Skip to main content

    Sign Petition (here) to:
STOP Roy Blunt (R) Amendment That Allows Employers To Deny Health Services To Jews, Catholics and Children

  Senator Roy Blunt's Amendment, S.AMEND 1520 to S.1813 (text below), is clear in that it allows Employers to Deny Health "Services" to anyone they please so long as the Denier (Employer) of Health Services feels that to grant "PROVIDING COVERAGE IS CONTRARY TO MORAL CONVICTIONS of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan [Employer]."

     Notice Senator Blunt's Amendment goes beyond the age-old "Religious Freedom" argument to deny groups of people services by including a person's "Moral Conviction" as an excuse to discriminate against groups of people.

     Also, notice Senator Blunt's Amendment goes beyond just cherry picking which legal, non-narcotic medicines will be covered in Health Insurance, but, can also deny any group of people, Jews Catholics Baptist, any Health SERVICES if "PROVIDING COVERAGE IS CONTRARY TO MORAL CONVICTIONS while at the same time provide coverage to employees they like or have no moral objection to.

     Senator Blunt, and his 20 co-sponsors, are pretending that a persons' "Moral Conviction" is a Constitutional right to deny groups of people coverage and/or services ... but as seen in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "Moral Conviction" to discriminate is not Constitutional Protected.

Senator Roy Blunt's Amendment would make the following legal:
....... IF: An employer thinks "Providing Coverage" to Jews, Catholics, Protestant, Evangelicals, Women, Men, Childhood Vaccines, Elderly etc is "Contrary To Their Moral Conviction"

....... THEN: The employer can deny coverage to those groups ... while at the same time, provide coverage to other employees of whom they like.

Bottom Line: Sen. Roy Blunt's Amendment, that 20 co-sponsors and Rep. Eric Cantor(R-Va) support, would make the 1965 Civil Rights Act null and void and employers would be legally allowed to deny Jews, Catholics etc Health Services.

Excerpts From Senator Roy Blunt's Amendment:

    "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 SERVICES because:

     ‘‘(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."

Keywords in items (i) and (ii):
      "Providing Coverage" "Or Services" "Is contrary to ... OR Moral Conviction" ...  Not just "Religious Beliefs" but also "OR Moral Conviction"

    See that, "because Providing Coverage [including basic health insurance coverage] is contrary to the moral conviction of the employer."  Like I said, that language would allow an employer to provide health coverage to groups he/she like, but NOT cover groups he/she does NOT like on the grounds of "moral conviction."

     Senator Blunt and his 20 co-sponsors are reviving the oppositions arguement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act regarding moral conviction and individual liberty to discriminate.

     Item (C) is simply 100% false. For decades, the federal government has mandated that employers who provide coverage and/or care requirement to their employees do so in a non-discriminatory manner.

For Instance:

1) For decades, if an employer thinks it is contrary to his "Moral Conviction" and/or "Religious belief" for a person to take addictive narcotics ... the employers Health Plan may NOT Deny coverage for addictive narcotic medication prescribed to patients in hospitals.
2) For decades, if an employer thinks providing coverage to Jews or Catholics is contrary to his "Moral Conviction" and/or contrary to his "Religious belief" that employer has NOT been legally allowed to Deny Jews or Catholics Health Services if they offer ALL their other employees Health Services.
3) In 1986 President Ronald Reagan signed into law: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act which mandated hospitals provide care to anyone needing emergency health services treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status, religion, gender or ability to pay.

     Reagan's 1986 Law also mandates that: Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for ALL patients and hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.

and
4) Let's not forget about the Civil Rights Bill denying employers their "Moral Conviction" and/or their "Religious belief" to discriminate against groups of people.
Co-Sponsors and Supporters:
 
   As of Sunday, February 11, 2012, The 20 Co-Sponsors of Senator Roy Blunt's (R) Amendment are:
Sen McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]  
Sen Johanns, Mike [R-NE]
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]  
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT]  
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH]  
Sen Rubio, Marco [R-FL]  
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [D-NE]  
Sen Roberts, Pat [R-KS]  
Sen McCain, John [R-AZ]  
Sen Kyl, Jon [R-AZ]  
Sen Coats, Daniel [R-IN]  
Sen Barrasso, John [R-WY]  
Sen Toomey, Pat [R-PA]
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [R-IN]
Sen Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Sen Boozman, John [R-AR]
Sen Paul, Rand [R-KY]  
Sen Shelby, Richard [R-AL]
Sen Hoeven, John [R-ND], and
Sen Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and
House Majority Rep Paul Ryan also supports Blunt's Amendment

   House Republican Leader Eric Cantor has  tweeted his support for Roy Blunt's Amendment.

