What Matters Today

Blunt Responses to the Blunt Amendment

Yesterday’s debate on the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act introduced by Senator Ray Blunt (R-Mo.) didn’t take long to heat up. Sen. Orrin Hatch, (R-Utah), said, “Obamacare is what brought us here today… Our Bill of Rights has been subordinated to the president’s desire to micromanage the nation’s health care system.” Hatch added: “Those of you who vote against this amendment are playing with fire.”

In this Feb. 1, 2011 file photo, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. arrives for a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
In this Feb. 1, 2011 file photo, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. arrives for a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

The so-called Blunt Amendment, which would have given employers the right to deny health coverage to their employees for religious or moral reasons, was itself denied in a tight 51-48 vote.

Four senators crossed party lines: Dems Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) voted in favor; Republican Olympia Snowe voted against. Snowe announced earlier this week that she would not run for re-election in part because she was so frustrated by the “polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies” that have become so pervasive in Washington.

Senators vehemently argued about what they were arguing about. Republicans contended it’s about religious freedom — an effort to correct an overreach by the Obama administration that was “precisely the kind of thing the founders feared” (McConnell, R-Ky.). Democrats saw it as a women’s health issue, complaining that the bill was too broad in its language and is part of “a systematic war against women” (Mikulski, D-Md.).

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius released a statement that summed up the Obama Administration’s position succinctly: “[D]ecisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss.”

And a study released yesterday by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates that the American public sides with the Democrats. Reuters reported “nearly two-thirds of Americans favored Obama’s policy, including clear majorities of Catholics and evangelicals.” Also, twice as many respondents said they feel the debate is “driven by election year politics as [those who] believe it would have been a major debate in any other year.” (50 percent to 24 percent).

Undeterred, House Speaker John Boehner, a Catholic conservative, pledged to continue the fight: “I’ve been trying to take this out of the political realm and get it into a position where we can continue to protect the American people’s right to their own religious views,” he said. “And there are a lot of ways to do that. There’s one in the Senate. We have a couple in the House. It’s matter of how we proceed.”

BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to feedback@billmoyers.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • Anonymous

    Why is Healthcare in this Country considered a right?  For that to be a human right you must coerce others to provide it.  Senator Hatch has contributed to this Big Government mentality.  He supported the auto and bank bailouts- allowing Government to use plundered funds and pick winners and losers in whats supposed to be a free land.  Hatch wrote the Patriot Act, and supported the NDAA.  Basic human rights like due process (as old as the Roman Empire) have been shoved under the rug in the name of “national security.”  Security that our warring Government jeopardizes.   http://www.hatchrecord.com  

  • Dig435

    I, as a citizen of this country, feel the ability to obtain health care is a right implied in the Declaration of Independence: “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “   My belief in the right of receiving health care is also tied to my belief in the kind of society I think is most advantageous for a democracy to flourish. 

  • zelvis

    keepoop: I’m not sure why you would want to choose that side of the moral question. It would seem to me that the wealthiest nation in the world should be able to provide affordable healthcare for it’s citizens. After all, the majority of personal bankruptcies are the direct result of a catastrophic illness, usually to employed people with insurance. Why choose the role of apologist for massively wealthy individuals and corporations? These are people who can afford platinum healthcare policies for their kids’ gerbils.
    That being said, a huge number of catastrophic illnesses are caused by toxins in our food, water, ground and air. These toxins are dispersed knowingly by corporations who choose these practices over more responsible and costly ways of doing business. These deadly choices are permitted by our purchased government. The least the government can do is provide the health care to treat the illnesses that they permit corporations to cause.

