Posted on 02/15/2012 6:31:16 AM PST by C19fan
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., relented on Tuesday and now says he’ll allow a Senate vote on an amendment that would reverse the White House’s controversial requirement that all insurers provide birth control free of charge to women. The proposal put forward last week by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., would exempt employers from providing any care they find immoral. It’s unlikely to pass the Senate, and Reid blocked the vote last week. But he gave in on Tuesday, providing a potential opportunity for his fellow Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska (a cosponsor of Blunt's amendment), Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia to reaffirm their anti-abortion credentials and reassure constituents concerned about preserving religious scruples.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Obama seems to think he has a winning strategy with female voters on this. Expect him to make a huge deal about vetoing it. Perhaps including a stadium and Greek columns.
Blunt gets it.
You mean you can't find a majority of Senators to affirm that the Government is NOT a dictatorship? That it is unconstitutional for the Government to FORCE a religious organization (or any private entity) to have to PURCHASE services?
He’s only allowing this to provide cover for a few vulnerable Dem senators. Absent that concern, there would be no vote. As usual, with Dems its all about power.
...or PRODUCTS!
But he gave in on Tuesday,
Give me a break. Dems don’t give in on anything. Not ever. Only at the sacrifice of their very lives, and that would be coercion not a give in.
No, all Harry is doing is recommitting to the national policy of low birth rate and high abortion numbers that over the decades of time since R v W, have changed the demographics of the land and now that change is accelerating as the Communists, leftist, socialists, marxists, fascists, environmentalists, an all the otherists cement their hold on the minds of “the people”.
Harry knows that if this passes in the Senate and gets passed to nobama it will be vetoed.
While I support repealing this insanity like any rational person, I think the vote is intended to be a trap.
The Dems and Media will endlessly claim this proves that Republicans are against "women's rights" and "women's healthcare".
I hope the Republican leadership is prepared to deal with this. But, I doubt it.
I beleive this is a brilliant and very well-planned political strategy for Obama. It has been a long time in the works. Why else would Stephanopoulos keep hammering the “banning contraception” questions in the January debate, long before it was known to be an issue?
It was direct collusion on the part of ABC with the White House. The White House actually got to ask questions in a Republican debate fishing for soundbites to be used against Republicans.
Now, the debate has shifted from the economy, taxes and the debt — where Obama doesn’t stand a chance — to social issues, namely, contraception. Social issues energize the Democratic base like nothing else (because they cannot comprehend fiscal matters). As a result, Obama’s poll numbers are rising. He is now much more formidable an opponent than he was only a month ago.
Bringing these matters up for a vote and losing is irrelevant to Obama. It does, however, dominate the news cycles and gets the Democrats energized against Republicans. Having Republicans shoot it down plays perfectly into Obama’s hands. Why else would any politician bring up anything so controversial in an election year — because Obama NEEDS social-issue controversy to bring Democrats out.
If it is just the economy then a dead dog on the side of the road can beat Obama because not even the MSM can spin the economy or debt situation to sway voters. They know this.
The checklist is being checked off right now.
Romney looks to be strong — start an anti-1% OWS movement and discuss class warfare. Check.
Santorum looks to be strong — demonize him as a religious and social issue extremist by bringing Catholic church controversy into the mix. Check.
Newt looks to be strong — bring out ex-wife.
BACKFIRE!
Unfortunately, Romney did Obama’s dirty work when it comes to taking out Newt.
NEVER underestimate this White House. It is pure EVIL. It knows exactly what it is doing.
So what’s the alternative? Let the mandate stand? Have the GOP succumb to this thuggery without making a stand? You forget that the veto itself will identify Zero’s intent. He’ll be vetoing a bill that supports the First Amendment, period. If the bill’s worded carefully enough, contraception won’t even be mentioned. Some folks still like that amendment.
The mandate should absolutely be struck down.
I am just saying that Obozo wants to do anything to divert the attention away from spending, the debt, taxes and the economy. He will gladly accept defeat on this issue (let’s face it — of all the fights he could pick why would he pick a huge, uproarous fight over something as inane as forcing “free” condoms and birth control pills?) because he knows the Democratic base simply gets energized over social issues and the media isn’t showcasing the economy.
I'd suggest, as an analogy, that having "health insurance" provide free contraception would make no more sense than requiring car insurance companies to provide free oil changes. No matter how desirable it may be to have cars receive oil changes, the notion that routine oil changes should be covered by car insurance would be rightly regarded as preposterous.
I hope you don’t mind but I will be using your oil change analogy a lot (with credit, of course). It is perfect!
I'm hardly the first to suggest the oil change analogy, and it isn't quite perfect. Some people view health insurance as being more like an automotive warranty program than accident insurance, and some warranty companies do include routine maintenance as part of the contract (routine maintenance may reduce wear and, consequently, claims). Still, I think it's important to point out that nothing would be preventing health insurers from providing contraceptive coverage should they choose to do so. The question is whether they should be required to.
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.