The Senate prepared to vote Thursday on a proposal that would allow employers and health plans regulated by the 2010 health care law to opt out of paying for medical services that are contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Supporters of the amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt, R- Mo., mostly Republicans, said it was necessary to protect the First Amendment conscience rights of religiously affiliated employers to not pay for medical services such as contraceptives which they oppose on moral grounds.
Related: Birth control a wedge issue for both parties
Lining up on the other side were senators, mostly Democrats, who said that Blunt and his allies were trying to deny women necessary medical services that should be paid for by employers under the Affordable Care Act.
Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney created confusion on the eve of Thursday’s Senate vote by first telling a reporter in Ohio that he opposed the Blunt amendment, but then shortly after saying he’d misunderstood the reporter’s question and did in fact support the Blunt amendment.
Adding to the embarrassment for Romney was the fact that Blunt is his most prominent supporter in the Senate. “Of course Roy Blunt, who is my liaison to the Senate, is someone I support and of course I support that amendment,” Romney told Boston radio host Howie Carr.
In the 2010 health care overhaul, Congress gave the secretary of Health and Human Services the power to decide exactly what services must be paid for by most employers and their insurance plans as “essential health benefits.”
Three weeks ago, President Barack Obama tried to defuse a controversy over religious affiliated employers covering contraceptives by requiring their insurance plans to pay for them – but that leaves the problem of those employers who self-insure.
A supporter of the Blunt amendment, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R- N.H. told the Senate Wednesday that “this debate comes down to the legacy left behind by our Founding Fathers… We have a choice between being responsible stewards of their legacy as reflected in the First Amendment to the Constitution, or allowing the federal government to interfere in religious life in an unprecedented way…. If we allow the government to dictate the coverage and plans paid for by a religious institution, that’s the first step down a slippery slope.”
Leading the opposition to the Blunt proposal, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D- Calif., said “right wing Republicans” were “trying to take away women’s health care.”
The Blunt amendment, she said, “not only says that any insurer or any employer for any reason could stop women from getting access to contraception, it could also stop all of our families from getting access to essential health care services….”
She said that under the Blunt amendment if an employer had a moral objection to an employee who smoked, the employer would be able to deny smoking cessation treatment to that employee.
She gave another hypothetical of an employer who refuses to pay for diabetes treatment: “Someone who may have diabetes, and the employer or the insurer says, ‘You know what? That was your problem; you ate too much sugar as a kid. Too bad.’”
Thursday’s vote is likely to be a litmus test that will be used by both Democrats and Republicans in Senate campaigns in the fall.
