(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Senate Defeats Blunt Amendment to Stop Obama HHS Mandate
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/1/12 12:56 PM
The Senate voted today against an amendment to restore the religious liberty protections for employers who don’t want to be forced to pay for birth control or drugs that may cause abortions in their employee health plans.
Leading pro-life organizations called on the Senate to vote for the amendment to the mandate the Obama administration issued, but Democrats banded together against Republicans to defeat it on a 51 to 48 margin by adopting a motion to table, or kill, it.
Key pro-abortion senators, including Clare McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana, voted against the amendment — which will energize pro-life advocates against their re-election campaigns this November. On the other side, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska were three Democrats who crossed sides and voted with Republicans to support the amendment.
Pro-abortion Republican Olympia Snowe, a Maine senator who recently announced her retirement, was the only GOP lawmaker to oppose the Blunt amendment.
Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a Republican, was absent for the vote but would have voted for the amendment and against the motion to table.
In July 2011, the Institute of Medicine recommended several mandatory health services, as called for in President Obama’s health law. This included a recommendation requiring health care plans to provide controversial preventive health services, including birth control, drugs that may cause abortions and emergency contraception. The Blunt Amendment would prevent health care providers and insurers from being forced to violate their principles to offer services they are morally opposed to, and it guarantees that all Americans are not penalized or discriminated against for exercising their rights of conscience.
The text of the Blunt Amendment consists of the language taken from the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467, H.R. 1179). It would amend the Obama health care law (“ObamaCare”) to prevent the imposition of regulatory mandates that violate the religious or moral convictions of those who purchase or provide health insurance.
During the debate, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) spoke in support of an amendment introduced by U.S. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri,
Hatch said that “…our Constitution demands that those individuals and institutions that object to providing these services on religious and moral grounds be protected.” Hatch added that “under this administration, our Bill of Rights has been subordinated to President Obama’s desire to micromanage the nation’s health care system.”
See how your senators voted. A Nay vote to oppose tabling the amendment is pro-life, a Yea vote to kill the amendment by tabling it is not.
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Boozman (R-AR), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Coats (R-IN), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Americans United for Life was one organization asking the Senate to vote for the Blunt Amendment.
“The Blunt Amendment protects the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage that is consistent with one’s religious beliefs and moral convictions. It would stop the Obama Administration’s unprecedented attack on Americans’ freedom of conscience through its mandate that nearly all insurance plans must provide full coverage of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved “contraception,” including the abortion-inducing drug ella,” AUL said.
Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List agreed.
“The Blunt Amendment would amend Obamacare to protect the conscience rights of those who purchase or provide health insurance. This is needed because of the mandate issued by President Obama and Secretary Sebelius that virtually all employers, including religiously affiliated hospitals and schools, and even pro-life organizations such as the SBA List, must purchase health insurance plans that cover abortion inducing drugs and sterilization,” she said. “We cannot let the Obama administration trample on our consciences or our Constitutionally guaranteed religious liberty.”
“Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood and their allies in the White House and Congress will stop at nothing to take away the conscience rights of millions of pro-life Americans so they can force their radical abortion agenda on the country,” she added. “For years, ‘Who decides?’ was the favorite incantation from the feminist movement. Now, President Obama asserts it is government, specifically himself as its spokesman, who decides what a properly formed conscience is. ‘Who decides’ which is more fundamental: religious freedom or an ideology of reproductive health care?”
The National Right to Life Committee calls the amendment “vital” and says the Obama HHS mandate could result in a mandate in the future that forces taxpayer funding of abortions.
“When President Obama’s health care legislation was under consideration in the Senate in 2009, NRLC warned that a provision dealing with “preventive health services” would empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate coverage of any medical service, including abortion, merely by adding the service to an expandable list,” NRLC says. “Predictably, the Administration issued a decree in August, 2011, covering all FDA-approved birth control methods – a mandate that, unless overturned, will produce an irreconcilable conflict between conscience and the coercive force of government for many employers. In recent months, the Administration’s “birth-control mandate” has elicited vigorous protests from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and many other religious leaders, as an attack on religious liberty.”
“But this is not a debate only about the specific parameters of the birth-control mandate. Exactly the same statutory authority could be used by the Administration — as early as next year — to mandate that all health plans pay for elective abortion on demand,” NRLC added.
“The Blunt Amendment goes to the heart of the problem by amending the ObamaCare law itself, to prevent provisions of the law from being used as a basis for regulatory mandates that violate the religious or moral convictions of those who purchase or provide health insurance,” the pro-life organization said.
The mandate has already become the subject of several lawsuits.
Tell Obama: Stop This Pro-Abortion Mandate
Meanwhile, more than a dozen state attorneys general have signed onto a joint letter Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning started coordinating against the controversial Obama mandate requiring religious employers to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortions
Bruning has contacted each of his colleagues in 49 states and has already been joined by a dozen, including South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Together, the three lawmakers have co-signed a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebilius, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis over the Obama mandate.
Also, the largest Catholic pro-life group and Catholic television station have filed suit against the new Obama mandate that forces religious employers like them to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs in employee health insurance. The EWTN Global Catholic Network filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama against the Department of Health & Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other government agencies seeking to stop the imposition of the anti-conscience mandate as well as asking the court for a declaratory judgment that the mandate is unconstitutional.