  • Anonymous

    I have not read the Blunt amendment.  Perhaps the language is too broad but i agree that religious employers should not have to provide contraceptives to employees when they don’t believe in contraceptives.  We don’t force the Amish to put fire alarms in their houses or to send their children to public high school because of religious liberty.  We should not try to force religious  institutions that do not believe in using “contraceptives”  to be the providers of contraceptives to  their employees.  And included in the “contraceptives” to be provided are morning after pills which are especially objectionable to some.  I notice that two of the Democrats that voted for the Blunt amendment are pro life.  President Obama promised not to use the health care bill as a means of spreading abortion coverage and to be forced to provide “contraceptives” of this type comes very close to that. For the first time I agree with John Boehner.  The fight needs to be continued.  No one is stoping women from obtaining contraceptives on their own.  I am not against the health care bill as long as it remains a “health care” bill but if it becomes a bill to force religious employers to violate their beliefs I will be.  Pregnancy is not an illness and  contraceptives are not all that expensive. 

  • Anonymous

    Society rewards things like developing algorithmic programs to skim every penny from the public stock market-WS.  Math, Science, Technology is the focus of schools.  Passion for helping others and promoting that in more doctors and care givers in our schools?  One more corporate demand to fuel a world removed from the average intelligent person and shared world of empathy without which we have OWS and the concentration of wealth that fights like hell to distort our calling in life.  

  • mmac

    Right! I think any doctor in the country should have the right to allow you to drop dead no matter how much money and insurance you have simply because you have an incurable selfish disease which seems to be contagious. It’s the best reason to pick and choose who lives and dies I ever heard…Take a vote and see how many want you on the planet…Some will probably prefer your money and your job. We should select who gets insured by a vote on who’s worth having  on the planet with us …like the survival show …vote people off insurance. What makes you think you deserve insurance anyway…Didn’t your boss pick it for you or are you just so good you buy it for yourself or so rich you don’t need it?….If everyone can’t have it let’s just do survival of the fittest. Anyone can listen to you and tell your not about community. ..your about you…so no one needs you in the community. Why would some poor hospital employee or nursing home under paid staff want to  clean your bed pan? Trust me if you think money will coerce them to treat you well…remember there is always fewer beds than those that need them.

  • GradyLeeHoward

    It applied to ALL employers sponsoring health care coverage.

  • GradyLeeHoward

    I reckon no one (or the Constitution) guarantees you air to breathe  either, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work to keep air clean, or does it?

    The herd immunity thing by Moyers was an attempt to explain that we are all linked environmentally healthwise.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=559424836 Alexandra Lange

    51-48 votes???  This is flabbergasting. Is not about religious freedom. This is an issue about health. One thing is the theory, another thing is the real life out there. Travel to under developed countries and see the effects of non-existent reproductive health.

  • GradyLeeHoward

    The opponents of choice in contraception as part of health care coverage would be the first ones to squeal if they were  cut off. So many of them want to see their scapegoat categories of fellow citizens lose earned benefits and protections while they keep theirs. But under the equal protection of federal law it can never work that way. When the rope is cut, all fall.

    Now who is it wants all US citizens to settle for less? (oligarchs, corporate employers)

  • Anonymous

    Well  said Zelvis.

  • DebbieF

    To me the decision the employers are making is to hire from the diverse pool of people our country has rather than to only hire like minded people of the same faith. To have that opportunity they must provide the kinds of benefits the employees and students can get elsewhere.

  • Avalon

    Has it occurred to Senators Hatch or Blunt that there are people… people who are likely bosses… who consider a person having more than two children in a world so overpopulated to be immoral?  Will they be allowed to voice moral objections and refuse to have the company insurance pay for deliveries of children if the parents already have two?    Have you really thought this through?  Gluttony is immoral… are diseases related to gluttony fair game too?

  • Jim Olson

    People pushing the blunt amendment cannot pretend to be that ignorant. It is not possible for an informed person to be that ignorant. This has nothing to do with religion. No one is forcing any one to do anything against their moral or religious beliefs. the government is a secular construct by law. Any person or organization taking federal secular dollars must follow secular government rules in the use of that money. This is mind numbingly simple to understand. If you won’t follow the law, don’t take the money. If you want to keep to your primitive stone age beliefs, fine, just do it without my secular federal dollars. Do not under any circumstance whatever, Take my tax dollars and use them to promote your woman destroying religious idiocies. Simple, no? If you want to push your discredited phantasies on poor suffering people do it on your own dime, not mine.

