• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Senate to Vote Thursday on Blunt's Conscience Protection Amendment

    The U.S. Senate will consider legislation on Thursday that would prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from forcing religious employers and insurers from being forced to violate their constitutionally-protected beliefs.

    The so-called “Blunt Amendment,” named for its sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), seeks to preserve the longstanding conscience protections in the face of HHS’s decision to move forward with a rule that would require religious employers to fully fund contraception for their employees, even if doing so would violate their religious views.

    The mandate “is only the beginning of the problems Americans will continue to see as the Obamacare ‘essential benefits’ package takes shape,” explained Heritage’s Jennifer Marshall. “The anti-conscience mandate is a warning sign for us all of how one-size-fits-all health care requirements will trample religious liberty as well as individual liberty.”

    Blunt’s 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.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signaled on Tuesday that he would bring the amendment to the Senate floor for consideration on Thursday.

    “I believe this process with the most constructive way to move the bill forward,” Reid said on the Senate floor, referring to the transportation funding package to which the amendment would be attached. Blunt thanked Reid for agreeing to consider “my bipartisan amendment to protect religious freedom.”

    Blunt discussed the amendment in an interview with the Heritage Foundation last week. “We want to be sure we’ve established the principle here that the Constitution establishes — that President Washington understood and President Jefferson understood, and my guess is, every president between them and right now understood — and that is respect for conscience is respect for religious freedom,” he said.

    The language of Blunt’s amendment is similar to language offered in the past by prominent Democrats looking to shore up religious freedom. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), for insteance, introduced this language in his Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law:

    A health care provider or a health facility shall not be required to provide an item or service under a group health plan or health insurance coverage if the provider or facility objects to doing so on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction.

    The 1993 health care bill offered by President Clinton also included conscience protections similar to those in the Blunt amendment.

    Nothing in this title shall be construed to…prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes coverage of abortion or other services, if the employer objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction;

    Posted in Obamacare, Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Senate to Vote Thursday on Blunt's Conscience Protection Amendment

    1. @garak99 says:

      The only people that should be making Woman's Healthcare decisions are her and her doctor. Catholic Bishops have no business interfering. This has nothing to do with Religious Freedom it has all to do with Men that don't agree with abortion and or contraception to push there view into the public square.

    2. Rita Martinez says:

      If the only ones that should be making women's healthcare decisions are her and her doctor then the government has no bearing in the decision making, and so the government, president, senate, or anyone cannot make a law to force people to pay for women's "decision making".

      • Common Sense says:

        So if the person is a LDS believer then they don't have to cover operations of any type that would require a blood transfusion. Where do you draw the line between oppression and religious freedom?

        Why can't the person on the receiving end of the insurance make the determination of what they accept? Why does the "boss" get to decide whats in their employees best interests?

    3. Guest says:

      I was looking for information on the Blunt amandment and wound up on this site. It's like wandering into a right wing opium den.

    4. Stan says:

      Liberals always talk OPIUM! I wonder why? Once the Government gets into laws affecting religion we will need a Mayflower to search out a new land.

    5. Jeanne Zook says:

      We need a groundswell of pushback on the issue of the tabling of the Blunt amendment tabling. This is so clearly anti Bill of Rights. Where are our Senators going?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×