The Truth Will Prevail.....
10:07 PM on 03/04/2012
@ladybug, the very reason that it is a very slippery slope is the very reason why government should NOT be involved with medicine. Government deciding what everyone needs is NOT FREEDOM OF PERSONAL CHOICE.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:53 PM on 03/04/2012
My understanding is that your boss is not supposed to know whether or not you are using contraception (or any other medical service, medication or treatment)

I thought that was supposed to be CONFIDENTIAL information

I think a lot of people would be upset (to say the least) if they thought their bosses were reviewing their detailed health care records
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
iskra
Natural enemy of sharks and tro//s
08:33 PM on 03/04/2012
Be very careful Catholics. Having an endless string of babies is considered by many to be irresponsible and drives up insurance rates for everyone. Since Santorum thinks environmental concern is a 'theology' then maybe employers of that theology should not cover pregnancy with their insurance.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
iskra
Natural enemy of sharks and tro//s
08:26 PM on 03/04/2012
I <3 my Senator
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CynAnne
Laureates in Fact and Reality
03:14 PM on 03/04/2012
An excellent article, Senator Gillibrand, and I agree completely. I've told family and friends that the T-Publican'ts want to take America back to the 1800s, where the majority of the poor were semi-liter­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­a­­­­­­t­­­­­­­e­­­­­­­­, a time when women were little more than chattel, passed from fathers to future-hus­bands like trading cards, poor children starved in the streets and those that made it to adulthood usually had only two choices for their 'life plan': military conscripti­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­o­­­­­­n or dangerous, underpaid labor. "By their works shall you know them"...an­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­d the T-Publican­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­'­­­t­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s have become most telling, and in THE most unpleasant ways.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
iskra
Natural enemy of sharks and tro//s
08:42 PM on 03/04/2012
14th century. 

Women are the font of sin, as "Saint" Augustine put it "      “Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men.”

This the mentality driving this instani_ty
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CynAnne
Laureates in Fact and Reality
04:50 AM on 03/05/2012
It's almost as bad as the Talibans edicts, and it's appalling to think there are men in the 21st century harboring such antiquated and ill-willed ideas.
02:59 PM on 03/04/2012
I am baffled that some people think contraception is only for pregnancy prevention. As a medical student and future doctor I know this couldn't be further from the truth. Contraception is used as a treatment for a variety of female health issues, such as, PCOS, endometriosis, and dysmenorrhea just to name a few. To think that the only reason that a woman is on birth control is because she wants to have rampant sex is ignorant. Please educate yourself before you speak and make yourself look like an idiot. Contraception for women's health issues is no different than a Type I diabetic who needs insulin. Also, why aren't the religious groups up in arms that many insurance plans cover Viagra? Viagra is the main drug that allows men to have "rampant" sex. The only condition that Viagra treats are limp penises. Yet, I don't see any Congressional hearings about insurance coverage of Viagra. Also, where does it end, what if employers say that they don't want to treat any illnesses for any of there overweight employees because it's a personal choice to be a fatty, and they don't believe that being overweight is moral so they won't cover treatment for disease like Type II diabetes. So before you jump on the far right bandwagon and attack women's health, educate yourself and realize that this is a slippery slope that you might not want to slide down.
03:32 PM on 03/04/2012
The Catholic church think viagra is OK because it is used so that procreation can occur "wink, wink." Right, that 's why the little blue pill folks had a 74 year old Bob Dole as their spokesman.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JessWonderin
09:43 PM on 03/04/2012
anyone married to a partner unable to "reproduce" should be BANNED fro having access to Viagra . . . as should any UNMARRIED male . . . . and each prescription should have single use dosage, three day wait and exam with written consent of wife and clergy . . . .
08:08 PM on 03/04/2012
This isn't about "access" and you know it. This is about requiring religious institutions to supply a voluntary treatment to which they are and have always been opposed to as is their right. And, dear Pre-doctor, tell me, abortifacients what non-birth control conditions do they treat? If you don't think that men should have their Viagra paid for, then take that up with the insurance companies.

It's a slippery slope either way, my dear. Just wait until the government gets to tell you how, when and IF you can treat your patients and the government has access to ALL of your patients records...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
iskra
Natural enemy of sharks and tro//s
08:31 PM on 03/04/2012
40% of all birth control pill prescriptions are for medical reasons. Please educate yourself, it's embarrassing. 

 The government has the right to set minimum insurance coverage standards, Has for decades. In fact these very same minimums have been in place in 28 states for over 20 years. 

The slippery slope is allowing an employer to skirt business laws based on their 'belief'. That would allow the belief to override the laws of the land, and that my dear, will not happen because the repercussions of that would be catastrophic.

The church itself is exempt. Either obey the law or stop running a business and stop taking taxpayer money.
08:34 PM on 03/04/2012
Yes it is about access. You sound like you to SERIOUSLY educate yourself, as birth control is not an abortifacient, meaning birth control doesn't stop a pregnancy after implantation. You must not have fully read my post because I listed a few medical conditions that birth control treats. Why should I take up my issue with Viagra with the insurance companies....it seems like I should take it up with my Congressman, since that is what the religious are doing about birth control. Hmmm.....so should Christian Science employers not have to pay anything for healthcare, since they don't believe in the use of modern medicine? How about the Mormans, should we let them exclude the coverage the blood transfusions? Where does it end?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NorthernLite
The future belongs to the people of reason
02:56 PM on 03/04/2012
One of my previous managers was a Christian Scientist. I wonder which medical procedures he would have permitted. Well GOP acolytes, any ideas on that?
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
10:28 PM on 03/04/2012
None would be my hope.
Employers should just stop providing health insurance altogether.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anitaj
02:22 PM on 03/04/2012
People suffer any time public health policy is dictated by religion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReadMyLipstick1
It can't be that hard.
01:40 PM on 03/04/2012
Senator Gillibrand, it is extremely refreshing to hear a politician relate to the situations confronting women today in the area of health care and preventive health care. I am appalled to realize that the issues being presented today will, if permitted to become realities, will set women back over 100 years. Thank you for your understanding and your standing on these issues!

I urge women to become more knowledgeable about what is going on today which will affect them and their daughters, and to become involved in these matters.
08:35 PM on 03/04/2012
I pay for contraceptive pills of my girlfriend, it's 12 bucks a month, I don't think they should be covered by insurance and ultimately by taxpayer dollars. Contraceptive pills used for illnesses should indeed be covered, but not pills for sexual pleasure.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JessWonderin
09:48 PM on 03/04/2012
why are you not abstaining and doing only married sex for reproduction? Isn't that against "religion"???? I would think boinking out of wedlock for pure lustful selfish reasons would violate the letter if not the spirit of the entire "objection" of "religious institutions" supplying contraception???

seems a little hypocritical . . . but that may just be me . . .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kimmiesm
The Truth Will Prevail.....
10:14 PM on 03/04/2012
I totally agree with you.
01:23 PM on 03/04/2012
You left the word "conduct" out of Scalia's quote.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CabCurious
let's be honest
12:03 PM on 03/04/2012
Amen!

Let's not forget the 45 million uninsured. And let's not forget that most of them WORK.
04:49 PM on 03/04/2012
Why imagine 50 dollar a gallon it should be 2$