The Contraception Mandate Fix: Fact vs. Fiction
If you read the emails and tweets coming from abortion-rights members of congress and pro-abortion feminist groups you have probably heard that Senator Blunts amendment will prevent women from obtaining contraception. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) claims making birth control inaccessible is by male design to set us back to the dark ages when there were no women in Congress or women CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies, – no, I didn’t make that up. Pro-aborts are hysterical over the the Blunt Amendment, #1520 the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which could be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill.
Below is fact and fiction on the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act:
THE CLAIM: Senator Blunt’s amendment would allow anyone to deny coverage of any health care for any reason. It would take us back to the medical dark ages.
THE FACTS: This is unequivocally false. Senator Blunt’s amendment simply restores conscience protections that existed before President Obama’s flawed health care law – the same protections that have existed for more than 220 years since the First Amendment was ratified.
THE CLAIM: Any employer can deny coverage of specific items under Senator Blunt’s amendment – whether faith-based or secular.
THE FACTS: Senator Blunt’s amendment would do nothing to change or restrict the same rights that Americans have enjoyed for more than 220 years. If an employer has a religious or moral objection to a type of coverage, Senator Blunt’s amendment affords them the same rights that they had before ObamaCare to negotiate a plan with a health insurance company that meets their needs.However, Senator Blunt’s amendment does nothing to force the health insurance company to offer that plan – it simply ensures that Americans are guaranteed the same rights and freedoms that they enjoyed before President Obama’s unconstitutional mandate.Senator Blunt’s amendment also provides a private right of action for employers and individuals who believe their conscience rights have been violated by government mandates. Federal courts are well equipped to identify spurious claims.
THE CLAIM: Senator Blunt’s amendment would gut existing state mandates on contraception coverage.
THE FACTS: Senator Blunt’s amendment would not impact existing state laws, and it does not address any other law other than President Obama’s flawed health care plan.
THE CLAIM: There is no precedent for broad conscience protections like ones that the Blunt amendment would enact.
THE FACTS: Many longstanding federal health care conscience laws protect conscientious objections to certain types of medical services.
Click here for full text of Senator Blunt’s amendment.
