Senator Jeff Sessions — One Republican’s Poison Pill Is Another Democrat’s Vitamin

Yes, they really will say anything . . .

“I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?”

Senator Jeff sessions (R-AL),
New York Times, March 14, 2012
Women Figure Anew in Senate’s Latest Battle

Heaven forfend, Senator! A poison pill provision added to a legislative proposal? You must be outraged. Those damned Democrat[ic] party bums!!

Think again. Here’s S. 1467, Senator Roy Blunt’s Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. You’re a cosponsor. (There’s a public record of these things, Senator.) S. 1467 is now notorious as the “Blunt Amendment.” How? Well, Senator, the original bill got bottled up in committee, but via the legerdemain of the amendment process it got to the Senate floor. Blunt tried, by amendment, to add it to the highway bill. He failed, but remember, Senator, y’all voted against tabling it. In English, you were for it. (There’s a public record of these things, too, Senator.)

Learning moment: one person’s poison pill is another person’s vitamin . . .

Here’s the relevant passage of the Blunt Amendment you thought relevant to the highway bill. Senator, that is called a poison pill.

SEC. 3. RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.

(a) In General- Section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 42 U.S.C. 18022(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES-

`(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS- A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because–

`(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or

`(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

Please follow and like us: