GOP: Your Boss Should Control Your Health Care


Don’t be fooled: the Republican’s aren’t out simply out to make it impossible for women to have control over their health insurance coverage. They are out to make it impossible for anyone to control their insurance coverage. They just see attacking contraceptive coverage as the way to get there.

Republicans finally showed their hand in the form of a new bill that would allow employers and insurance companies to pick and choose which health benefits to provide based simply on executives’ personal moral beliefs. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is fully behind the proposal and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has said he plans on letting the measure come to a vote this week.

The goal is simple: create a religious conscious exception so large health care reform becomes meaningless.

The proposal is known as the Blunt amendment, named after sponsor Sen Roy Blunt (R-Mo). His amendment would allow any insurer or employer, religiously affiliated or not, to opt out of providing any health care services required by federal law. That means everything from prenatal care to diabetes screening would be fair game for employers and/or insurance companies to decline coverage for based on personal “moral” objections.

The bill also effectively screens employers and insurance companies from liability for coverage denials. Employers would not have to cite specific religious reasons for their decisions. Instead, simply stating a given treatment goes against their moral convictions would suffice. And the bill allows employers to sue if state or federal regulators try to enforce coverage.

Let’s be clear here. This is a full-throated assault on the consumer protections afforded under health care reform. But it’s worse. If the Blunt amendment passes and becomes law, what’s to stop Republicans from offering these kinds of expansive and unrestricted conscious clause exceptions to other laws, say civil rights laws. After all, Republicans bemoan civil rights legislation as an assault on personal liberty, surely that qualifies as a personal moral offense that would justify broad grants of exclusions from anti-discrimination laws.

And that may be exactly what the Republicans have in mind.


Related Stories:

Elizabeth Warren Takes On Scott Brown Over Birth Control

Snowe, Collins Break Ranks On Birth Control

GOP Goes After Pro-Choice Women On Birth Control


Photo from nateOne via flickr.


ay m.
g d c5 years ago


Sue T.
Susan T6 years ago

It seems to me that this current "situation" over birth control has flared up over the requirement in Obamacare that all health care plans provide all forms of birth control/abortion at no cost to subscribers no matter what and I think this is wrong.
A person always has options to get insurance else where, buy condoms at the local grocery store or work out things directly with pharmacuetical companies in certain cases.
I agree with Nancy L. government needs to stay out of my health care Both parties.

Nancy L.
Nancy L6 years ago

Neither employers NOR the government should have anything to do with my health care choices. Stay out of it.

Julia R.
Julia R6 years ago

The Replicans saw an opportunity with this religious dogma from the Catholic church, once more trying to rule people's lives as in the dark ages, and is now playing this card for their own political interests to give the big insurance companies and corporations- their benefactors and big campaign contributors- precisely what they want but under the guise of a religious or moral pretext. The insurance companies and big corporations have been fighting meaningful healthcare reform for years and getting away with denying people even the most basic healthcare coverage that includes screenings to prevent diseases and even prenatal care which is essential for the health of both the mother and baby! This bill would once more return us to the days when insurance companies would back out of claims because of preexisting conditions, put a cap on benefits with people who had chronic conditions and had been paying premiums all of their lives, and once more be able to deny anyone coverage at any time. We don't want a return to those days! Insurance companies should be asked to cover more not less with the premiums that they are charging us. This is just another Republican ruse to try to enrich the pockets of big corporations and their buddies, once more, at the expense of the middle class and the working poor! I hope I'm being blunt enough, when I say down with Blunt's amendment as it will leave us, once again, with the insurance companies providing us with inadequate healthcare with hu

michelle B.

Their ignorance&personal agen's make me cringe

Madi M.
Madi M6 years ago

An interesting move by the GOP to attempt control over the uterus' of America. There is a lot to be worried about with this move, as it has corporate expense cutting in mind. I'm sure there are many businesses who would opt to see birth control removed from being a necessary medical expense regardless of their religious beliefs.

Thanks for the article.

Joey Sullivan
Joey Sullivan6 years ago


Janet K.
Janet K6 years ago

Why is it that these ignorant Republican men think the only women who want access to birth control are sexually promiscuous? I was married and I had one child by choice. When I see the state this world is in because of human overpopulation and greed, I feel guilty I brought him into it.

Dr Clue
Dr Clue6 years ago

Every GOP candidate's site I've seen including Ron Paul's champions the sale of insurance across state lines under the guise of increased competition and lower prices.

This failed experiment has already been tried, by way of the credit card industry. Like the credit card industry , health insurance companies would gravitate to the states with the least regulation and then use the constitution's "full faith and credit" clause to prohibit your state from implementing any meaningful regulation.

One would face ever increasing rates and small print games that would deprive you of service.

Next they'll want to use the same arguments to privatize the fire department so that unless you have that fire insurance company's plaque on your home it will simply be left to burn.

If you think that's something that would never happen, think again , as that is exactly how fire departments worked until Benjamin Franklin instituted the very first public fire departments.

When it's a matter of life and limb, what makes people think that health care and the fire department are such disparate concepts?

Christopher C.
Chris C6 years ago

I find it rather humorous that the religious-Reich and the so-called "moral" rethuglicans harp on having smaller government, for they don't want government intruding in their lives and telling people what to do. BUT it's OK for the religious-Reich to tell people how THEY THINK people should live and what they should do! They're trying to push MORE RELIGION into peoples lives...just like a "religious government"?!? What a bunch of hypocrites!