Romney clarifies stance on Blunt Amendment: "Of course" I'm for it

Mitt Romney.

After suggesting Wednesday that he did not support a controversial measure allowing U.S. employers to opt out of a rule requiring them to provide employees with contraceptive health coverage, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney quickly clarified his position, affirming in a radio interview that "of course I support the Blunt Amendment."

Confusion surrounding his position on the issue emerged earlier in the day, when Romney said he opposed the amendment in an interview with the Ohio News Network.

In the interview, reporter Jim Heath asked Romney about a measure he described as "Blunt-Rubio." Heath asked: "The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? [Santorum] said he was for that, we'll talk about personhood in a second; but he's for that, have you taken a position?"

Romney said he was "not for that bill," and that he was not going to get into questions about whether people should use contraception.

"I'm not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I'm not going there," he said.

The Romney camp quickly said Romney is indeed for the bill and took issue with Heath's characterization of the measure in question. The Blunt Amendment would allow employers to deny their employees contraceptive care, as well as other services, if doing so conflicts with the employer's "religious beliefs or moral convictions." Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. co-sponsored the measure.

The amendment would not explicitly allow employers to "ban" providing contraception; rather, it would authorize an exemption on moral or religious grounds for those who don't want to provide it. It is unclear what exactly Romney thought Heath's characterization of the measure implied.

Shortly after the interview, a spokesperson for Romney attempted to clarify his position, arguing that the wording of the question had been "confusing" and that Romney is in fact in favor of Republican Sen. Roy Blunt's measure, which has come under criticism from women's rights groups.

"Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing. Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith," Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said in a statement.

On the Howie Carr radio show later on, Romney said explicitly that "Of course I support the Blunt Amendment."

He explained that he was confused by the question and thought the reporter was referencing legislation in Ohio, despite the fact that it was explicitly referred to as Blunt-Rubio.

"I didn't understand his question, of course I support the Blunt amendment," he said. "I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception so I was simply -- misunderstood the question and of course I support the Blunt amendment."

Romney's previous response to Heath suggests he may not previously have been aware of the Blunt bill or what it aims to do.

The Obama campaign was quick to seize on what it cast as Romney's "flip-flop" on the issue, accusing him of being in a "race to the bottom" with Rick Santorum on women's issues.

"In one hour, Mitt Romney showed why women don't trust him for one minute. It took little more than an hour for him to commit his latest flip-flop. Even worse, he ended up on the wrong side of an issue of critical importance to women," Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.

"While Mitt Romney may be in a race to the bottom with Rick Santorum to see who can pander most to the far right-wing, his embrace of extreme policies like the Blunt Amendment would have real life consequences for millions of women," she added.

The amendment, which is attached to a transportation bill, is expected to come to a vote in the Senate on Thursday.

[michaelkaufman393]

I was for it before I was against it, or was I against it before I was for it? Fool me twice shame on you, fool me once sham on the president/ or was it the press. Why are all the GOP people they interview so dumb?

[lg144]

Republicans wants to control women but will they control their votes come November?

[Lionhart40]

Amazing that the dark ages have returned for women. Ya know what? Let's tie all these issues together! Let's go with the Wilmington City Council too as part of the bill!"[Each 'egg person' and each 'sperm person' should be deemed equal in the eyes of the government and be subject to the same laws and regulations as any other dependent minor and be protected against abuse, neglect or abandonment by the parent or guardian," says the resolution. "[L]aws should be enacted by all legislative bodies in the United States to promote equal representation, and should potentially include laws in defense of 'personhood,' forbidding every man from destroying his *****.
Following this line of theory it would of course naturally follow that any man found guilty of masturbating would have to be charged with attempted murder at least, and premeditated murder if his actions were ummm... successful!!
In my wildest imagination I couldn't come up with a better way to get rid of Politicians! LMFAO!!!
It sure gives "happy ending" and "spermicide" a whole new meaning! LOL
GOVERNMENT AND EMPLOYERS DON'T EVER GET THE RIGHT TO BE IN CONTROL OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES BASED ON THEIR VIEW OF RELIGION

[lg144]

Republicans are anti science and their representatives are not towering intellectuals. Think G.W. Bush, Rick Perrk, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh etc.

