On the recordMarch 1, 2012
this was very frustrating to me. I asked a key question, and I could not get a straight answer. It also demonstrates many of the problems associated with employer mandates. I believe the sponsor of this amendment is completely sincere. I want to make that clear. But this issue has become yet another sad example of election-year politics. I believe a good compromise could have been reached and should have been worked out. For example, in Maine, State law requiring contraception coverage includes a specific exemption for religious employers, such as churches, schools, and hospitals. Surely we could have reached a similar accommodation. Unfortunately, what we are left with is another example of the political pandering that has so tested Americans' patience. Since I could not and did not receive a straightforward answer to my question about protecting self-insured faith-based organizations, I feel that I have to vote for Senator Blunt's amendment, with the hope that its scope will be further narrowed and refined as the legislative process proceeds. Critics of the Blunt amendment have charged that employers could use it as an excuse to deny coverage for services simply as a means to reduce their insurance costs. As Senator Blunt, however, has pointed out, the amendment includes specific language to require that the overall cost of the coverage remains the same even though an employer excludes certain services because of their religious beliefs.…