 

Senator Blunt said his Amendment is to
"Ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions”
.... and moral convictions?
    Senator Mitch McConnell said,
"This is about freedom of religion, it’s right there in the First Amendment."
Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) said,
"There are enough votes in the Republican-controlled House to pass similar legislation."
    Senator Marco Rubio said,
"Well, you know what it is, it's a constitutional issue.  It is very simple. This is a straightforward concept. It's NOT about medicine."
.... It's not about medicine?
 
Yesterday, Senator Scott Brown's spokesman, John Donnelly told the Washington Post:

“Senator Brown appreciates President Obama’s willingness to revisit this issue, but believes it needs to be clarified through legislation. The senator signed onto bipartisan legislation that writes a conscience exemption into law, which is an important step toward ensuring that religious liberties are always protected.”

    Seems Eric Cantor, Roy Blunt, Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Scott Brown and the 18 other co-sponsors falsely think that any person who has a "Moral Conviction" to discriminate against a group of people is protected under the First Amendment under the guise of "Religious Freedom" ... they couldn't be more wrong.

     For the record, Cantor, Blunt, McConnell, Rubio, and the 1 other co-sponsors must have missed the part of history where it became contitutionally illegal for an employer, regardless of their religion, to discriminate against groups of people.

     Don't be fooled by the political clowns who want listeners to think the current Health Services discussion is about "contraception" -- as we see by Sen Roy Blunt (R) Amendment, the discussion is about clowns in Congress wanting to make the 1964 Civil Rights Act null and void so that employers can discriminate against groups of people based off of a personal, alleged, "Moral Conviction."

     Sign the Petition (here) and tell Congress they must STOP Senator Roy Blunt's Amendment Allowing Employers To Deny Health Plans To Jews & Catholics.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Presumably employers could refuse to provide (5+ / 0-)

    healthcare to children unless they were living with their married biological mother and father?

    They could refuse to cover your healthcare if you were divorced?

    They could reuse to cover vasectomies?

    They could refuse to cover treatments for liver disease which might have been caused by drinking alcohol?

    Surely even the most lame brained wing nut could tell this is not a good proposal . . . or not.

    “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

    by ahumbleopinion on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:46:15 AM PST

    •  That is not what it says (0+ / 0-)

      It wants to give private employers the same religious exemption that churches have. So a Catholic employer can exclude contraception in his employee coverage package. It does not at all say that the employer can pick and choose which employees he will cover based on their religion or personal lifestyle.

      from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

      by Catte Nappe on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 08:02:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are wrong (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        keepemhonest, TeamSarah4Choice

        Due to Blunt's language in the Amendment any employer can deny any and all Health Services to any group.

        For instance, employer may find it "contrary to their moral conviction" to "Provide coverage" for jews ... Blunt's Amendment allows for the employer to deny Jews coverage.

        You are not very bright as you have trouble processing and comprehending Blunts Amendment

      •  Read &Learn Blunt's Amendment DOES Deny Jews & (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        keepemhonest, TeamSarah4Choice

        Catholics Health Services if an employer decides that "Providing Service to a Jew or a Catholic is contrary to their moral conviction."

        BLUNTS Amendment:
        "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 SERVICES because:
        Keywords: "Or Services"

        Clearly Blunt's Language says employer can deny "specific item OR SERVICES."

        The Legal Definition of Health Services means health care coverage as a whole (not the cherry picking you &Blunt pretend is going on.)

        Now lets look at the other part of Blunt's Amendment:

         ‘‘(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
        Notice, Blunt's Language says "Providing Coverage" and does NOT say providing coverage for specific items ... rather Blunt's language is BROAD and includes ALL Coverage including Healthcare Coverage in total.

        Therefore, like I said, Blunt's Amendment allows an Employer to DENY Health Services to Jews or Catholics etc if that employer decides that "Providing Coverage, to Jews, is contrary to the moral convictions" of the employer.

        Please, do yourself a favor and learn how to comprehend what you read.

        •  You are so wrong (0+ / 0-)

          So very wrong. But clearly I am not going to be able to convince you that declining to provide services means "no contraception" or "no blood transfusions" or "no cosmetic surgery". It does not mean you can decide to cover the Christian employees but not the Jewish ones. You really are making a public fool of yourself, but that is your right and privilege, so I will leave you to it.

          from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

          by Catte Nappe on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 09:57:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As expected, you FAIL Reading Blunt DENIES JEWS (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            keepemhonest, TeamSarah4Choice

            and catholics any and all services if the employer decides providing coverage is contrary to their moral conviction

            Here, I'm feeling generous today so I'll give you another free reading comprehension lesson:

            Notice Blunt's Language
            "... declines to provide coverage of SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES because"

            Again, pay attention to Blunt's language "SPECIFIC ITEMS"

            OR SERVICES.

