Rob Eno of RedMass Group has a great post on the recently introduced Blunt amendment, which constitutes a “conscience clause” to prohibit the federal government from forcing a religious institution to provide healthcare services (such as the morning after pill) that violate it’s moral principles.
Rob’s post is here: http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/13980/scott-brown-following-in-ted-kennedy-tradition-in-conscience-clause. Always insightful, that guy!
Rob points out that the massive protest that the amendment has set off in the dens of the liberal like-thinkers (i.e. the DailyKos) misses the point that the “Conscience Clause” suggested by Blunt (and supported by Scott Brown) is little different from a similar clause previously supported by Ted Kennedy!!
We (on this page) have always argued that the issue is not which forms of coverage are right or wrong. The issue is not, to be specific, whether birth control pills should be included as necessary coverage in all insurance policies or not. Rather, the issue is that Obamacare forces any kind of uniform system on everyone and takes all of these decisions and places them in the hands of federal boards of unelected bureaucrats.
A brilliant article on this same subject was just published in the Wall Street Journal today by Scott Gottleib. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577220950656734864.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
So, repeal Obamacare remains our mantra.
That said, while readying the cannon of repeal there is no downside to taking out the chisel of obviously sensible modifications like the Blunt amendment.
For reference, Blunt’s amendment (as excerpted by the DailyKos!) is here:
“A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) 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 SERVICESbecause:
‘‘(i) PROVIDING COVERAGE (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such 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.
“(C) Until enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148, in this section referred to as “PPACA”), the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers, purchasers of insurance, plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, such as individual or institutional health care providers.”