Posted on 07/09/2014 9:10:41 AM PDT by maggief
Senate Democrats introduced legislation on Wednesday to effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s decision last week exempting employers from having to provide insurance coverage for contraception.
The law would not allow for-profit corporations to seek exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that their health plans cover contraception costs. Religious institutions would still be able to opt out. “Our bill simply says that your boss cannot get between you and your own healthcare,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the bill’s chief sponsor told reporters.
“Last week, we saw the Supreme Court give CEOs and corporations across America the green light to design legally mandated healthcare coverage for their employees. Women across the country are outraged,” she said.
Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), a cosponsor who is in the midst of a tough re-election contest, said over 60,000 women in Alaska who use birth control would be impacted by the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.
“I can tell you [during] my trip I just returned from in Alaska, this was the topic,” he said. “Women are talking about this issue as an impact to their lives, their livelihood and their economic security.”
The measure would prevent for-profit corporations from seeking exemptions to any law based on the religious convictions of the employers, noted Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center and a supporter.
The lawmakers expressed concern the high court’s ruling could be used to justify employers refusing to cover blood transfusions, HIV treatment and other medical expenses.
“What if the boss doesn’t believe in any medical care? We have a religion that doesn’t believe in any medical care,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “If you work for that person, sorry. No health insurance.
“What this law does is just takes all the ambiguity out of it,” she added.
Christian Scientists have taught their adherents for more than 100 years to avoid doctors and medical treatment in favor of religious healing.
The Senate bill has 35 Democratic cosponsors in addition to the lead sponsors, Murray and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).
“Coloradans understand that women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical services,” said Udall, who faces a competitive re-election race.
No Republican has yet cosponsored the legislation, although Democrats expressed hope that would change.
The Obama administration indicated last week that the president would respect the court’s ruling but Democratic senators said they were hopeful he would back their effort.
“We’ve been working very closely with them as we worked to put this legislation together,” Murray said.
House Democrats including Reps. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and Diana DeGette (Colo.) plan to introduce companion legislation in the lower chamber.
The Supreme Court exempted closely held corporations from ObamaCare’s contraception mandate on the basis of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Boxer, who voted for the law more than 20 years ago, said it was intended to protect the religious freedoms of employees, not employers.
“The five Republican-appointed men on the Supreme Court decided in the Hobby Lobby case that the employer, the boss, has total power to deny critical medical care to their employees and they turn the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on its head,” she said. “This is an outrage.”
Doesn’t legislation have begin in the House?
How do you "get between" a person and what you provide for that person?
Is that one of the laws we are still following?
Just bills having to do with finance.
What needs to be stated, however, is that the requirement in Obamacare was ruled to be unconstitutional,
and the Senate thinks they can pass some law that says it’s not?
Wack job misstatement of the decision does not a political campaign make. Nice try Harry, but even the news media can’t keep this one going.
Even if their claims were true and not bare lies; the rate at which Obummer is screwing up the lives of Americans will keep this from catching so much as a breeze in the press.
No, but the house can do what with this bill what Harry Reid has done with every republican bill from the house. Nothing.
Spending bills, not sore loser bills!
Dead on arrival legislation that is intended to do nothing more than inspire the stupid to keep voting democrat.
Typical crap from the pro-abortion Democrats. Of the twenty types of contraception available for women under Obamacare, Hobby Lobby only objected to paying for four which caused after-contraception abortion.
It should read: “the obama-democrat supreme court neutering” bill. The democrats refuse to follow the rule of law, therefore, all democrat politicians and followers should be rounded up and tried for insurrection, and either imprisoned, or banished from the United States for good. I considered summary execution, but they shouldn’t be allowed to be let off that easily.
Any, ‘appropriations’, bill is required to start in the house. That is why it is said that the House has the power of the purse...
Exactly!
If democrats can do this, why don’t they join hands with us and close the damn border?
And send illegals home...
And do it NOW.
“Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), a cosponsor who is in the midst of a tough re-election contest, said over 60,000 women in Alaska who use birth control would be impacted by the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.”
I did a quick store locator search on Hobby Lobby’s site and there is no store anywhere in the entire state of Alaska.
Lying liars lie....
Kinda funny. The SCOTUS decided that the CONCEPT is unconstitutional. You can’t just make a new law to get around that decision unless it is missing the unconstitutional part.
It will also be stillborn in the house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.