            Addressing Blunt's "SPECIFIC ITEMS"
            IF: Blunt's Amendment was limited "Specific Items"
            THEN: Blunt would allow the employer to cherry pick services you included: contraception, blood transfusion etc
            But Blunt INCLUDES .... "OR SERVICES" in addition to "Specific Items."
            Addressing Blunt's "Or SERVICES"
            Legally, the definition of Health Services is the Health Care Insurance Plan a person has.  
            Since Blunt's Amendment is a LEGAL DOCUMENT with words that have LEGAL DEFINITIONS, like Services, then due to the language in Blunt's Amendment:
                 Blunt's Amendment would allow any employer to deny any person or group of people Health SERVICES if the employer decided "Providing Services is contrary to their moral conviction."

            Meaning, like I said, if the employer decided that denying Jews Health Services was contrary to their moral conviction, then the employer could discriminate against his/her Jewish employees with the Blessing of Roy Blunt and his 20 co-sponsors.

            Blunt and his 20 co-sponsors are trying to make the 1964 Civil Rights Act null and void through Blunt's Amendment.

            Blunts argument, "deny due to moral conviction", did not work in the 60's and it will fail again.

            I hope you finally understand the LEGALITY of Blunt's Amendment and the LEGAL WORDS he used in his Amendment and the gravity the legal words he used have on American workers.

            •  Right On cc - Frightwingers on here lie so much (0+ / 0-)

              I mean, Blunt's Amendment is clear as a bell and you described it perfectly:

               any employer can deny any and all Health Services to any person or group of people if that employer decides "Providing Services is contrary to their moral conviction."

              Only a Frightwinged TeaTalibagger would not be able to see the Blunt's Amendment is nothing more than an Amendment to allow employers to discriminate.

              But, maybe the Frightwinged TeaTalibagger arguing with you does know what Blunt's Amendment says but agrees with Blunt that employers should be able to discriminate.

              Anyway - GREAT diary cc and I hope the Petition is filling up with signatures!

  •  That is NOT what it says (0+ / 0-)

    And pushing a petition on those grounds makes you look like an idiot. There's ample reason to object to the amendment. It is intended to provide privately owned businesses the same "religious exemption" that is given to churches. Such that a Catholic employer could avoid providing contraception to his employees. I suppose a Christian Scientist could use those grounds to eliminate most coverage entirely. But what it does NOT do is say an employer can cover some employees, but not others.

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 07:59:39 AM PST

    •  You clearly FAIL Reading Comprehension (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      keepemhonest, TeamSarah4Choice

      I suggest you get an education, one where there are real books as Beck U is NOT a real education.

    •  Where does the bill say that the moral conviction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TeamSarah4Choice

      has to be based on the religion of the employer? So you believe that a Unitarian CEO couldn't refuse to provide contraception to their employees but a Catholic on could?? Tha makes even less sense than your other positions.

      "You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon." Blade Runer

      by OHdog on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 10:54:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A Unitarian against contraception? (0+ / 0-)

        I find such a thing highly unlikely, but I suppose if there were one this amendment would give them legal cover to exclude it from their employee insurance plan.

        As to my "positions"; one is that this proposed amendment is an offensive piece of RW trash and needs to buried. Another would be that this diarist is gravely mistaken on the grounds s/he is objecting to it, and is making a fool of him/her self (and this site, to the limited extent anybody is reading it, or the prior diary)

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 11:34:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  cc is right, you really do fail reading (0+ / 0-)

          you also failed the 2 reading lessons cc gave you on here.

          Like cc said, Blunt's wording is clear as a bell.

          1) an employer can deny coverage if it is merely against the employers "moral conviction" - not religion but simply 'moral conviction.'

          2) an employer can deny COVERAGE of all services to any single employee if the employer decides that "Providing coverage is contrary to their moral conviction."

          Seriously the only person on here showing themselves to be a fool is  you.

          You are so foolish and unable to comprehend simple words that you keep saying the same false non-sense over and over.

          Your comments here remind me of your most recent ridiculous diary where you cut/pasted your diary and didn't even bother to read it before you pasted it.

          I agree with cc, you really should drop out of Beck U

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site