| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Reid slaps down move to repeal Obama's contraceptive rule |
| 2012-02-10 |
| Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wasted no time in blocking Republicans' first attempt at offering legislation in the Senate to repeal the HHS requirement that would force employers to provide health insurance that includes contraceptives even if they are morally opposed to it. Sen. Roy Blunt tried to offer a bipartisan amendment to the now-pending highway bill that would reverse the rule, but Reid objected, calling it a distraction from the proposed legislation, and that the rule had not yet been finalized in the Obama White House. Reid said, "I appreciate that the Republicans take every opportunity to never miss an opportunity to mess up a good piece of legislation. The rule hasn't even been finalized yet. There is no final rule. Let's at least wait until there is a final rule. Everybody should calm down. Let's see what transpires." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accompanied the amendment to the floor and blasted the "odious" outcome of the president's decision. McConnell said, "Republicans are trying to reaffirm that basic right [of freedom of religion]. The Democrats won't allow those of us who are sworn to uphold the Constitution to even offer an amendment that says we believe in our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. "Frankly, I never thought I'd see the day. [I] never thought I'd see the day when the elected representatives of the people of this country would be blocked by a majority party in Congress to even express their support for it," McConnell added. Reid hit back immediately, saying he also had never seen anything like the way Republicans were trying to bog down a good bill. Reid said, "I've never seen anything like this before either. Why don't we just calm down and see what the final rule is?" |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #16 Tempting G(r)om... very tempting. What I was getting at was that it should not be done at the Federal level. The problem I have is that at the federal level it's too far removed from the people it effects. Influences like Planned |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2012-02-10 23:17 |
| #15 Pregnancy is not a blessing to Obama, American babies is a disease. Check his record as an Illinois State Senator. |
| Posted by: Chenter Barnsmell9450 2012-02-10 19:13 |
| #14 LOL, g(r)om! From Iowahawk's twitter account: "The fact I don't want to pay for your contraceptives doesn't mean I want you to reproduce." |
| Posted by: ryuge 2012-02-10 18:28 |
| #13 CF, would you object to free contraceptives for OWS? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-02-10 16:21 |
| #12 Contraception and Abortion is *NOT* a compelling federal government purpose IMHO. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2012-02-10 15:49 |
| #11 fwiw, whether this administrative rule passes muster with the 1st amendment is dicey but possible. however, there is also the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which provides stronger protection against administrative actions like the one that HHS promulgated. This is because the RFRA requires strict scrutiny so HHS would have had to determine that the administration was narrowly tailored and the regulation is the least restrictive means possible to achieve a compelling govt purpose. |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2012-02-10 15:09 |
| #10 "Compromise"? The Mandate/Presidential-edict is not LAW, whether Catholics or Insurance Offices are the targets of Obama's spital. |
| Posted by: Chenter Barnsmell9450 2012-02-10 13:54 |
| #9 jack salami: Even better. How about the Catholics, Mormons, etc excommunicate these fools. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2012-02-10 12:16 |
| #8 Read the compromise, not much of one if I'm reading it right: Groups do not by the contriceptions, the insurance companies actually purchase them, but they must still be distributed by the groups, right? Let me distill this if I'm getting it right: Vegan restaurant, PETA posters on the wall, Whale Wars on repeat, the whole nine yards and the two point conversion, dig? Does that mean that I can go into that restaurant and by law use their kitchen at my convienance to make whale steak with dog skewer niblets and they by law must not only let me in, but let me eat there, cannot say anything bad about my food or me no matter how much I yumm and lick chops, then they must do my dishes. I mean they didn't have to pay for it or even transport it there just let me use the facilities..Is that right? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-02-10 12:08 |
| #6 With the Catholics on this 100%. Why is the rule being determined in the White House, eh? Thought Congress made the rules and Executive enforces them...oh yeah, waivers, the quite descriminate enforcement, or lack of enforcement, exemption, of the law. But hey, like Paloski said, gotta pass it to find out all the neat-o stuff in it. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-02-10 11:56 |
| #5 Keep this issue alive as long as you can, Harry. It's a winner for sure. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-02-10 09:55 |
| #4 WH to announce birth-control 'compromise' I guess we'll see if it's also a 1st Amendment compromise. |
| Posted by: ryuge 2012-02-10 09:08 |
| #3 all you panjandrums (Reid, PeeYewSee, Sebelius)please stop calling yourselves Catholic, Mormon, etc |
| Posted by: jack salami 2012-02-10 08:03 |
| #2 And once the 'final rule' is announced, Reid will say "It's final, a done deal, and we can't mess with it." |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-02-10 07:57 |
| #1 Harry listens to His Master's Voice |
| Posted by: Bobby 2012-02-10 05:58 |