[norcalruss]

Romney clarifies his position on Blunt amendment
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What a surprise! Willard the Waffler flip-flops YET again. This is whatthe umpteenth time? Mittens Zombie has ZERO commitment and creditability and will say and do whatever to seize power. Is it any wonder that many don't trust him at all?

[RayS1954]

Mr. Flip meet Mr. Flop

[dmwj2]

Women of ancient Egyptian used crcodile dung as a contraceptive barrier...

[ProgressNow]

Did the government pay for it??????

[Zann-Zel]

Zann --

If you're a woman, who do you think should have control over your choice to use contraception: You or your employer?

Mitt Romney apparently thinks your employer should be able to deny you coverage for birth control.

Tomorrow morning, Senators Roy Blunt and Marco Rubio are putting a bill on the floor of the Senate to allow all employers -- not just religious organizations -- to deny insurance coverage for birth control and any other medical service they find "morally objectionable."

For a brief moment this afternoon, it looked like Mitt Romney was showing some spine and opposing the proposal. But literally within minutes, his campaign walked it back, clarifying that he supports the bill that would let any woman's boss decide whether or not her preventive care is covered.

If the bill passes, you can thank Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum's support for helping to pave the way for this anti-contraception agenda.

I'm not just sending this email to women. This is an issue for everyone: We're not about to sit back and let the other side tear down access to better care.

Stand for a woman's right to make her own health decisions.

Crafted in response to President Obama's announcement that birth control will be available to women, without any co-pay or deductible, the Blunt-Rubio bill would let employers deny coverage for any medical services they object to. This is not about churches and houses of worship -- they're already exempt under the Obama administration's guidelines. This is about any employer -- a restaurant, a retail store, or a corporation -- having the power to decide what's best for you and choose not to cover the care you need.

It doesn't stop at birth control. Your employer could also deny coverage for a number of preventive services: mammograms, cancer screenings, and possibly even flu shots.

If the Republican bill becomes law, the nearly 80 million women who receive coverage through their employers could lose access to these preventive services, which many just gained under the Affordable Care Act. And the decisions being made about their care would more likely be left to men: Businesses are 80 percent more likely to be owned by them.

That's the agenda that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are endorsing. And it doesn't end with just this amendment.

Romney said he would have supported a "personhood" amendment for Massachusetts, which could have banned many common forms of birth control, including the pill, and fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. And he's supported legislation to force women seeking abortions to first view ultrasounds. Rick Santorum's actually called contraception "harmful to women" and "harmful to society."

Now the Senate is voting on whether employers should be able to object to certain kinds of medical care, willy nilly. Tell these Republicans that this is a dangerous overreach.

Tell them we all should be able to make our own health decisions:

http://my.barackobama.com/Our-Own-Health-Decisions

[Lindag10]

Great comment. Employers could strip health coverage of just about everything on the basis of "moral objection". This doens't only affect women's health, but could lead to "moral objections" about many things that affect men's health care as well.

[Zann-Zel]

And there just might be a few men out there who care about the health of the women in their lives....their daughters, wives, mothers, sisters, friends.....

[AttyFAM]

Now Romney is also trying his best to alienate the women of America. And succeeding. Republican "values" consist of preservation of the rich, white anglo-saxon protestant patriarchy that runs the country.

So much for the party of Lincoln. So much for the party of Teddy Roosevelt. So much for the party of Eisenhower.

[dj_chi]

Mitt was against the Blunt amendment, until he was told that he needs to be for it. He of course complied.

[omnibus66]

The Blunt amendment would allow your employer to determine what your health insurance would cover, based on his personal beliefs and values. So let's suppose that your boss is a Christian Scientist. Then your insurance would cover virtually nothing. Or perhaps he believes that cancer is God's way of removing undesirables. Guess what? No cancer coverage.

Put Blunt in the crazy Republican column. But wait, I see he's already there with the rest of them.

[Zann-Zel]

I could see Insurance companies turning this around to say "Well I'm sorry your policy doesn't cover that, its because of your employeers religious beliefs."