WASHINGTON — In an election year battle mixing birth control, religion and politics, Democrats narrowly blocked an effort by Senate Republicans to overturn President Barack Obama’s order that most employers or their insurers cover the cost of contraceptives.
The 51-48 vote on Thursday killed a measure that would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of portions of the president’s health care law they found morally objectionable. That would have included the law’s requirement to cover the costs of birth control.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, who this week dropped her re-election bid and cited frustration with the polarized Congress, cast the lone Republican vote to block the measure. Two Democrats up for re-election and one who is retiring voted against Obama’s requirement.
Majority Democrats said the legislation would have allowed employers and insurers to avoid virtually any medical treatment with the mere mention of a moral or religious objection.
“We have never had a conscience clause for insurance companies,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Insurers, she said, don’t need an invitation to deny coverage for medical treatment. “A lot of them don’t have any consciences. They’ll take it.”
Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, praised the Senate vote.
“The defeat of this amendment is a win for health care access across America. The Blunt Amendment would have rolled back years of advances in women’s health care coverage, including changes that the Obama Administration recently proposed to ensure family planning services remain accessible. I’m pleased that the President is working to address the concerns of religious institutions as his Administration finalizes these proposals. Congress needs to stop focusing on these unnecessarily divisive attacks on women’s health care and instead focus on rebuilding the economy and putting people back to work.”
Republicans argued that the requirement under the health care overhaul violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom by forcing insurers and employers to pay for contraception for workers even if the employers’ faith forbids its use. Roman Catholic leaders have strongly opposed the requirement.
The Senate vote aside, the debate “won’t be over until the administration figures out how to accommodate people’s religious views as it relates to these mandates,” said the measure’s sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. “This is a debate that might be settled at that building across the street,” he said, referring to the Supreme Court.
Such cultural issues have been prominent in this presidential election year, with Republican presidential candidates casting Obama’s health care law as government overreach into the most personal types of medical decisions. The contraception policy in particular touches on religious and women’s rights important to the activists at the core of each party.
A majority of Americans support the use of contraceptives. The public is generally in favor of requiring birth control coverage for employees of religiously affiliated employers, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll Feb. 8-13. The survey found that 61 percent favor the mandate, while 31 percent oppose it. Catholics support the requirement at about the same rate as all Americans.
The legislative fight came after the controversy had already forced the White House to budge somewhat. The administration initially ruled that religious-affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities must include free birth control coverage in their employee health plans. As protests mounted from Catholic leaders and many Republicans, Obama announced an adjustment: Religious employers could opt out, but insurance companies must then pay for the birth control coverage.
Defending the White House stand on Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden also gave voice to the way it came together.
Said Biden: “It got screwed up in the first iteration.”
Republicans say it’s still not fixed since many employers pay insurers to cover their workers and in effect underwrite the contraception coverage.
GOP senators insisted on attaching Blunt’s amendment to an unrelated transportation bill. Democrats cast the move as just one of a number of attempts by the GOP to roll back long-established women’s rights.
Both sides protested strenuously that an issue affecting millions of Americans was being used for political gain. But in reality, virtually the entire four-day discussion in the Senate was about election-year strategy. With the presidency and congressional majorities at stake, both sides used the issue to rally their bases of support.
Republicans sought to hold together conservatives and others in the midst of their party’s unsettled battle for the presidential nomination. And for Obama, there is no constituency more crucial to his re-election chances than women.
In the end, the vote hung on a handful of centrists as Democrats chose a parliamentary maneuver that required only 50 votes to kill the amendment.
Snowe, R-Maine, had said the GOP amendment was written too broadly for her to support. Democrats voting in favor of the measure were Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, both up for re-election, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is retiring.
Democrats saw broader symbolism in Snowe’s decisions. “If Republicans keep this up, they’re going to drive away independent voters, women and men, just as they are driving moderates out of their caucuses,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.
But Republicans kept one such lawmaker in the fold on the vote, Snowe’s fellow senator from Maine. Susan Collins kept all sides on edge until minutes before the vote, saying on the Senate floor that she was troubled that the administration could not assure her that faith-based self-insured organizations would be protected from the mandate to cover contraception.
“I feel that I have to vote for Senator Blunt’s amendment,” she said.
On the presidential campaign trail, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney apparently stumbled over a question of whether he supported the amendment, in the end saying that he did, “of course.” His main challenger, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, has said that contraception conflicts with his Roman Catholic beliefs.
The Obama administration and congressional Democrats said Blunt’s measure was so broad it could allow employers to opt out of virtually any kind of medical treatment.
“This proposal isn’t limited to contraception, nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to,” said Secretary of Health and Human Resources Kathleen Sebelius. “The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss.”
Associated Press writer Larry Margasak contributed to this report.
This was a Transportation Bill!
{ “I feel that I have to vote for Sen. Blunt’s amendment,” Collins said on the Senate floor.}
To put it Bluntly!
Partisanship!
Susan Collins needs to GO!
She should have gone last time. She votes along party lines nearly all the time, unlike Sen. Snowe.
Thank you Sen. Snowe for voting correctly. Even if it was for the wrong reasons.
The adding on of amendments and spending proposals to other bills even if they have nothing in common is something that should be prohibited.
Way too broad and extensive. Deny coverage based on moral objections? Come on. Where does it end? Your freedoms don’t extended to dictating the lives of others.
