Senate to hold formal vote on reversing contraception rule
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., talks to reporters on Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012.
/ AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite"I have agreed to a vote on contraception," Reid told reporters late Tuesday as he blasted Republicans for pushing to attach "extraneous" provisions to an unrelated transportation bill.
The amendment addressing contraception, sponsored by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, would exempt employers from providing health benefits that conflicted with their "beliefs or moral convictions."
President Obama announced Friday that the government will not force religiously-affiliated institutions such as schools, charities and hospitals to directly provide birth control coverage as part of their employees' health care coverage, in the wake of an uproar from religious leaders over the administration's original language surrounding the regulation.
Blunt has blasted the Obama administration for requiring contraceptive coverage for religiously-affiliated employers, and says that even the White House's recent tweak to the rule infringes on faith-based institutions' right to moral objection.
"What has to be protected here is the faith-based rights of conscience. That's what this debate is about," Blunt said Monday.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a women's health advocate and leading opponent of Blunt's amendment, welcomed the decision to allow a vote, which allows some conservative Democrats to voice their opposition to the White House. The amendment is expected to be rejected.
"Let them bring it to the floor," the California Democrat told MSNBC's Al Sharpton Tuesday night. "We are ready to vote. This is so extreme."
Boxer argued that the language of the amendment is so broad that it would enable employers to exploit the use of moral objection to deny their employees insurance.
"Let's use an example. Let's say somebody believes that medicine doesn't cure anybody of a disease but prayer does," she said. "And then they decide no medicine. No medicine. And under the Blunt amendment, they could do just that."
About 61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers; 31 percent oppose such coverage, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll released Tuesday.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 296 Comments
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 124 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 381 Comments
- FBI seeks anonymous source behind Menendez allegations
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 256 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 226 Comments
- Obama: I didn't know about IRS report 613 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
She's suggesting the amendment allows it - frankly it's always been allowed.
Now there are some provisions that will penalize employers with more than 50 employees - but it stops far short of requiring health insurance - for any reason, on religious grounds or on random grounds - the law simply doesn't require employers to have health insurance.
One thing to keep in mind folks - is that Doctors, Nurses, Hospital administrators already have access to contraceptions and the poor - can get them for free from Planned Parenthood.
This rule is not now, nor has it even been about healthcare or contraceptives - because everyone in question already has the contraceptions they want. Either they can easily afford to pay for them - or they are free from Planned Parenthood.
What people don't actually have access too - like the ability to fully pay for dental care - many employers pay no more than $1000 per year - even when you need $5000 worth of dental surgery.
Or many employers ban certain procedures like bariatric surgery - and this is done for cost reasons - and its completely allowed!
It's just ashame that Catholics aren't against bariatric surgery - then maybe we'd have a wedge issue, so that it could be addressed by the president.
Two questions:
1.) Why are Republicans waging war against women?
2.) Why do women vote for Republicans?
---
by aghast101 February 15, 2012 12:29 PM EST
Why are you twisting this.
---
Twisting what? Republicans have voted UNANIMOUSLY in committee NOT TO RENEW the Violence Against Women Act (credited with reducing domestic violence) that was approved by significant bi-partisan majorities in 2000 and 2005.
a better question, other than the corporate wealthy, why would anyone vote republican?
Maybe they work for a living and want to keep some of their paycheck?
Maybe they think it's wrong to use welfare as a career choice?
Maybe they can add and subtract. A skill that eludes virtually all Democrats?
Just sayin......
this alternative provides a loophole to the Democrats to flee their responsibility, the reasons are obvious , it's amazing why deprive workers in religious institutions of this benefit at the expense of rich employers?
"au revoir"
1.) Why are Republicans waging war against women?
2.) Why do women vote for Republicans?