Scott Brown, along with some of the rapidly-shrinking number of Massachusetts residents who want to see him reelected, would have you believe that Brown’s position in support of Roy Blunt’s crazy amendment is no different from that advocated by the late Senator Edward Kennedy.
False. HT hesterprynne.
Here’s why: the legislation that Ted Kennedy filed (section 1162, p. 84) would have created a broad “conscience” exemption for doctors and nurses, and for hospitals. Under his bill, no “health professional,” and no “health facility,” could be required to offer or perform any item or service, “if the professional or facility objects to doing so on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction.”
Yes, that’s the same broad “conscience” language in the Roy Blunt amendment. But the context is completely different. In Kennedy’s bill, the concern was forcing, say, a doctor who believed that abortion was murder to nonetheless perform an abortion. Or to require that Catholic hospitals offer abortions. But Ted Kennedy – who was famously pro-choice despite his Catholic faith – would no doubt have expected that a woman who wanted an abortion would simply go to a different doctor.
That, of course, is miles away from what we are talking about with the Blunt amendment. Under Blunt/Brown, it doesn’t matter where the woman goes, because if her employer has a “moral conviction” that she shouldn’t get an abortion, or AIDS treatment, or a blood transfusion, then it doesn’t matter where she goes; her insurance won’t pay for it. Kennedy’s concern was that doctors and hospitals not have to provide services that conflict with their faith. But the Blunt amendment says that any employer (religious or not) can make it effectively impossible for his employees to receive health care services to which he objects (by exempting them from insurance coverage), even when the patient wants, and the doctor is willing to provide, those services.
Not the same thing. At all.
Discuss
8 Comments . Comments are closed.A few points ...
Scott Brown is trying to bail himself out by changing this to some twisted argument to whom agrees more with Ted Kennedy instead of this is a nut job of a bill that you are a co-sponsor. — Gee I don’t know Scott, Ted’s life’s work was providing national health care. So it must be you, since you want to repeal it.
Second, let Brown tie himself in knots, read the language of the bill and repeat it and explain to everyone what it means. Let Brown squirm and defend why he wants contraception or any other kind of coverage be determined by your employer.
People aren’t stupid, it written directly in the bill.
So far all he’s got is Ted used the same two words 17 years ago in a bill. Great Scott, it all clear to me now.
While it’s good to clear up BS, don’t change to conversation to be Brown’s made up non-sense. Just keep using the bill’s language and tie him to the right wing extremists that are sponsoring this with him.
It’s a whos, whos of Kennedy wannabes:
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] – 2/9/2012
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 2/9/2012
Sen Boozman, John [AR] – 2/9/2012
Sen Coats, Daniel [IN] – 2/9/2012
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] – 2/9/2012
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 2/9/2012
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 2/9/2012
Sen Hoeven, John [ND] – 2/9/2012
Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] – 2/9/2012
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] – 2/9/2012
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] – 2/9/2012
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 2/9/2012
Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] – 2/9/2012
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] – 2/9/2012
Sen Paul, Rand [KY] – 2/9/2012
Sen Portman, Rob [OH] – 2/15/2012
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] – 2/9/2012
Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] – 2/9/2012
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] – 2/13/2012
Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] – 2/9/2012
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] – 2/9/2012
Eabo Agrees ....
This is why I miss Eabo commenting here:
Your employer should be able to deny you coverage for whatever they want, if you don’t like it, get another job. It’s truly that simple.
It would be hilarious
if it weren’t messing with people’s lives. All very well to use a $9/month prescription as an example. When it comes to AIDS treatment – and I have little doubt that, if Blunt’s amendment becomes law (which it won’t), that would happen – it’s no longer so easy to dismiss the financial implications of this wretched legislation.
Even more broad than that.
Try any medical advance that had something to do with embryonic stem cells.
Could be anything
It shouldn’t matter who you work for, whether something is covered, should it? We should ditch employer provided health insurance and let people buy their own individual plans and pay for it themselves. McCain’s refundable tax credit was a good idea.
Get another job!!
WOW! I have been saying that about Right To Work laws for a while.
If they don’t want to work in a union shop go and work for a non union shop.
The key here is,
The blunt amendment states INDIVIDUAL or institutional health care provider.
Nothing in the Kennedy law says that, thus Scott Brown is twisting words or has not read the bill he signed onto
I think...
… that if Scott Brown wants to model himself on Ted Kennedy we should hold him to that…
… on everything.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Thu 17 May 12:51 AM