Sounds like employers are having their freedoms dictated by others.
I see irony. Some politicians want to limit access to abortion and the opposing side says that is oppression and should not be allowed. Those same politicians then turn around and think it is allright to tell employers what they must offer and fund birth control coverage.
It seems we have both parties trying to interfere in the religous and personal reproductive choices of private citizens. I think that is wrong. The Democrats and Republicans could make a deal. No more fighting about Abortion and no more fighting about making people cover things they are oppossed to based on personal or religous beliefs. Then, finally after 40 years, we could put this issue behind us and move on to other things.
I wish that would happen but it won’t.The rich TP’ers and CC want to use fetuses as billboards like always.
Well you just insulted me by calling my a TPer but I will still respond to your post. I think both parties are taking this issue and using it for political purposes. Some Republican Politicians and supporters want to force thier will on others while some Democrat Politicians and supporters are trying to force thier will on others as well.
I didn’t cll you a TP’er specifically.I’m sorry you saw it that way.I like your posts,which are well thought out.
It takes a village to abort an unborn child.
Perhaps we disagree on the issue of abortion. I just want to make it clear that I think both sides meddle in reproductive issues and I think it is wrong for both sides to do it.
I have no freedom to tell my employees what prescription drugs they can purchase with the health insurance I provide, nor should I. This plan actually saves me money on insurance as the premium goes down once contraception coverage is mandated.
Thank You Olympia Snowe for your Sanity!
Collins is sweating. The Tea Freaks have her in their sights..I hope their influence lasts long enough to get another Dem seated as Senator.
Women have the right to the pill, they simply don’t have the right to expect others to pay for it.
You could say that about any aspect of health care coverage.
Why is viagra and cialis covered then?
Actually, the cost for the insurer goes down, as they are no longer paying for unintended pregnancies. This is a win/win for the insurer and the employee. I haven’t heard you complain that your health insurer is paying all but the co-pay for your Viagra or Cialis.
The reality is, most of us were unintended pregnancies.
If that where only true. A single female having a child is the same as getting a education and a job. You get paid for both. The one who has a kid is guaranteed benefits the one who works is not. The one who works supports there own life. The one with the kid is supported by all us taxpayers. So while I may agree with the premise that one does not have the right to expect others to pay sadly it does not work that way.
And also in nearly every case you have to pay some or all of your higher ed costs,which are astronomical now.Conservatives who stop access to abortion cost every one us one $Millions and get away with it.The small amount it costs for an abortion is money well spent in every instance.
Pandering to isolated catholic bishops. After the election republicans wouldn’t give them the time of day.
So let’s see the republicans feel that having an employer offer health insurance providing the option of birth control infringes on the employer’s freedom of religion — so that means they are alright with the employer mandating their religious beliefs on their employees.
That infers that the next amendment they will offer is that an employer can begin to hire based on religious beliefs. Since I the employer am a catholic I will only hire catholic employees because to force me to hire employees of other religions is an infringement on my religious beliefs.
This sounds like a very slippery slope.
You also have the right to not work for said religious employer.
It sounds like a protestant would not fit the mold of your company. You need to make sure their is good chemistry between employees. If you have a small company of less than 15 employees you can discriminate all you want, for such reasons.
The idea is that at 15 employees, your going to have more people; therefore, more different types of and possibly excepting views.
We can’t pay everyone you don’t like welfare, or doesn’t follow your point of view disability.
So, at 15 people you need to hire someone of a different type or more specifically from a defined minority group, because we think or expect that the majority group or those not defined as minority are the ones with jobs. Though it is not always the defined minority that are oppressed.
That could work both ways – employers could discriminate against religious groups and employ only those that belong to the “correct” religious sects.
So they won’t have to bother with providing health care to employees that don’t agree with their “beliefs”.
yessah
Is Birth Control a human right? Does not offering insurance coverage for contraception to employees violate anyones human rights at all?
I think this policy and arguement that Democrats are making is much like the Republicans arguing over abortion. Both sides need to stay out of the reproductive lives of private citizens and stop trying to force what they think is right on all of us.
I believe abortion should remain legal. I think attempts to prevent it should be stopped. I think that contraception use should not be force funded upon employers.
We honor the religous choices of many groups in many different ways all the time in this country. Why can we not honor the religous choices of employers?
Is viagra a human right? No, but it’s still covered. You’re coming up with these weird and phony requirements solely for this issue. The standard here isn’t “human rights.”
Is the federal government mandating that any employer of any kind be required to cover the cost of Viagra for its employees even if they are oppossed? If the standard here is not ¨human rights¨¨ then what is the standard then? If it is not a human right to have birth control then why is our government forcing anyone to fund it?
It’s not a human right to get a physical every year but that’s what health insurance covers. You’re creating these weird requirements that don’t actually exist. Everything about health care isn’t a human right, so why are you requiring contraceptives to be? It doesn’t even make sense.
Im not requiring contraceptives to be a human right. Im saying that the government shouldnt be forcing the funding of it on people who dont want to cover it. Government is acting like its a human right that must be covered.
The argument for Viagra is that impotence is a medical condition that is rectified via that particular medicine. Do some folks get it because it enhances, increases the frequency, etc.? Yes. But on the whole it corrects a medical problem.
