Blunt, under fire for 'rights of conscience' amendment, claims 'misinformation'

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON - Responding to withering attacks on his "rights of conscience" amendment that would block the Obama administration's new contraception rule, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., is accusing opponents of spreading "misinformation" in advance of an expected Senate vote.

At least two dozen liberal and women's health groups, including Planned Parenthood, have banded together to pressure senators to block Blunt's measure, which Senate leaders have said would be allowed as an amendment to a major transportation bill. Opponents and backers of the measure were digging in for an extended campaign on the issue.

"It puts politics between women and their health care," contended U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. She heads the Senate Democrats' campaign committee, which launched a "One Million Strong for Women" petition drive contending that Blunt's amendment is "a radical piece of legislation that would cannibalize health-care reform by letting any employer deny any part of your heath care coverage due to 'moral convictions.'"

On the opposite side, Blunt's amendment -- which he said aims to block health care mandates that interfere with constitutional "rights of conscience" -- is backed by more than two dozen faith-based or social conservative organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention. Some of those groups were ginning up constituent mail and support from their members and backers on behalf of Blunt's initiative as well as a wider "religious liberty" campaign.

more: http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/280-washington/116057-under-fire-for-rights-of-conscience-amendment-blunt-claims-misinformation

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Keep it up! I've sent several emails to Blunt and my stupid Senators.

[xtraxritical]

8. The REPugnants position is based on lies and is all posturing for media "face time".

President Obama's compromise position was to accommodate their concerns. In reality the President's proposal basically says that if the employer objects to funding insurance premiums for contraception and other types of women's health care then the insurers will cover the procedures gratis. The offending procedures will be strictly between the woman, her doctors, and her insurer with no participation by the employer. The only participant with standing to object to this arrangement is the insurer. Republicans are completely disingenuous about this and just using the false issue to create a tempest in a tea pot for media exposure. The REPUBlitards are in reality smoking the issue to protect their campaign contributions from the insurance industry. I assume the other riders on this band wagon (Catholic Bishops Council etc.) are seeking media attention also.

[JoePhilly]

2. Roy Blunt (R-Vatican) nt

[HockeyMom]

3. He is co-sponsoring this with Rubio

That was the subject of my thread. This is "conscience amendment" is so BROARD that I don't think even they realized the implications this could have. It wouldn't just affect women and their choice to control their own bodies. It would affect men, women, and children who would be at mercy for LIFE SAVING medical procedures than an employer might deem objectionable. I don't think they even thought of this.

That just goes to prove Republicans cannot see the forest for the tree

[hifiguy]

4. They realize it, alright.

The point is to gut even employer-provided healthcare in the name of protecting those poor, oppressed benighted assholes claiming "religious discrimination." This is no accident at all.

[libmom74]

5. This kind of stuff really angers me,

on the other hand I'm kind of glad the Republicans are doubling down on these anti-women issues it will only hurt them in the 2012 elections and hopefully we will get an even bigger majority in congress than we had in 2008.

[HockeyMom]

6. They can't on an improving economy and Obama's approval ratings

So they have to come up with something else. In their primaries, it's the religious issues. That only appeals to a VERY SMALL base. If they are going to make contraception an issue, that is not going to sit well with ALL women; even Republicans. The Santorum idea of putting women, and FAMILIES, back in the Middle Ages just isn't going to appeal to the majority of the country.

[Dont call me Shirley]

7. Used to live and vote in MO, never voted for Blunt, Asscrap or any of those crackheads.

[Vinca]

9. I think they ought to vote on the damn bill.

Get the lunatics on video in their war against women.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

10. I need help with interpreting part of this bill

Here is a sub-section:

‘‘(H) ACTUARIAL EQUIVALENCE.—Nothing
in this paragraph shall prohibit the Secretary
from issuing regulations or other guidance to
ensure that health plans excluding specific
items or services under this paragraph shall
have an aggregate actuarial value at least
equivalent to that of plans at the same level of
coverage that do not exclude such items or services’’.

What does this mean? I think I know, but if there is anybody that understands insurance language, I would appreciate any help.