  • Jim Olson

    To be clear, the church, any church has zero say in any government function . Zero, zip, nada, none. All churches need to STFU when it comes to legislation. Congress shall make NO LAW. It’s that simple.

  • Phoenix_397

    I submit that, when people start making laws that affect MY life, based on THEIR personal religious beliefs,  that it infringes on my personal, moral, ethical and religious rights as a United States citizen to freely make my own choices about what is right for me.

  • 1truthteller

    No one is stopping you from keeping your sacred little sex organ in your pants, your zipper up and closed permanently until you can TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR PART IN CREATING A CHILD EITHER. There you go. Ever notice that BIG PHARMA NEVER spends time on research and development for MALE CONTRACEPTIVES? Perhaps women need to consider BECOMING A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH….and THEN …..well…..THEN reckoned with WE WILL BE.

  • 1truthteller

    Alexandra…CONTRACEPTION IS NOT….AGAIN I SAY…IS NOT A WOMEN’S ISSUE. It has been framed as a “women’s” issue BY MEN!!!! Guess who DOESN’T WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SEXUAL ORGAN? GUESS WHO HAS NO INTEREST IN THEIR so-called “sacred” sex organ being “hindered” in ANY WAY by the NEED for contraception on their OWN PART of creating a child? The last time I looked there were only two genders on this planet. Unfortunately, WOMEN HAVE NEVER BEEN DANGEROUS ENOUGH….and men have never HAD TO take responsibility for THEIR part in procreation. PERHAPS IT IS PAST TIME FOR BIG PHARMA TO DEVELOP BIRTH CONTROL /CONTRACEPTION FOR MEN…..AND THEN WE’LL SEE  HOW “IMPORTANT” IT REALLY IS FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PAY FOR THIS TYPE OF COVERAGE. Since Viagra and other penal “enhancement” drugs continue to be covered…I would imagine male birth control would not be withheld!

  • Anthonymcquiston

    Let’s not regulate corporation, but we should definately regulate every citizen’s reproductive choices.  Makes sense, right?

  • Anthonymcquiston

    If you don’t want to provide contraception, then don’t take federal money.  Simple solution.  Oh, right.  You want the money and to honor your “values”.  Why religious institutions are tax exempt at this point is beyond me.  Organized religion has become a hateful, bigotted force to divide people.  It has very little value.  It’s all  superstitious fairytales written by primitive, ignorant men. 

  • Anthonymcquiston

    Just another attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act by the republicans.  Nice try though.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not sure what you are trying to say.  I am a woman myself so of course I have had to take responsibility for my part in creating my children.  And part of the contraceptive plans that the government would like covered is vasectomy and thats
    male contraception. Yesterday  I read the Blunt amendment and it is an exception  to having to provide the contraceptive part of the mandated health care plan available to providers, health care plan producers and to the receivers of the plans for those who for reasons of conscience or religion did not want  that part of the package included.  The rest of the health care plan would be provided.  It would not stop people from purchasing their own birth control.  It would by no means put  people into a situation like what exists in countries where birth control is almost non existent.  It has nothing to do with being tax exempt either.  It is simply an exemption for  people and groups who for reasons of conscience do not want to provide that part of the plan.

  • Douglas Bright

    This is missing the core problem. Quality healthcare should not be dependent upon the vagaries of one’s employer. The employer should be taken out of the equation all together. One’s employment status and income level should not be an obstacle to receiving FDA-approved health care that both you and your doctor deem is necessary.

  • GradyLeeHoward

    Better to let Maurie Povich flag you and pay 18 years of child support per fertile tryst than have your girlfriends whoring around on the damn free pill!