Viagra has become a medical condition, that is true. We can argue the merits of if it really medically necessary that a man become capable of sexual performance. We can argue if it ranks as high as having to provide coverage for EKGs, broken ankles, births or organ transplants.
Is the need not to get pregnant a medical condition? Or is it a matter of personal choice that an individual and her sexual partner should be responsible for?
What about a woman that should not become pregnant for medical reasons? Are employers forced to contribute to the cost of toothpaste and dental floss to prevent medical problems that employees might have if they dont brush? Or do we just expect people to be responsible for taking care of that part of their health on their own?
People can buy there own toothpaste and their own birth control. I dont think we need employers being forced to contribute to the costs of such things if they are already thoughtful enough to be providing valuable insurance to their workers already while contributing to the cost of it.
I employeed as many a 5 people on my crew of home builders for many years and there was and still is no real way the government can force me to hire minorities, women , muslims and or openly gay individuals to work for me. I’ll always hire the individual who I think is most qualified. You would have a hard time to prove that I did anything wrong in a court of law . This is one I can’t get over on. You can force me to provide insurance and pay for contraception even if I don’t want to ! Sorry folks , your all fired , I’m going to work by myself from now on.
Or you could just stop offering insurance coverage.
The Big Government in My Womb Party was defeated.
48 fools – including Susan Collins – however, voted to support the GOP War on Women.
Yessah
Yes, Big Government in my womb is wrong. I agree. How is big government forcing an employer to cover something they are oppossed to right?
Because it infringes of the liberty of women that want to have birth control included in their health insurance.
28 states already mandate that – including many red states.
If employers can pick and choose what is covered under their insurance policies based on their “beliefs” – they can whittle them down to nothing.
This nonsense is yet another example of overreach by radical right wing republicons.
yessah
Now we need to destroy the BS “conscience clause” and eventually throw the Hyde Amendment in the trash.I’m so glad my donations helped.
We dont force anyone to make exceptions to thier religous beliefs now. Why are we starting? Do woman or for that case men(they use birth control too) have the inaliable right to contraception that is funded in part by employers?
Forms of Birth Control are easily purchased. It is readily available through many means that already exist. We know that Catholic Policy is against contraception. Why should our government force them to pay for it anyway for employees against their beliefs. We can disagree about those beliefs but are they not entitled to them and are they not protected under our own constitution?
Just so you understand, I think that any attempts by the government to become involved in reproductive choices of private citizens and employers is wrong on all counts.
I as not aware the catholic church was an employer, other than for the clergy and they do not need contraception as they have only had sex with boys historically to my knowledge. The nuns are moral enough to actually make the church look like a church as they actually follow the rules set by the pedophiles.
Hear Hear!(loud applause!)
Well they have Catholic Charities, which employs lay people. They have secretaries at the churches just like the Baptist Church or any other church does. they have custodians for the churches. Housekeepers are employed for the parishes. So yes, they have regular employees that they pay and provide insurance for.
I may want to have certain things included in my insurance coverage that are not there. Should I perhaps look for another plan or perhaps another employer or should I expect my current employer to be forced into paying for something they find objectionable?
Should my employer be forced into paying for my Viagra if I take it? What about being forced to cover my Suboxin if I am a heroin addict?
The cost to the employer is less (birth control costs less than unintended pregnancies) and the mandate is imposed on the health care insurer.
So employers should be forced to offer plans that cover contraceptives because thier employees are not responsible enough to take care of themselves while having sex?
I will write it slowly, so you understand, the mandate is imposed on INSURERS not employers. The plan costs the employer LESS.
The insurers currently cover the cost of unintended pregnancies. Contraception costs $80 a month and pregnancy is a distinct health risk.
Why should an employer carve out contraception coverage for a plan that covers all other prescription drugs?
What sane employee wants his employer effectively controlling the contents of his medicine cabinet?
If we share the same health insurer I am indirectly subsidizing every bottle of Viagra you purchase.
What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to mandate to private company what they must include in their product?
the commerce clause
So if the employer only employees people in the same state and the insurance carrier is in the same state (this applies to most of Maine) the commerce clause doesn’t (shouldn’t) apply.
if you repeat it often enough it will become true. good luck.
It is probably much less expensive to not go after certain types of welfare fraud. Perhaps the State saves me some money by letting a certain percentage of people sit on the couch rather than try to catch them. It doesnt mean I like it though.
You post Contraception costs 80 dollars a month. So that means it cost 960 dollars a year? That seems rather expensive. I wonder how many people really would spend 960 dollars a year out of pocket on birth control?
Im 37 so I dont need Viagra. And if I ever do I think it would be very foolish that I could somehow get the cost of it subsidized by my employer or anyone else. If you want to pay for my ED and my Birth Control in part then go right ahead I guess. But I dont think the government should be making it a mandatory coverage that you have to contribute to even if you dont want to.
that is so foolish. how is providing a service going to lower costs? if the company was going to reduce its costs by providing a service they would not need to be forced to provide it. if you think these companies are not looking for profit you do not understand the business.
I can’t help you with your very slow learning curve but I will try one more time.
Every group health policy out there covers the delivery costs of a pregnancy, which typically exceed $10,000. That cost is a given. Policies that cover birth control have always ended up by paying for far fewer births: THAT’S WHY THEY CALL IT BIRTH CONTROL. The cost of paying for 1000 women to have contraception is less than the cost of having 10 of those 1000 have unintended pregnancies.
