Blog - Republicans Not Giving Up on Birth Control Issue 
OpenCongress Blog
Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds
Republicans Not Giving Up on Birth Control Issue
March 2, 2012 - by Donny Shaw
Despite losing a vote in the Senate yesterday, congressional Republicans are doubling down on their efforts to let employers to pick and choose which health services are covered by their insurance plans under the new health care law.
TPM:
“This fight is not over,” said Senate GOP Conference Vice Chair Roy Blunt (R-MO), the author of the amendment that was tabled 51-48 on Thursday. “I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress to protect the rights that make our nation great.”
Though many Republicans would like to give the issue a rest, fearing voter backlash, the GOP can’t easily soft-peddle in this culture war conflagrataion. And that was clear today on both sides of the Capitol.
“I think it’s important for us to win this issue,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters Thursday, echoing the party line that the Obama administration’s requirement that most employer health plans include contraceptive coverage violates religious liberty.
Under the new health care law, employers would be required to offer insurance plans that meet certain minimum standards for covered benefits. What the Republicans are proposing is to allow employers to declare that certain health services are contrary to their “moral convictions” and offer insurance plans that do not cover them. The most commonly discussed case is that of Catholic employers being required to offer birth control coverage, but the Republicans proposal would apply more broadly. It would effectively roll back the responsibility of employers under the new health care law to provide their employees a basic level of health coverage and give them a mechanism to offer lesser coverage while avoiding the penalties they would face under the health care law as passed by Congress.
Here’s the key operative provision of the amendment the Republicans are pushing:
(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES.—
(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS.—A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because—
(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or
(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.
For your reference, the section of the health care law this would be amending can be read here.
Get Blog Updates by Email
Want a simple way to stay on top of what's happening in Congress?
Subscribe to this blog!Send Us a Tip
-
I've been watching a lot of...
Submitted by Robert Schwartzman on Dec 9
-
Proposed Bill HR-2674 Prote...
Submitted by Mary on Jun 16
-
Amendment No. 601 to the Om...
Submitted by Winifred on Mar 3
You can submit a tip anonymously, or attributed to your own name and e-mail, whichever you prefer. Read more about submitting a tip.
Recent Posts
- Endless Blockade for the Senate ... January 25, 2013
- One Year Ago We Killed SOPA -- H... January 18, 2013
- Senate Democrats Looking to End ... January 08, 2013
- Welcome the 113th U.S. Congress:... January 03, 2013
- Secretive Conference Committee F... December 20, 2012
Archives
See All ArchivesBlogroll
- A plain blog about politics
- The Baseline Scenario
- Capital Eye
- The Caucus
- CBO Director's Blog
- Congress Matters
- The Corner
- CREW Blog
- Crooks and Liars
- Jamie Dupree
- Election Law Blog
- FDL News Desk
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hot Air
- Irregular Times
- Little Sis
- Naked Capitalism
- The Moderate Voice
- OMB Watch
- Open House Project
- Party Time
- Plum Line
- Political Animal
- Political Wire
- ProPublica
- Real Clear Politics
- RedState
- Secrecy News
- Sunlight Foundation Blog
- Talking Points Memo
- techPresident
- 2chambers
- Unanimous Consent
- The Weekly Standard
Sort By
Comments
Spam Comment
Of course. Anything to divert attention from the real problem, political corruption.
I agree everything they tell us is to keep our minds pre occupied on issues that have nothing to do with anything, Same with the Corporate influenced News stations, But it is also Not the Governments responsibility to tell Us the United states citizen what we can and can’t do with our bodies, what we can and can Not put into our bodies.
KBSpam Comment
حافز اي فون منتديات
Spam Comment
Birth Control issue is also been a problem from some other countries like the Philippines. I think this issue cannot be over unless the republican will be giving up. Personal Injury Attorney
Personally, I’m glad their pursuing it. Even if you don’t have a problem with the state paying for birth control, anytime the rights of conscience of private organizations are ignored (ie the right of individuals—not the state—to refrain from paying for or offering services that go against their convictions), that’s a threat to all of our Constitutional liberties. They may not be stepping on your rights and convictions now, but letting things like this go will certainly pave the way.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Tampa DUI
Spam Comment
I don’t believe that companies are people, so companies should have no “moral beliefs”. And how is this limited to birth control? What if I’m a business owner who is a Jehovah’s Witness and I don’t believe in blood transfusions? Can I then refuse to cover those in my insurance plan, even though it’s within the moral beliefs of the employee who needs the blood transfusion? This is just another way that other people’s morals and beliefs are being forced upon the rest of us.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Honestly let’s start supporting Science not religion. Religion is fake or stupid might be a better word for it.
I hate the fact he said, “violates religious liberty”. Seriously? This is so dumb. Let’s get with the programs guys.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
This issue tend to have no end because of the opposing parties. On the side of the Republicans, they are trying to express positive benefits to its citizens.
Arizona Attorney
This article brings up some interesting points. It also makes me think of companies like Chic-Fil-A. Christian companies or other religions that are opposed to immoral behavior as defined by their religion should have the right to choose what they offer. I think the mentality here in the US is more that a job is a “right” and not a privilege. As a small business owner working as a Personal Injury Attorney why should I have to provide this benefit if I don’t believe in it?
That is a really serious issue. Personally I stand behind science and not religion. airbrush makeup
Spam Comment
Health Insurance is a must! It is really important. Some of the Birth Controls have a side effects.
Expected clash! How2Blog
Any employer who refuses to offer such health care coverage will likely have a harder time attracting new employees, because they’ll all be taking jobs with companies that do offer them. As the owner of a trademark attorney law office, I know that most employers don’t offer these benefits out of kindness; they offer them as part of a total compensation package designed to entice the employee to work there. If you offer fewer coverage benefits, you’ll have a harder time attracting good workers.