Blunt amendment rejected in the senate

Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 9:17:01 AM)
The Senate defeated Sen. Roy Blunt’s amendment to allow employers to refuse to cover health services Thursday, dealing Republicans a high-profile setback in the fight over the Obama administration’s contraception coverage mandate. Sen. Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican who this week said she would not run for reelection, joined nearly all Democrats in a 51-48 vote to dispense of the amendment, which would have allowed employers to decline to cover certain health benefits that conflict with their religious beliefs. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted for the proposed amendment to the Senate transportation bill, saying the Obama administration did not respond to her concerns about whether self-insured health plans of faith-based organizations would be exempt from the contraception coverage mandate. So did Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who this week questioned why Republicans were voting on the proposal now. Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania joined Republicans in support of the amendment. Democrats said the amendment was too broad and would have been an attack on women’s health. But Blunt (R-Mo.) vowed that the vote won’t be the end of the debate over the contraception coverage rule — and predicted that the Supreme Court might have the final say by striking it down. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73497.html#ixzz1nt1K4aNg SO Im guessing this will not be the last we hear about this, but tis good news for now. I dont expect them to give up, but how much money went into this process, pushing for the worst case scenario then walking back to something less "extreme, it still gets them a win, but the time and energy and bad feeling makes them just look inefficient, over reaching and ignorant. BTW where are the jobs?? didnt that have something to do with their platform?

SternSkipper -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 9:35:23 AM)
WooHoo... something anyway to cheer me up after the TRAGIC LOSS OF ANDREW BREITBART.

kdsub -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 10:10:02 AM)
He should have been more specific…If he had stuck to just contraceptives, as silly as that is, then he may have gotten further. But I don’t see why a group or company that wants to self insure could not set what it wants to cover or not cover. An individual has a choice of not working for the group or company or obtaining different insurance. Butch

Owner59 -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 10:22:18 AM)
As soon as the cons took off with the "charities can discriminate" line.....they thought they had good sized winning fish and started reeling as fast as possible .....doubling down with suggestions that any employer could discriminated against anyone for almost any healthcare benefit etc..... Only thing is....the big fish the cons thought was a..........winner.........turned out to be an old truck tire.....the perfect metaphor for republicans.

Owner59 -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 10:27:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper WooHoo... something anyway to cheer me up after the TRAGIC LOSS OF ANDREW BREITBART. Is he dead? He seemed alive and kicking at CPAC and even livelier outside the event.......calling the protesters "rapists" as he was dragged away......

SoftBonds -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 10:38:50 AM)
You are required to provide health care to your employees, but only what you believe is effective. If you are a scientologist, your employees won't be going to doctors or hospitals, they can go to a "cleansing," instead... IMHO the right is desperate to do anything to stop the insurance mandate...

Owner59 -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 10:55:23 AM)
You got stomach ulcers?! Walk it off and get back to work!!![8D]

SternSkipper -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 11:06:29 AM)
quote: Is he dead? All sources indicate, AS A DOORNAIL quote: He seemed alive and kicking at CPAC and even livelier outside the event.......calling the protesters "rapists" as he was dragged away...... Yeah... payback's a bitch isn't it? God must have a few minority and middle class children left.

SternSkipper -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 11:19:49 AM)
quote: If you are a scientologist, your employees won't be going to doctors or hospitals, they can go to a "cleansing," instead... IMHO the right is desperate to do anything to stop the insurance mandate... And sometimes straight over to the Morgue from there. Scientology NOT JEHOVA'S WITNESS ... BUT EVERY BIT AS EFFECTIVE[:D]

kalikshama -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 11:31:41 AM)
quote: The Senate defeated Sen. Roy Blunt’s amendment to allow employers to refuse to cover health services Thursday, dealing Republicans a high-profile setback in the fight over the Obama administration’s contraception coverage mandate. YAY! Scary how damn close that was.

farglebargle -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 1:13:16 PM)
I think of this as a turning point on the Republican War On Women. They've lost completely, and while Texas and others still have stupid laws on the books, expect the federal overturns to start happening pretty soon...

SternSkipper -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 3:52:53 PM)
quote: I think of this as a turning point on the Republican War On Women. Anybody see what the vote count? I know that Pussy Scott Brown did something right for once. But then again it's an election year and he's an "independent spirit" in Massachusetts... which means he DESPERATELY needs to please hundreds of thousands of democrats. It will be interesting to see how he fairs against a democrat and a REAL INDEPENDENT.

kdsub -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 4:16:12 PM)
51 to 48...pretty close

SternSkipper -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 7:04:53 PM)
quote: 51 to 48...pretty close Thanks for the count. And since it's not a budget related bill it won't be back in any likelihood.

DarkSteven -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 7:15:50 PM)
I'm shocked it was so close. 1. The amendment would have allowed management to set health care policy by THEIR religion, NOT that of their employees. So if you work for a company with a Catholic CEO, he could impose his religious beliefs on you even if you were Mormon, Jewish, or Muslim. 2. In the most ridiculous case, if you work for a Christian Scientist, he could refuse to provide any health care whatsoever.

SternSkipper -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/1/2012 8:10:29 PM)
quote: I'm shocked it was so close. I'm surprised since more republican senators are up for re-election beside s Scott the Coward Brown. They must be pretending to have balls or something.

erieangel -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/2/2012 3:11:17 AM)
I'm so angry with Sen. Bill Casey. How am I supposed to vote for him when he comes up for reelection after he voted for this monstrosity?

kalikshama -> RE: Blunt amendment rejected in the senate (3/2/2012 3:59:36 AM)
Senate Democrats defeat contraceptives-policy repeal - without Casey In a vote that could feature prominently in his reelection campaign this fall, Casey broke from his party and backed a Republican amendment that would have allowed employers and insurance companies to opt out of medical coverage that conflicted with their moral beliefs. "As I have made clear continuously, I strongly support contraceptives and have voted to provide funding for family planning," Casey said. "I also believe that religiously affiliated institutions should not be forced by the government to violate their beliefs." While the vote may have put the first-term senator at odds with party leadership, it could end up helping his campaign, political strategists said. The five Republicans running to unseat him have all made the senator's frequent support of Obama's policies a centerpiece of their attacks. By breaking from his fellow Democrats on Thursday, Casey managed to demonstrate independence from the administration on an issue close to the social conservatives his GOP opponents are trying desperately to court, said G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin and Marshall College.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.785156E-02