The only “companies” that have complained about mandatory contraception coverage are the Bishops on behalf of Catholic hospitals. The Catholic Health Association, representing the hospitals, is fine with this provision.
I am a businessperson. I pay for my employee’s health care coverage. I have never tried to limit what drugs they could purchase. The quotes for the rare policy that excluded contraception was always higher. It has been illegal since a 2000 EEOC ruling for an employer to provide prescription drug coverage that excludes birth control drugs. Only the bogus claim of “religious freedom” by the Bishops even made this an issue.
I understand business and have to meet a payroll every week. You either don’t understand math or you don’t understand the English language.
What you’re saying is you would rather have an employee that uses birth control, so what is your view on an employee who chooses not to and has many children? Do you somehow try to get rid of them?
I think I have no right to have ANY SAY in health care or family planning decisions my employees make. It makes no difference if they are childless or have ten children. Feudalism ended over 400 years ago and my employees are not serfs.
I suspect you say one thing, but actually do another. You already admitted it was beneficial in the long run to have employees use birth control than have lots of children (if that is their choice due to religious reasons).
It is impossible to buy a policy that does not cover pregancy and has been for over 20 years. Adding contraceptive coverage to pregnancy coverage lowers the cost of the policy. Don’t be a fool.
I know plenty of people who buy insurance without pregnancy coverage. Are you aware it’s cheaper not to have that covered in your insurance. If you tell your doctor you are paying for it out of your own pocket believe me it’s a lot cheaper and better for the mother and child. The doctor isn’t ordering 101 tests. I know I did it that way.
The sale of a policy that covers some but not all surgeries in a way that disadvantages women, only, violates the 64 Civil Rights Act, as amended, and the Maine Human Rights Act.
Most pregnancies do and should not end in a surgery. If you do have to have surgery (cesarean birth) insurance would cover it, plus the baby is covered once he or she is born. I paid for my pregnancies out of my own pocket.
By the way since you think you’re so smart regarding what insurance covers are you aware that many policies won’t cover a women’s pregnancy if she wants to have a home birth? The worst offender of this is the state’s own insurance. They want to control where and how a women chooses to give birth. Does your policy allow women that choice?
Your employees are lucky to have a person who understands the issue and has obviously thought carefully about it.Good luck and success to you and yours.I wish I knew how to support and spend my $$ at employers who care about their people.Have a great day!
Thanks.
The job of all insurers is to cover as little as possible,raise their rates as high as possible and ruin as many lives as they can.They love this controversy since it allows them a legal escape hatch.Read”Deadly Spin” by Wendell Potter.
I think there should be certain things mandated to insurance companies that must be covered. My experience with insurance companies so far has been allright. Thankfully.
Insurers already get into their employee’s business by refusing to cover smokers for example or charging higher premiums for the obese. I’m a former smoker btw but insurance had nothing to do with my quitting.
I have been looking at Life Insurance policies and the prices of the policies all ask questions about weight and smoking as well.
Good luck.That’s a minefield.
the fact that you expect an insurance company to act as a third party payer for all your bills is what i find so wrong.
Because the mandate is imposed on the insurer and the employer’s costs actually goes down: it is cheaper to cover birth control than unintended pregnancies.
And again,
Why should the employer have to subsidize the irresponsible sexual decisions of an employee?Has Birth Control somehow become an essential part of health care that we cannot live with out, can not be responsible for on our own nor pay for it on our own?
I regret that English is not your native language. When the mandate is imposed on insurers and costs the employers less, THERE IS NO SUBSIDY. I know of no group health insurance plan that does not cover prescription drugs. Once we allow an employer to pick and choose the drugs his employee can take we are giving him the key to the employee’s medicine cabinet.
Do you really want to live in a world where your employer is with you in the bathroom in the evening as you decide whether to take your Viagra or nitroglycerine tablet?
I regret that you appear to be very pompous. I was born in Maine so English is my first language. As an employer you contribute a pecentage towards the cost of that group policy most likely. That amount you contribute lowers the overall cost of the policy for your employees and means that they are not paying full price for the policy. In my mind there is a subsidy as your payments are lowering the cost that the employees would have to pay if there was no payment from you.
I believe that no employer should be forced to pay for medicines that are not about maintaining health or curing sickness but more about personal lifestyle choices. Nitroglycerin is something people with heart problems need. Choosing to be responsible when having sex is about personal responsibility. I never expected anyone to have to pay for my birth control use nor the birth control my wife uses. If you are allright with paying for it then great. I dont think you should be forced into paying for it.
I bet you would love to be in the bathroom making sure every female was taking her birth control everyday. Since we now know that it’s cheaper for you to keep her from getting pregnant than having those costly, little babies.
thats right, the insurance company is not going to increase its pricing to consumers just because the government forces them to provide this additional coverage. who do you think is going to pay?
there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Insurers would rather cover birth control than unintended pregnancies. It is no different than saving money on rebuilding your engine by changing the oil. This is common sense and every insurance company actuary who has run the numbers has agreed. Don’t be thick.
Wow it’s nice to know how you feel about your employees and pregnancy. I think we should make sure there is a federal law that doesn’t allow a company to discriminate against an employee who has many children.