Priests for Life, a New York based international pro-life organization of Catholic clergy and laity, filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration in an effort to seek injunctive relief from impending regulations that would require the organization to pay for employee health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.
The Obama administration asked a federal court to dismiss yet another lawsuit filed against the Obama administration over its mandate.
This was its first opportunity to explain to the court and the country why the mandate is not illegal and unconstitutional. The Obama administration did not defend the constitutionality of the mandate, but said the lawsuit should be thrown out because the administration plans to revise the mandate to make it on insurance companies to pay for coverage rather than employers, who will still have to make referrals.
“Plaintiff’s challenge to the preventive services coverage regulations is not fit for judicial review because defendants [Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] have indicated that they will propose and finalize changes to the regulations that are intended to accommodate plaintiff’s religious objections to providing contraception coverage,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in its brief to the Washington, D.C. District Court.
Obama officials claim the mandate does not put forth any “immediate injury” to religious groups.
Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic university, says he thinks the Obama administrations argument will not stand up in court.
“It doesn’t argue that the mandate is legal; it doesn’t argue that the mandate is constitutional,” Goodrich said. “Instead, it begs the court to ignore the lawsuit because the government plans to change the mandate at some unspecified date in the future.”
“Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty “Its only hope is to ask the court to look the other way based on an empty promise to possibly change the rules in the future.”
The panel that put together the mandate has been condemned for only having pro-abortion members even though polling shows Americans are opposed to the mandate.
More than 50 members of Congress banded together at a press conference to demand legislation to stop the new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to pay for insurance coverage including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs.
Congressman Jeff Fortenberry held a press conference with supporters of the bipartisan, bicameral Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. His legislation would protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The Fortenberry bill currently has the support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators, the most strongly-supported legislative remedy to the controversial HHS mandate. This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage.
H.R. 1179 enjoys the endorsements of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and other organizations. Numerous other organizations, including the Christian Medical Association and Family Research Council, have urged support of the bill.
Sen. Roy Blunt, a pro-life Missouri Republican, is putting forward the Blunt Amendment, #1520, again, and it is termed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. According to information provided to LifeNews from pro-life sources on Capitol Hill, the Blunt Amendment will be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill. The amendment would allow employers to decline coverage of services in conflict with religious beliefs.
Republicans are moving swiftly with legislation, amendments, and potential hearings on the mandatethe Obama administration has put in place that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying Obama’s revised mandate involves “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions” and it urged Congress to overturn the rule and promised a potential lawsuit.
Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the original mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.
Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.
The original mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”
The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.
The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.
The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.
|Posted Mar 3, 2012, 10:15 pm
Ignored by: 0
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
The 13 Catholic Senators who voted against
allowing Catholic organizations conscience rights
by John Jalsevac
Thu Mar 01, 2012
WASHINGTON, March 1, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Today, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 51 - 48, defeated the effort led by Senator Roy Blunt (Missouri) to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act as an amendment to pending legislation. Thirteen Catholic Senators joined the majority.
The amendment, offered by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-MO, rolled back Barack Obama’s invasive Health and Human Services mandate that employers insure contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs with no co-pay. While the health care reform law exempts churches, it would force religious institutions such as hospitals and universities to underwrite products that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
“By consenting to the disastrous HHS mandate, the U.S. Senate has taken the unprecedented step to deny our religious liberties instead of defending the Constitution,” said Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate. “It is disappointing to witness a group of senators misled on this issue at the expense of one of our key founding principles.”
The following is a list of how the 24 Catholic Senators voted on the Blunt amendment:
Senator Mark Begich (Alaska, D) - Opposed
Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska, R) - Supported
Senator Marco Rubio (Florida, R) - Supported
Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa, D) - Opposed
Senator James Risch (Idaho, R) - Supported
Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois, D) - Opposed
Senator Mary Landrieu (Louisiana, D) - Opposed
Senator David Vitter (Louisiana, R) - Supported
Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts, D) - Opposed
Senator Barbara Mikulski (Maryland, D) - Opposed
Senator Susan Collins (Maine, R) - Supported
Senator Claire McCaskill (Missouri, D) - Opposed
Senator John Hoeven (North Dakota, R) - Supported
Senator Mike Johanns (Nebraska, R) - Supported
Senator Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire, R) - Supported
Senator Robert Menendez (New Jersey, D) - Opposed
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York, D) - Opposed
Senator Bob Casey Jr. (Pennsylvania, D) - Supported
Senator Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania, R) - Supported
Senator Jack Reed (Rhode Island, D) - Opposed
Senator Pat Leahy (Vermont, D) - Opposed
Senator Maria Cantwell (Washington, D) - Opposed
Senator Patty Murray (Washington, D) - Opposed
Senator Joe Manchin III (West Virginia, D) - Supported
“Faithful Catholics should take the opportunity to thank those Senators supporting our religious liberties,” added Smith. “It is our duty as laity to hold those who did not support our values accountable and vote our conscience when the time comes.”
The full Catholic Advocate Congressional Scorecard is available at scorecard.catholicadvocate.com.
|Posted Mar 3, 2012, 10:27 pm
Ignored by: 0