Opponents of the anti-contraception Blunt Amendment needed a simple majority on the Senate floor this morning. They got it, but just barely.
The proposal failed on a 51-48 vote. (The procedural mechanics were a little awkward: "yes" votes were against the amendment -- "yes" they wanted to table it.)
Most members voted along party lines, but not all. One Republican, Maine's Olympia Snowe, broke ranks to oppose the measure. Meanwhile, three Democrats -- West Virginia's Joe Manchin, Nebraska's Ben Nelson, and Pennsylvania's Bob Casey -- sided with the right.
Casey was the only real surprise here, though it's worth noting that he's an opponent of abortion rights who's running for re-election this year. Snowe and Nelson, by the way, are both retiring at the end of this term, and were free to vote however they pleased.
And what of the other so-called Republican moderates? Massachusetts' Scott Brown championed the far-right measure and voted with his party; Maine's Susan Collins backed the amendment despite reservations; and Illinois' Mark Kirk is still recovering from his recent stroke and was the only member to not vote today.
It led Greg Sargent to raise a good point:
Olympia Snowe's announced retirement has prompted a great deal of hand-wringing about how supposed "centrist" politicians no longer have any meaningful role to play in Washington. The demands for ideological purity on both sides, we're told, have grown so strident that the possibility of bipartisan compromise has vanished.
But here you have a case where one of these "centrists" decided not to opt for the compromise position, and instead is going with the extreme one. Obama's compromise is supported by six in 10 Americans, including 67 percent of independents, according to a new Kaiser poll. The Blunt position, by contrast, is the ideologically rigid one.
Greg was referring to Collins, but clearly the same sentiment applies, at a minimum, to Scott Brown.
Vulnerable Republican incumbents -- including Brown and Nevada's Dean Heller, who also voted with his party today -- will likely see the issue used against them in the fall.
Indeed, the campaign ads practically write themselves. After all, the Blunt Amendment, championed by Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt (R), which would allow all private-sector employers to deny any health services that businesses might find morally objectionable. Forty eight senators, including all but one Republican in the chamber, are now on record endorsing a right-wing plan that could allow employers to cut off everything from contraception to STD screenings, prenatal care to mental health coverage, drug treatment to immunizations.
Blunt told reporters after the vote the fight "is not over." The Democratic mainstream probably hopes he's right, and that Republicans keep this going for months to come.
Leave a Comment:
I have to keep asking this - what is it that compels Dem "centrists" to fall on their sword in the name of party unity? Snowe had to quit to vote her conscience. Dem moderates had to commit suicide and "take one for the team," only it's the other team.
The ONLY reason to vote for this suicide pill is because one is beholden to the wingnut base - the ONLY people guaranteed to never, ever vote for a Democrat, and the ONLY people who support this bill. A Dem can only lose votes by supporting this. So where's the pressure coming from?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
and the threat of being primaried.
The only primary challenge that will result is BECAUSE of this vote.
Remember that your representatives watch television like everyone else does. If they hear the beltway press stating over and over again that X is a mistake that is what they are going to think. They assume that the beltway press accurately represents how 'the people' are feeling about an issue. This is part of why Maddow pokes fun of the beltway press and their assessments of certain situations.
I wondered the same thing when I read that my not-so-esteemed Senator from PA, Bob Casey supported the amendment.
I immediately went to his website where he has this great big button marked "Share Your Thoughts With Me." I did:
Republican partisanship and extremism will never win. This amendment was a bad bill, a legislative can of worms that went well beyond simply allowing religious organizations to not pay for health insurance that includes birth control. An employer feels opposed to vaccinations for kids on "moral" ground? The GOP's amendment would have let that employer strip all of their employees from the ability to get life-saving vaccines for their kids. This was big government overreach at its worst. The GOP is taking a bazooka to its own feet with this bizarre fight over contraception... http://www.sunstateactivist.org
"The demands for ideological purity on both sides, we're told, have grown so strident..."
This may be a bit off topic, but why is it that the MSM continues to point out that "both sides are going for ideological purity"? If that were the case, Ben Nelson and a few others should have an R behind his name! Stop blowing smoke up my posterior!!
Second, this is a win for right now, and I'm glad for it!! Now please vote these women haters out come November!!
If the Blunt amendment became law, can you imagine the howling that would ensue the first time an employer cited Sharia law as the reason to explain their healthcare plan?
Thinking things through to their logical conclusions isn't one of their strong suits.
It's about picking your battles and the GOP picks the most unwinnable battles to fight ~
It's a war of atrophy.
All across the states the Republicans are enacting the same playbook (Who wrote that, by the way?) in a coordinated effort to keep banging at the walls of Democracy until something caves and precedent is set to enact the rest of the laws across the rest of the states.