I could care less what choices my employees make. Thus, I purchase an insurance plan that covers either choice: birth control or pregnancy.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes illegal a decision to fire or not promote a woman because of her pregnancy or number of children.
But you admitted that it was cheaper for you if an employee uses birth control, would you actually employ a person you suspected was going to have many children?
It is cheaper to buy a policy that covers both pregnancy and birth control than one that covers only pregnancy. It is illegal to buy a policy that excludes pregnancy. We are talking about UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES.
Logic is not your strong suit. Re-read my post.
Every additional family member on a policy costs the employer more.So it is totally chenard’s right to hire a person that won’t increase their business costs.
But isn’t that discriminating against someone who maybe for religious reason be open to having children.
Maybe-but nobody can predict the future.I have a 26 y/o friend in a wheelchair.When he left his house on foot that morning,he never expected to end up there.There is a difference between the average family size now and something like the Duggars.
Pregnancy is also considered a temporary disability requiring accommodation by the employer.
Agreed.
They are already getting a nice fat tax break for breeding.No reason why they can’t pay out some of that in premiums.My brother in law(childless)pays through the nose for insurance while somebody with ten kids pays next to nothing and overuses coverage.
The tone of your comment says a lot about you. Do you realize the importance on having children (your refer to them as breeders)? Who is going to pay you and your brother-in-law’s SS when you retire, Already we are getting dangerously low on the amount of tax payers we need to sustain all the people getting ready to retire.
Many of the couples who choose to have large families are hard working, responsible adults. I myself raised a large family and we didn’t get all the tax breaks you think we did.. Are you aware of the alternative minimum tax? In order to have a large family our income has to be pretty well up there, so were unable to claim all of our children as deductions.
Also your snotty attitude regarding overusing coverage. I know families with far less children that took advantage of the insurance far more than we ever did.
I won’t dispute that some do overuse coverage(“frequent fliers”in ER lexicon.)I don’t know how to fix that other than to require a small co pay ($20?)PAYABLE IMMEDIATELY on admission.But the math is this-a single or couple vs. a large family is much less likely as a whole to use large quantities of services.That is insurance,food,water,power-anything.
That’s why the unions will keep strong.
Government wanting to control a womans access to abortion is WRONG. Government wanting to mandate that private businesses and organizations that employ people have to offer birth control coverage is WRONG. Both are huge infrigements on personal choice and the freedom to practice your religous beliefs.
Disagree. The government has every right to determine the minimum stnadard of health care. If you don’t like the mandates get out of the business. Your personal choices and freedoms can only go so far, especially when those choices impact the ability of others to make their own choices. So when suddenly the majority of businesses decide they’re morally opposed to contraceptives, or whatever else, what is a worker with already few options to do?
Beyond this specific issue, why is it alright for the government to make other mandates, such as minimum wage? Isn’t that an infringement on personal choice and freedom? I think it is really problematic to be allowing all sorts of exceptions and ways around our minimum standards.
But congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…….
State or government is then overstepping religion. What do you do?
Just because you come to that conclusion, doesn’t mean it is the universal conclusion. I personally don’t think that requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives constitutes prohibiting the exercise of religion. It’s a neutral law and it wasn’t designed to be an attack on religion — further, religious organizations are given exemptions anyway, so what is the issue? This amendment would allow individuals and non-religious entities to deny those they cover services due to moral conflicts. That is incredibly far from prohibiting religious freedom. That’s an individual holding a belief and using it to deny the right (as determined by the mandates) of another.
What gives you or anyone else the right to mandate anything of me ?
Same right that allows mandates for minimum wage or safety standards. Look, if you’re going to play the game, then play by the rules.
That’s the whole point of all these rollbacks and controversies.People like McConnell,Boehner,etc want to screw the workers and put the public at risk.They have no interest in playing by what weak rules there are.
That worker can go to a drug store and buy condoms. That worker can go to Planned Parenthood. That worker can go to a OB/GYN and get a depoprovera shot, an IUD put in, or get Birth Control Pills. And perhaps they will have to pay for them out of thier own pocket. When did Employer funded Birth Control become the madate of the government. We respect many religous freedoms in this country. We dont tell restaurants to stop serving pork as it may upset Jews or Muslims. We dont tell businesses they cannot be open on Saturday Night as it may upset Orthodox Jews. We respect other groups religous beliefs and we respect the right of others to not agree or follow those same beliefs. We also dont force Muslim Woman to appear in public without headgear even though the majority of Americans do not follow that custom. We respect thier religous beliefs. We dont force people to do things that are against thier religous beliefs in this country. Why are we starting to do it now?
That’s a poor excuse. Where is the line then? If you follow your logic, then nothing should have to be covered by health insurance. Just go to the hospital and pay your bill yourself, no one is stopping you. Need heart surgery? Sure, just pay for it, no one is stopping you.
Getting Heart Surgery is not against the religous beliefs of most people in this country. It is not against the beliefs of even a very small minority of people in this country I dare say.
But I know that it is against the beliefs of some religous groups. Should we force that group, however small and in the minority to pay for something they are oppossed too on religous purposes. We dont force anyone to get heart surgery, we dont force anyone to use contraception. So why would we force anyone to pay for things they are oppossed towards?
