The amendment states:
Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.Going back a bit to where this controversy started last August, covered in the following article from The Washington Post:
The article describes how, back in August of 2011 when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius presented a proposal to clarify part of Obama's 2010 Health Care Reform. The 2010 law only stated that women receive coverage for preventative health care with no out-of-pocket costs, it didn't actually prescribe the specifics, which were left to Secretary Sebelius to work out.
That's when Secretary Sebelius made her first mistake. Instead of consulting a bunch of dudes in the priesthood, she consulted an advisory panel from the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine. See how that plays out in the heartland you liberal elite, talking to the people with science book learning. Based on those recommendations, Sebelius included all forms of birth control carrying the FDA seal of approval... which includes emergency contraception such as Plan B and Ella (basically morning after pills). Surgical sterilization also made the list.
Secretary Sebelius included an exemption for churches. So, obviously, cue the religious freak out, again, spearheaded by a bunch of dudes arguing that the exemptions should include religious-affiliated groups like hospitals and schools. At first, in late January, the Obama administration gave the affiliated groups an extra year to figure out how to make it work, but the Catholic church continued its pressure. Vice President Biden was even calling for expanded exemptions.
Congress called a hearing to go over the subject more in-depth, and while the panel had more than its share of dude representation, the one woman scheduled to speak was disallowed. Turns out the disallowed lone female voice was a Georgetown University law student speaking on behalf of a friend who took daily birth control pills to prevent ovarian cysts.
Her testimony was disallowed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R) because he said the hearing was only to discuss the topic on the grounds of religious freedom and Ms. Fluke's testimony didn't fall under that category. Ms. Fluke's denial led to this (now well-known) protest from Rep. Carolyn Maloney:
The above clip is way too long, but in addition to getting the "Where are the women" speech from Rep. Maloney, it also has the most old school newscasters up front keeping alive the awkward delay when going from camera one to camera two.
A number of female representatives walked out of the hearing while Ms. Fluke herself sat right behind the wall of dudes to make sure the committee never lost sight of the person they denied the chance to speak. I'm not sure if Rep. Darrell Issa ever understood the underlying stupidity of his actions. I guess, in the interest of keeping the debate focused, Rep. Issa excluded testimony that demonstrated exactly why this debate shouldn't be kept so focused. This issue isn't as simple as Rick Santorum may believe when he boils it all down to pleasure fornicatin' is the devil's work. Sure, contraceptives may mostly be used for the pleasure fornicatin', and there may be dudes in dresses who are against that and against the idea of being forced to pay for that, but there are other reasons that might not be so simple. Is the Catholic church against the use of contraception for medical reasons even though there is the side possibility of pleasure fornicatin'?
The Obama administration came up with a compromise. Religiously affiliated institutions would be exempt and the insurance companies themselves would be required to provide the coverage at no out-of-pocket cost to the insured. It actually makes sense from a financial perspective for the insurance companies to do this. Contraception is significantly cheaper than abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and covering a child for twenty something years after being born. The Catholic church was also cautiously supportive of the compromise, but again, a new series of questions and complaints opened up.
First, what about religiously affiliated groups that self-insure... meaning they take all of the employee medical contributions each month, add their own contributions, and use that pot of money to pay for medical procedures as needed? They don't use an insurance company that could cover the costs of contraception. What about private firms that are owned by people with religious objections to contraception but don't qualify for exemptions because they are for-profit? Should the government interfere with those individuals and their religious freedom?
The irony of using the cry of religious freedom to impose your religious views on another...
The language of the Blunt Amendment up top leaves open the possibility that a private owner could have a beef with birth control and therefore prohibit it from being part of the company's health care coverage. This leads to the possibility of an extremely awkward job interview. Now a candidate, when asked if she has any questions for the interviewer, will have to say "what is the owner's take on recreational sex?" Or the awkward note from the doctor stating that a woman does indeed need the pill for medical reasons and not because she's a ho skankbag heading for an eternity in the fire. Or the awkward quitting by the woman bringing the doctor's note when she's told there are no exceptions for medical birth control - just to be safe that there isn't a doctor out there legislating from the script pad.
The job interview will no longer be about "is this person right for the job" or "is this job right for what I'm seeking out of a career?" It will now be "is this job able to be a part of my life... my most personal and private beliefs?" Basically you'll need to know if this is a job opportunity you'd want to marry.
Obviously there are a number of intergalacically stupid slippery slopes for this to careen down, but I can't understand why this isn't getting more people to scream the biggest hanging albatross of a question. Why are employers still involved with our health insurance? This has nothing to do with them. It never did, but employers needed crazy amounts of carrots to dangle in front of possible employees in the extremely limited pool during World War 2.
Take employers out of the equation once and for all. We're fabricating a convoluted problem out of thin air and ignoring the easiest solution in order to keep punching ourselves in the sex parts with this fabricated problem.