It's why Republicans are trying to pass 'unwinnable' anti-abortion laws over-and-over-and-over to the tune of dozens per year so far. Get the opposition to stumble, get enough votes to pass the law, then set precedent for other states to follow.
It's a systematic attack and deconstruction of civil liberties under the guise of freedom and religious morality.
I'm surprised and disappointed that Sen. Collins voted for Blunt despite her reservations. I'd like to know what they were. Sen. Nelson's vote doesn't surprise me at all. I'm glad he's retiring. GO KERREY.
Collins needs the job
Taking notes? Be a shame to forget who voted how come November.
Don't you love the way a yes meant no? Just like Citizens United means Corporations or ...
Reminds me more of Prop 8.
Kathy Griffin did an interview thing asking Californians who voted for prop 8 if they knew what they had voted for. A lot of them thought they had voted for gay marriage. Yes means no and no means yes.
Yes to 8 = Yes to Hate
But they won through double talk, and a ton of Utah Mormon money poured into California to support the bill.
And if we're not careful, Meh Romney could win just by burying us with his cash and his lies.
Yes Blunt. The FIGHT is not over. You have jumped the shark with this. I don't give a sweet s#$% what your reservations are. If you voted FOR this you are a fool. You don't read legislation. You don't know what this entails. And you played politics over REASON.
Employer A , on high moral grounds, doesn't believe in organ transplants. Not covered.
Employer B, on high moral grounds, doesn't believe in procedures that require incisions to be made. Not covered.
Employer C, on high moral grounds, doesn't believe in blood transfusions. Not covered.
Get the picture?
Employer D: white males are godly creatures and should be taken care of by Him. None covered.
Employers D-Z have a moral objection to paying into any insurance plans so nothing is covered.
employer C could also be a Jehovah's witness follower. They are absolutely opposed to blood transfusions!
and what about the employer who doesn't believe in fertility treatments, or prenatal care?
We'd still be arguing what's covered, but at least the objecting employers would be out of the picture if we had single payer for 98% of health care with exceptions to be supplemental.
They already have exceptions, so the uproar over religious persecution is a red herring. I think most folks that follow religious practices can work around these objections.
I think wages would be higher if employers didn't have to negotiate health plans for most things, maybe a group plan for the supplemental as a perk.
Well to be fair it would not be that you could argue moral grounds opposing anything- there is already legal precedent in place saying that your beliefs have to be well established. However a Jehovah's Witness who was an employer could argue that they should not be forced to cover blood transfusions. That one is certainly true. Catholics do not believe in IVF or any sort of 'artificial' (whatever that means) form of pregnancies so they would argue to not have that covered. And I do believe there is a sect of Christians who believe that organ transplants- especially, if I'm remembering correctly, if they involve animal parts- are wrong. So they would argue not to have that covered. So while we have to avoid the slippery slope argument here in arguing that anything could stop being covered, there certainly are things that religious individuals would argue against. And that certainly would be opened up by the Blunt amendment.
Employer ZZ - thinks you should "pray away [fill in the blank]" . . . .
Even if legal precedent says the beliefs would have to be established beforehand, you can be sure that the same minds behind this would also work to challenge that as well.
Why stop at the pill? Why not free Chemo drugs, why not free surgeries?
That may very well be true Jon. I was just saying that it isn't necessarily a fair argument to present a slippery slope that- given current legal standards- would be impossible to have happen under federal law. If things change due to a SCOTUS ruling then you'd be correct and I'm sure people would like to challenge it for as much. Under current law if you have a long standing tradition you could implement it under the Blunt Amendment. So no you couldn't say 'I'm morally opposed to chemo' and then not have to cover it. But you could say I'm morally opposed to blood transfusions, or organ transfers, or IVF treatments, etc.
@Eric!- This isn't exactly 'free' coverage. You still have to pay your premium and deductible in order for any of this to apply to you. A person who doesn't pay their insurance premium wouldn't suddenly have contraception coverage. You just don't have to pay for these types of coverages out of pocket like you used to pay. It'll now be covered by your insurance which it wasn't before hand. But, personally, I'd rather not have medical coverage be in the hands of private companies at least when it comes to primary coverage. I'd be totally OK w/ private insurance companies giving coverage as a secondary provider for those who can afford it, but I'd be much happier if every American could have coverage. Although I know your politics well enough to know that your comment was meant to be snide instead of liberal.
What if employer X doesn't believe in vaccinations for children?
I would love to be able to read a transcript of the backroom discussion by supporters of this amendment. Is it a shot at ACA? Is it a shot at Women? How many actually believe this crap? What promises or bribes were offered for support? The insurance companies gain nothing, so who benefits?
On the surface they may not seem to benefit but, beleive it's all about the money.
Who benefits? Employers who do not have to pay to cover their employees. This is really an attempt to take down the Affordable Care Act. That might not be bad if they would extend Medicare to all.