Getting blood transfusions is against the beliefs of a large Christian denomination. Thank goodness they have not demanded (thus far) that insurance they offer anyone who works for them must NOT include coverage for blood transfusions…
That is a good example. Im glad that they have not made those demands either. Life saving treatments should be covered in my opinion. So should most treatments that restore people to good health.
Is birth control a life saving treatment? Should birth control be considered so paramount of a health issue that it must be covered no matter what? Or is it a personal responsibility issue, something that you do more for financial and personal reasons? Not getting pregnant is not a dire medical issue for most women.
I see both political sides interfering in religous and reproductive health issues. I think both sides are handling this issue very poorly.
Birth control can indeed be a life-saving (preventive) treatment. Pregnancy can result in problems such as placental abruption (which I had many years ago–lots of internal bleeding, could have been deadly), toxemia, gestational diabetes, and so on. Pregnancy and childbirth sometimes result in death–I recall a neighbor with intractable diabetes some years ago, who died trying to carry twins to term.
Certain type of birth control are also used to treat medical conditions unrelated to pregnancy.
If businesses are ever permitted to pick and choose which types of medical treatments they want to cover, you can bet employees’ policies will be shredded to the point of uselessness.
The point isn’t the specific issue, but the logic you’re using to justify it. Moral opposition is a poor excuse. Claiming you can still meet your needs by going elsewhere is a poor excuse. I’m asking you the limits of your argument. How large does the body of people holding the moral opposition have to be? How dire does the coverage have to be? It’s pretty strange to me to have these weird and arbitrary limits.
Look, this isn’t forcing people to pay for stuff. They’re in the business of providing health care. If you don’t like the business then get out.
Moral opposition is about the stupidest excuse to me, to be honest. I’m morally opposed to war and yet my tax dollars are still going towards a huge deficit that is in large part due to the war. Where is my opt out?
Im oppossed to a lot of things our government funds. You have your objections and so do I . Neither one of us can opt out of paying some sort of tax can we? Those taxes are going to be spent on things we dont like-
Im not oppossed to telling insurance companies they have to have plans that include birth control. I am oppossed to telling employers of any kind they have to buy a plan that includes contraception coverage for employees.
Someone pointed out that blood transfusions are oppossed by some religous groups. Should they be allowed to not offer insurance plans that dont include blood transfusions? When you need a blood transfusion your life is at risk or a potential of risk. Not having an IUD, taking the pill, or getting hormone shots does not put your life at risk.
Is not becoming a pregant a medical decision or a personal decision based on many factors?
I dont think we should be requiring people to fund the personal decisions of others. I know that in some cases we are already doing this and yet I dont advocate adding to that list.
We respect the beliefs of even the smallest minorites in this country, as long as they do not violate the law, our constitution or the acceptable standards of society.
Perhaps we can discuss if providing employer funded healthplans that require contraceptive coverage an acceptable standard of society. Im sure some think that it is.
I don’t know, I feel like it is a bit ridiculous and hypocritical to allow retrictions and opt outs here, but not over there. I find it laughable when people try and cite moral obligations as though they’re taking some sort of high ground when similar problems have persisted in the past. Why the sudden outrage now? To me, it seems like pure politics rather than real concerns about morality. That’s actually disgusting in my opinion.
Allowing exemptions in some circumstances and not others does create lots of potential trouble. I personally think that the whole abortion/birth control thing should not be a political issue. Republicans should give up the abortion arguements and trying to restrict the access to it. Democrats should stop telling people that they have to pay for things that really should be the responsibility of an individual and not a huge concern of society.
I think people can and should be expected to fund thier own contraceptive use.
Nothing is clear cut. We both know that the Catholic Church opposses birth control use. Should they get an exemption? Should they not? If we give them an exemption will some other group try to take advantadge of it? Will some funamentalist religious group say the are opposed to organ transplants and want an exemption for that?
This is a hard issue. I feel we have to respect the religous beliefs of others and yet that even goes only so far. What the Government madates and forces people to pay for is questionable as well. We have to pay for things we dont agree with at times.
Very well said. This isn’t really about birth control. In my opinion it is about the presidents’ attack on the very foundation of our country , the constitutuion. This is just a start toward Obamas attack on the first ammendment. He has already attacked the second ammendment with his proposals on gun control. I’m afraid the people who really love this country and what it stands for have a real battle on their hands and it is far from over. Who do you suppose he’s going to apologize to next ? It would be nice if it were the citizens of the United States. I’M A VETERAN AND I VOTE !
I personally believe that minimum wage serves a purpose that protects workers from the potential of explotiation and abuse.
If I choose not to offer birth control coverage through my insurance to employees am I somehow exploiting them or abusing them? Its pretty hard to survive without work for most of us and yet can most of us survive without employer funded birth control?
Is birth control a health care issue or is it a personal responsibility issue? If government has to tell me I need to be protecting myself during sexual encounters then I think something is very wrong.
We honor the religous choices and customs of many different groups in this country. Why cannot we not honor the choices and customs of religion that individual employers and religous organizations have in this circumstance?
A Republican trying to limit the abortion access(or the right to have one at all) of a woman is no different than a Democrat trying to force an employer opposed to contraception to pay for it. Both are wrong in my book.
There is always a way around rules.30 years ago a white male business owner might have gotten away with only hiring other white males b/c “they were the best person available”That would be looked at now.
