- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House unveils bill to speed deportations of illegal immigrant children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
- Hillary: ‘Dead broke’ comment was ‘inartful,’ but insists it was ‘accurate’
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
- Appeals court upholds Obamacare tax as constitutional
- As fighting in Gaza rages on, Kerry battles hapless bumbler perception
- New Englander Scott Brown turns his gaze to the U.S. border crisis
- Toronto’s Rob Ford takes rehabbed self to kids’ playground for political props
Senate narrowly defeats contraception amendment
Question of the Day
Senators narrowly rebuffed a Republican-led attempt Thursday to undo President Obama’s new contraception mandate as the culture wars and charges of religious freedom violations spilled out onto the chamber floor and both parties vowed to make the vote an issue in November’s elections.
On a 51-48 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment to a transportation-funding bill offered by Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican, that would have allowed employers to opt out of covering health care services to which they had moral or religious objections.
The Catholic Church in particular has objected to the mandate, arguing that it violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion by forcing church-affiliated colleges and hospitals to fund something that the church teaches is morally objectionable. But Democrats inside and outside government said the proposal went too far and would go beyond contraception by letting any business or insurer refuse to provide any medical service.
The vote reflected sharp partisan divisions, with every Republican but one voting in favor of the amendment and all but three Democrats opposed.
“The closeness of this vote shows how high the stakes are for women this year,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat. “A Republican-led Senate might pass this bill, a Republican president like Mitt Romney would definitely sign it. If Republicans keep this up, they’re going to drive away independent voters.”
But Republicans in Congress and the presidential field argue that the issue is religious freedom and noted that the amendment does nothing more than restore the status quo, circa 2009.
“Religious institutions and persons will now be compelled by the state to violate their conscience,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican. “Prior to 2010 and the passage of Obamacare, the First Amendment was intact. Today, it is in tatters.”
The fight began in January after the Obama administration added all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration to the list of mandatory preventive services that insurance plans must cover without charging co-payments or deductibles.
The administration offered churches an exemption to directly paying for contraception coverage and later expanded it to religious schools, hospitals and charities. Many religious leaders called the offers a bookkeeping gimmick. They pointed out that insurance companies will simply pass contraception costs on to them and that many large religious institutions self-insure, thus would be forced to pay anyway.
While the legislation would have allowed employers to opt out, it still would have required their insurance carriers with no objections to cover contraceptives at no cost. It also wouldn’t have struck down dozens of state laws that require insurers to cover contraception.
“Unfortunately, this is only a glimpse of what Americans can expect as a result of President Obama’s government health care takeover — which is why we need to repeal and replace this bill with common-sense bipartisan solutions,” Mr. Blunt said. “This fight is not over.”
Democrats launched an all-out attack on the amendment this week, spending hours blasting it from the Senate floor, warning of refusals to cover blood transfusions or childhood immunizations and saying that insurers could require people to engage in faith healing.
The Obama administration called the amendment too broad, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called it “dangerous and wrong.”
“This proposal isn’t limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventative service,” Mrs. Sebelius said. “Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong.”
That criticism was repeated by outside groups. Dr. Robert W. Block, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the Blunt amendment “would have allowed employers to deny their employees services such as vaccinations or blood transfusions, based solely on religious or moral beliefs.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- A familiar fading feeling for McMahon in Connecticut
- Romney’s bid to undo health law faces hurdles
- Hill GOP presses Medicare probe
- Romney, Obama advisors butt heads over binders, Big Bird and “Romnesia”
- Iran talks not set up, Obama’s camp says
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- GOP Senate candidate: Obama needs to visit Central America
- Hillary Clinton: I was indeed 'dead broke,' but shouldn't have said so
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Appeals court upholds Obamacare tax as constitutional
- Rush Limbaugh: 'There is no journalism anymore'
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Border surge puts Obama legacy on immigration at stake
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world