Has anyone ever done a study to find out how much businesses would save if they did not have to pay for health insurance for their employees? If the amount they are now paying for health coverage were to be changed to a tax to support a medicare type national plan, I bet the fund would have more money than would be needed, especially if we were to go to a Mayo model for paying for medical care as opposed to the current fee for service model.
I've been an ardent supporter of a national single-payer plan for a long time, but imagining how that would look if the wingnuts in the current Congress were in charge of what would be covered is making me start to question that.
Casey and Manchin need to be primaried and run out of town
The three dems who voted for this abomination need to be replaced soonest! What, women in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Nebraska don't use birth control? People in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Nebraska don't get sick or injured? Outrageous that any democrat supported this monstrosity!
The women West VA, PA and Nebraska need to get behind these idiots and run them out of Congress - on a rail!
We are a sick country.
What the Republicans trying to make a joke about the Keystone Pipeline. That project if done regardless or not has an extremely high risk to failure. That so-called slug that is called oil will act like sandpaper or a grinding wheel against metal materials and valve seats. The very thought of that pipeline going through any area of America is nothing but a catastrophe waiting to happen and putting our environment and personal safety in harms way. If they want that oil so bad than why don’t they just process it right there. These Big Oil Companies have billions of dollars build a plant right at site and that will create more employment. Don’t put the American people and our environment at risk, just to than ship that crap somewhere else.
Even in Canada they are fighting a losing battle over this. They have already destroyed clean water and natural habitat there.
And sadly, Obama supports it.
Huh? He said no to the pipeline as it was proposed and when issued an ultimatum by Congress for a decision. How does he "support it" then?
Senator Robert P. Casey, DINO from Pennsylvania, joined the man who he defeated to become a Senator (Rick Santorum) in declaring war on Pennsylvania's women. Mr. Casey should change his party affiliation now like his dad threatened to over abortion. Senator Casey isn't going to be forgiven for this one, there isn't a day that goes by from now until the November election that somewhere in Pa. a newspaper will get a letter reminding them how Casey declared war on women on March 1, 2012. How Bob Casey declared war on workers on March 1, 2012, and how Bob Casey became a synonym for misogynist on March 1, 2012.
Senator Snowe didn’t quit because of “partisanship.” She quit because the GOP no longer wants “legislators.” It wants spear-carriers.
Snowe’s Maine colleague, Susan Collins, also has a reputation as an independent-minded moderate in a party that's become ever more extreme over the past 15 years. Collins holds the seat once occupied by Senator Margaret Chase Smith, best known for the ringing "Declaration of Conscience" she delivered on the floor of the Senate on June 1, 1950, which earned her the epithet "Moscow Maggie" from Joseph eMcCarthy and his staff.
But when I heard Collins speak not too long ago it was obvious she has a long way to go if she wants to wear Maggie Smith's mantle of patriotic, public-spirited statesmanship.
As she did in a Washington Post op ed, Collins complained about the toxic partisanship poisoning politics in the nation's capital, the loss of civility eating away at personal relationships, the extremism overtaking both major parties, and the vilification that awaits anyone (a.k.a. Collins herself) who tries to walk and work across party lines.
"I don't know who first described politics as the 'art of compromise,' but that maxim, to which I have always subscribed, seems woefully unfashionable today," wrote Collins. "Too few want to achieve real solutions; too many would rather draw sharp distinctions and score political points, even if that means neglecting the problems our country faces."
Noble sentiments, all. But then you realize that the person who wants to "draw sharp distinctions" and "score political points" while neglecting "the problems our country faces" is Collins herself. Rather than leverage her moderate standing to call out the bad behavior she claims to loathe, as Maggie Smith once did, Collins would rather trade on her reputation for evenhandedness in order to advance the Republican Party's partisan prospects.
The great tragedy in America today is that there are so few leaders -- in politics, the media or public life -- who have the credibility to stand above the fray and be heard across partisan lines. Every game needs its umpires. And politics is no exception. However much we might genuflect to the Will of the People, we still need those adults who stand ready to mediate our disputes and differences, whose commitment to honesty, impartiality and disinterestedness is so obvious and so deep that we trust them implicitly to call balls and strikes and tell us "and that's the way it is."
Susan Collins was among those few we looked up to for an unbiased appraisal of current conditions - or as unbiased as is humanly possible in these hyperpolarized times. And that is why it was so dispiriting to find her making such patently self-serving remarks.
The far right of the GOP obviously got to her. That's the most charitable explanation I can give for her obscene assertions she's never seen such "divisiveness and excessive partisanship" in the Senate as she sees now - ever. Or that partisan rancor is why the American people are so angry with incumbents -- "particularly those who are in charge." Or that the reason Republicans "overuse the filibuster" is that Republicans are routinely shut out in a Senate that "used to pride itself on being a bastion of free and open debate." Or that the way to promote greater harmony between parties is with "divided government and a more evenly split Senate."