I can still get away with that today. You won’t scare me into hiring someone I don’t want to hire simply by intimidation or mandate.
The fact that you have to “get away with it”says it all.
Why does the NRA oppose any legislation that limits gun use? Because it will be precedent setting and start a slippery slope.
Why oppose forced birth control? Because it will be precedent setting and start a slippery scope.
Sometimes it is not the issue that matters, but the precedent it establishes.
Women say keep the government out of my womb. I say keep the government out of my religion.
It isn’t forced birth control, noone is demanding that women take birth control. Government is requiring that birth control be covered for those who chose to use it. It is one of many government regulations of the insurance industry. If the church is so opposed to this regulation of the insurance industry, perhaps they should self insure. Then they wouldn’t have to buy a policy that violates their morality. If they did that they wouldn’t have to buy “the pill,” because they don’t believe in it. For that matter they could then deny a claim for stitches for the alter boys that have been raped, as they don’t believe that happens either.
I was with you until the sexual abuse humor. Back on track, If I was oppossed to birth control use I would do exactly what you suggest.
It is not humor, its true. The majority of those that have been victims of priest abuse have not been reimbursed for medical or psychological treatment by the church due to their denying it ever happened. Why would they be any different if they were running their own health care plan?
Seems that singling out a religious group to force into self insured is a slippery slope. Yes the Catholic religion can probably afford it, but what about when Obama forces his social policy on others that cannot afford it?
Half our rights and laws are against Muslim belief, is a Muslims religious right worth more than a woman’s right to wear jeans? There is no religious issue, except the one the Catholic church is creating. Maine law requires insurers to have minimum liability on auto policies. If the church makes up a problem with that, does that mean they can run around in their cars without coverage?
And yet we respect the beliefs of Muslims in this country and of other religous groups as well. We dont force Muslims to eat pork or adapt to western dress. We dont force them to do anything that goes against there beliefs. So why is it allright to force people oppossed to birth control based on thier faith to pay for it anyway?
But when a Muslim woman walks out of her house in the United States without her head covering, and her husband beats her for it, he is going to jail. His religious rights stop just prior to the impact of his hand to her face. We respect religious freedom, until it violates our laws.
My point exactly. We respect peoples beliefs until it becomes illegal. Is a persons choice not to want to pay contraceptive costs for employees for religous reasons against the law? It isnt.
It is now
And you think that is allright? Perhaps there is not much regular people like us can do about it. However it still seems very wrong to me.
Perhaps, but this bill was wrong too. Moral objections can be anything. As an employer if I morally object to minimum wage why should I have to pay it? We need standards. In this case it is like Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” The drugs they are requiring to be covered are the most commonly prescribed to all women. They are the many, the leadership of the church are the few.
the point of the legislation is so that women who CANNOT AFFORD it have birth control…
which by the way is often used for many health issues outside of contraception..
If a woman cannot afford birth control then how are they affording the insurance premium they are most likely having to pay to begin with?
Is it really anyones responsibility to subsidize another persons responsible sexual activity.
Those already exist but are too expensive due to the small numbers that are covered.Also there are horror stories of people who paid in expecting their church family to pay when they got sick,then- BAM!Denied.Not that private ins. cos. don’t use the same slimy tricks.
You are on to it ! The government under Obama is attacking the constitution at every chance they get. This man is a real danger to this country and I’m afraid he has many people fooled !
Neither Buck nor you are “onto” anything!
Maybe insurers should pay for tinfoil so they can get new hats when they need them.
right, the republican idea of health care is to allow people to bring guns to the doctor’s office
The answer should be avoid going to the useless doctors at all cost.
I can now so where is the problem with that ?
and what have you done with your sense of humor ?
This rule did not force birth control — it required that insurance agencies cover the cost of birth control just like it covered other drug perscriptions — the use of birth control remains the option of the user —
Missed my point. It is not about birth control, it is about Obama pushing his policies in direct conflict to the separation of church and state. Forcing a religious organization to fund (albeit indirectly through insurance) something that is in direct conflict with their dogma crosses the line of church and state.
With this precedent set, Obama can enforce any social standard he wants on any religious group, as this sets a legal precedent for forcing religions to fund against their beliefs.
Insurance doesn’t pay for my medications, why should it pay for birth control?
and by your standards your religion can impose its dogmas on everyone…
this is a labor law issue, not a religious one
The Government would never allow any religous group to come to your business and demand you to do anything based on thier beliefs(or dogma). The fact that the Government can go to a religous organization and make demands and force them into mandates that goes against thier beliefs(or dogma) is very disturbing.
they have to follow the laws of the land, not the laws of their particular church if they are in business….. a not very complicated labor law issue..
Of all the important things to be considered by our congress and our courts, this is, without a doubt, the very, VERY least important. It’s laughable. It’s just another way for our elected leaders to avoid any kind of co-operation in dealing with the hard stuff. Our
Exactly , while government is fighting over what amounts to bullsh1t our country is going down the tubes. Our precious politicians , our party heros , are busy positioning themselves for reelection rather than tackling the hard subjects. We really are hurting for a strong leader in this country. We need to immediately demand a one term limit for all political offices , only then will these jockers take on the stuff that relly matters ! I’d be willing to bet my fortune that many of these leaders would vote differently on many issues if they didn’t have their public opinion to polls to worry about.
