A Woman, Her Doctor & Scott Brown…

UDPATED: A New link to the Springfield Republican newspaper is included.

UPDATED II: Like her or not, Elizabeth Warren slams Brown and calls health care an economic issue.  She’s not shy about her feelings on Brown’s position.  Key point from Warren is that the “Blunt Amendment” is not just an attack on women (it is), but an opportunity for employers and insurance companies to exploit workers and policyholders.

I have to say at the outset, that I did not have a problem with the President’s original contraceptive rule.  Many at this forum did and I think most were satisfied by the compromise.  I was okay with it, too.  However, there were many, beyond the Catholic bishops who remained perturbed and are now pushing a bill that goes beyond treating different employers differently based on their religious affiliation.  Cue Jon Stewart (if you’re short on time skip to 3:52):

That is the bill Senator Roy Blunt is now peddling to counter the President’s rule.  One that would exempt ANY employer from covering ANY medical procedure, medicine etc if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Let’s clear one very important detail.  The Supreme Court, including noted conservative Antonin Scalia, have said that personal religious beliefs do not exempt you from the law.  Other jurisprudence has held that requirements that apply across all employers, including religiously-affiliated ones, are valid even if they conflict with their teachings.  Indeed, Catholic institutions already had to provide birth control under an EEOC ruling, just not as preventative medicine, that is without a copay.  The point of this is to note that there is NO Constitutional issue here.  If it helps on the matter of employment, it is important to think of health benefits you get from your employer not as some gift or charity.  They are earned by the employee and therefore are subject to regulation by the state including what bare minimum requirements you are obligated to provide.  The employers religious beliefs (and I’m talking everybody, and especially not just the churches) are not at issue.  In effect, by keeping it out of the equation, the government is also protecting the faith or lack thereof of the employee.

Given all of this and given Massachusetts socially liberal swing and given Scott Brown’s less than stellar political relationship with women (I know he’s married to a woman and has two daughters.  He’s not a misogynist), he would either stay away from this fight or, hell show more independence from Madman Mitch.

WRONG!

Originally reported by Greg Sargent at the Washington Post, Scott Brown’s office confirms that he is on board with Blunt’s bill.  Local media in Springfield have also picked up the story and note the sharp difference between simply excusing church institutions and excusing anybody.

I think this leap is essential, because we are not just talking about the church here.  I firmly disagree with the bishop’s position about Catholic affiliated institutions getting as far away from birth control as possible, however, their position is a valid disagreement to the extent that the bishops consider these institutions part of the church itself.  The same cannot be said of the “devout” Catholic who owns a store or, for that matter a privately held Fortune 500 Company, and finds an objection to covering contraceptives.  Indeed, it does not stop there as Stewart noted in the above clip.  Indeed, it would probably lead to chaos, especially to the extent that the government cannot and should not be qualifying people’s religious beliefs.  The result would be a health care insurance system with more holes that Swiss Cheese.

Brown’s position on this matter may not be entirely new, according to Think Progress.  However, Brown has changed positions before as on Health Care and elsewhere, perhaps because he thinks Massachusetts as a whole is more conservative than Wrentham was.  In any case, it seemed plausible that Brown may flip-flop to the saner position in this case.

Instead, Scott Brown has committed a major blunder on his part by going for this way-out there bill.  As the Steve Benen link shows, he’s to the right of Maine Sisters, meaning he can’t run to them for protection as he has for other woman-related blunders.  It may attract some support from men (not me, of course), but it threatens Brown where he needs votes the most, that is suburban women.

Today’s WBUR poll is bad for Brown, but the crosstabs could give him hope.  They may only be a memory, now.  Many Americans want the government to not stand between a patient and their doctor.  Indeed, Brown is part of a chorus that claims the President’s health bill puts the government in the examining room.  However, not Brown has signed onto a bill that does just that, under the cloak of an employer.  However, you feel about abortion, I think it is fair to say most people agree that women’s health is a matter for a woman and her doctor (and her partner at her option).  Now we know for certain Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts disagrees.

Please share widely!

0

0