That's right, to get along better what the county needs most is to elect more Tea Party Republicans who would see their own party spontaneously combust rather than see someone other than a far right extremist get elected. And those are Jim DeMint's words, not mine.
The male Republicans are now running the female republicans out of office. What hole did these men just crawl out of? They are kind of creepy and nerdy. They've been turned down alot by women and now it's their turn to attack all the women in the world. They are apparantaly afraid of women and see them as a threat to their intellegience and their ability to control. I don't really know why their doing this but, somebody needs to find out fast because they are causing the demise and the reputation of this country.
"The great tragedy in America today is that there are so few leaders " Are there any? Bernie Sanders maybe and his is truly "A voice crying in the wilderness"
The politics today remind me of the writings of Cato - a senator in the Roman parliment. He too, becried the the sharp partisianship, the sinking of morals as greed and power blinded men and sapped away their courage to make strong decisions that would benefit the citizens of Rome. Bread, circuses and never ending war didn't bring jobs and prosperity to Roman citizens. I doubt this menu will allow us to fare any better.
If this bill ever becomes law, I think that the insurance company that covers these senators should always refuse to cover any and all medical condition, test, medicine or treatment that they may ever need because of their moral beliefs. Then see how they feel about their ridiculous bill.
Do you think the Congress and the Senate can now get back to the real and important issues that The majority of Americans are concerned about? Why not help one of our greatest Presidents in history finish his historical work of bringing all people Republicans, Democrats, Independents (All Americans) together for the sake of our children and their children. A healthier planet a peaceful world is now closer within our reach. Lets' get on with the real work we have our sleeves rolled up and ready to support a great President and a great Country.
yeah, I don't see that happening just because this bill failed.
As someone who has voted the Democratic ticket for more than half a century, and worked hard to get Obama elected, it really pains me to; ask do you really believe that he is "one of our greatest Presidents in history"?
It's great that Scott Brown voted for this. Elizabeth Warren should be able to score some political points here. Makes her job easier.
how on earth did he ever get back ahead of her in the polls to begin with? and by 9-10 points no less? anyone here from Mass know what happened to her (small) lead?
How about if I'm an employer who has moral objections to smoking, so the health plan I'll offer my employees won't cover lung cancer, emphysema, asthma; after all, they were "asking for it." Or, I'm an anti-vaccine zealot, so I won't cover those. Or, I'm a Christian Scientist, so my employees can't have ANY Western medicine, only Christian Science practitioners.
It's a good thing Ben Nelson is retiring; he votes with the GOP more than he votes with his party on major issues. As for Scott Brown, I suspect he just added a few points to Elizabeth Warren's lead over him in Massachusetts polling. Bob Casey puzzles me: How can he be against pregnancy terminations but also against a proven way to eliminate the need for such terminations?
This silly fight has very little to do with contraception, and a whole lot to do with the demands of the far right Christian wing of the Republican Party demanding "political purity." Certainly, Republican poobah's are reading the same polls Steve cited and can see how out of line they are with the beliefs of most Americans. It's hard to conceive of a different explanation for today's vote and the campaign rhetoric.
I think the Tea Party believes it is in control and the Republican party never really cared about the middle class so they are puppets right now who don't really care as long as it doesn't affect their paycheck. The Congress should put forth a bill that would affect their paycheck if they don't stop siding with these crazy antics and beliefs of rich rascists.
The tea party believes it is in control of the GOP because it clearly is. The dissenter's are leaving.
I don't see how Bob Casey can think this was a wise move even though he is Pro-Life. This bill would have been dangerous to all Americans with employer supplied health care. Even though he defeated Santorum in 2006 this could make him a one term senator. Joe Manchin is a Democrat with a Republican heart no surprise there and Ben Nelson is retiring and voted his concience which apparently has always been on the right. These aren't guys that can reach across the aisle when needed, they listen to a dangerous idea from the right and get on board.
Maybe, maybe not. Santorum is against contraception because it leads to fornication.
I always thought it was the other way around.
Congratulations Elizabeth Warren ! What was Scott Brown thinging, "Hmmm I think I'll give my seat to Liz !"
What in the world does this have to do with the Highway Bill?
Please note that the vote was nowhere as close as indicated. Had there been any chance of its passage, it would have never been brought to the floor. The "renegade" Democrats were given permission to vote "for" the doomed amendment to have cover for the fall campaign.
Which says more about how dreadful the brainwashing in the various states has become, that they would feel the need to vote "for" it. Since the TV cameras went in, Congress has become the worst repertory company in the history of broadcasting, but actual "debate" and voting takes place long before we see the show.
Don't be manipulated as easily about congressional commercials as we all tend to be in commercials for gum or beer or fast food.
To all the people who keep drafting these amendments, I ask:
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?