That we are even talking about this is sick! Collins has to go. Snowe is gone so lets get democrats. Lesser of two evils is better than what we have got.
The lesser of two evils is still evil !
OK so let’s throw all of them out and start all over again.
I’m OK with that !
I tend to think of the issue through the lens of a hypothetical: What if Obama was mandating that employers offer insurance plans that cover abortion services?
How many Americans would support that? You could make the same arguments for it and against it that everyone is now. But, I suspect the majority of Americans would be opposed to this mandate.
This goes to the point that we do not decide constitutional freedoms based on how many people support one side versus the other. Especially when people are being asked their opinion on whether they think birth control is a good thing, or whether they think birth control should be covered by insurance. This is not about birth control. This is about whether the federal government can mandate that someone purchase an insurance product that violates their beliefs.
You make a sound arguement along the lines I have been making. I agree 100% with you.
You’re just going to an extreme and changing the subject in order to prove your non-point. What if this amendment allowed employers to skirt around safety laws? What if they wanted to hire someone for a slave wage? How dare the government force safety regulations and minimum wage requirements! This is a violation of the freedoms of employers!!
We have standards in this country. Deal with it.
What if we stay on topic? We are not talking about wages and safety. We are talking about an insurance product that provides free contraception, and the attempt of government to force an individual to purchase this for others.
I don’t think substituting abortion for contraception is extreme at all. It is a logical extension. I am surprised I haven’t seen the argument made that taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortions…oh, wait, stop me. I have heard that argument. Where do you all think this contraception mandate is going?
I changed subject to prove my point. If you want to keep going down the line and go to extremes, well it goes both ways. Abortions are NOT a logical extension. I think this contraceptives mandate is going towards contraceptives. That’s it. Argue the issue at hand. It doesn’t serve you to go to extremes and vilify those that disagree with you.
Okay. I agree about going to extremes. But I do predict that this contraception decision will play a role in future arguments to overturn the Hyde amendment and allow taxpayer funds to go to abortion service.
And when that happens it will be a GREAT day for America!
Look at FL.Unsurprisingly they want to cut the tipped employee wage($4.65)to less than half that.Try living on $2.13 an hour in 2012.SHAMEFUL!
Very well said.
Thank God for 51 who did the right thing.Now let’s get the 48 OUT and support women and choice always!
You support the right of a woman to get an abortion. So do I. I dont think the government should pass laws to prohibit the reproductive choices of woman.
Why do you not support the rights of employers to say they will not pay for contraception? To force them violates thier reproductive choices. If the reproductive choices of one group are to be respected and be protected then how can we not respect the beliefs of another group?
My belief is that we should not be putting up any roadblocks to reproductive help or contraception at all. But at the same time we should not be forcing anyone to pay to finance contraception if it is against thier beliefs.
Doesn’t it say that the insurance companies are the ones who are paying? Do you really think God cares if your insurance package includes birth control?
Who pays the insurance company? In my experience it has been the employer mostly, with me making a smaller contribution from my paycheck. So if the employer is opposed to paying for contraceptive coverage then why should he be forced to pay for it from the part he pays for as the employer?
God means many things to many people. I dont think we can mock or dimiss what god means or is believed to be by anyone. The point is that certain people are being forced to offer and pay things they dont believe in based on thier faith.
We respect peoples faith in this country, or at least we used too.
Do you speak for God? Get rid of all insurance, if you want to see the price of healthcare go down.
Susan Collins should be ashamed of herself.
Apparently the GOP believes that freedom of religion includes an employers’ right to impose religious views on employee health insurance policies. Working for someone else doesn’t require surrendering one’s right to make personal decisions, family planning decisions included.
Please show me examples of anyone forced to work for the Catholic Church, the Morman Church, the Jehovah Witnesses or in fact any business at all, be it McDonalds, Boeing or even the Federal Government.
If I take Viagra and go to work for a company whose health care coverage doesnt pay for that then what should I do? Should I pay for the Viagra myself, find someone who offers insurance that pays for it? Should I expect the employer to be forced to pay for it? Are my basic human rights being violated because my employer wont fund my Viagra use?
Working for someone doesnt require surrendering ones rights to make personal decisions, including familing planning decisions. That is right, I agree.
Working for someone doesnt mean your personal beliefs and decisions, including the subject of family planning, become paramount over your employers.
Your comparison with Viagra is a Red Herring. Viagra has little to do with men’s health but birth control has everything to do with women’s health and not just to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I’m happy to accept the exception for Churches but other than that no employer should ever have any say over any employees family planning decisions. Employment is a two way street; it requires mutual respect. Slavery ended over a century ago.
Are you being forced to work for a certain institution you disagree with, no, but you sure want their money. Why would someone chose to work for an institution that you vehemently oppose?
The holier than thou folks want free choice? Fine, let them choose between compliance or paying taxes. We would find out tout de suite where the butter is on the bread.
Snowe…………LOL
More birth control and less welfare payments, as far as Odumy, he could care less about any religion other than being against anyone with moral compass! He hates Catholics and anyone Jewish!
Collins has become an embarrassment. Her speech today defending her vote was cringe worthy.
ANYTHING we can make big business pay for is a plus…..it will help recoup the people’s losses after being robbed blind by the very same businesses every day…I have no sympathy…PAY !!….LOL !!!