Maine's Republican senators, Olympia Snowe (left) and Susan Collins are
members of Wish List, a dwindling group of female Republican politicians
who are pro-choice, Harry Hamburg / AP Photo
Excerpts from a column today in The Daily Beast:
News outlets are busy canvassing Republican senators to see how they plan to vote Thursday on the Blunt amendment, which would allow employers to withhold insurance coverage for any health-care service that violates their “religious beliefs and moral convictions.” It would grant this exemption not only to religiously affiliated institutions but to all secular employers as well...More at The Daily Beast.
With less than 24 hours to go before the vote, only Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe had confirmed that she would vote against the measure. Her fellow Maine moderate, Sen. Susan Collins, remained undecided, at least for the record. A third female Republican senator, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, was also withholding her commitment, raising the prospect of a potential mini–women’s rebellion within the GOP over the controversial amendment.
Snowe’s surprise declaration that she would be stepping down from her seat after three terms because of the “atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies” served to crystallize the debate over the Blunt amendment. Her decision also underscores the political peril facing Republicans over the measure...
The Blunt amendment goes beyond religious institutions, allowing any employer that, for example, disapproves of smoking or drinking to potentially withhold treatment for those behaviors...
Addendum: The amendment did not pass the Senate.
Unfortunately, very few conditions can be traced with certainty to any nonsexual lifestyle choice. Some nonsmokers get lung cancer; some slim people get diabetes; some teetotalers get cirrhosis. (Not many! But not "beyond a reasonable doubt.") Even some drunk drivers probably are not at fault for the wreck. About the only conditions that can be certainly traced to voluntary activities, are STDs and pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I wonder if a car-insurance company could offer a cheaper policy that only covered if you were not found at fault.
I also wonder if an employer who chose not to subsidize promiscuity (as they'd see it) by not covering contraception, would cover treatment for a rape victim. Or what if a gay-run company decided they disapproved of pregnancy and stopped providing perks to parents?
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/03/01/blunt_amendment_senate_vote_contraception_debate_vs_religious_freedom_.html But they beat us to it...
ReplyDeletethanks for the update, Maia.
Delete