Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.
Individuals too can opt out of coverage if it is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs, radically undermining “the basic principle of insurance, which involves pooling the risks for all possible medical needs of all enrollees.” As the National Women’s Law Center explains, Blunt’s language is vague enough that “insurers may be able to sell plans that do not cover services required by the new health care law to an entire market because one individual objects, so all consumers in a market lose their right to coverage of the full range of critical health services.” As a result, a man “purchasing an insurance plan offered to women and men could object to maternity coverage, so the plan would not have to cover it, even though such coverage is required as part of the essential health benefits.”
And of course, all this madness started with the G-O-TEA's urge to crawl into women's pants to probe their private parts. YUCK!
Even a few Senate Republicans, like the retiring Olympia Snowe (R-ME), think this goes way too far.
67% of Americans oppose anti-woman legislation like the Blunt Amendment, and health care policy experts have warned about the major risks of restricting access to all kinds of necessary preventive care because of vague "moral" objections. So why are Congressional Republicans so eager to vote on this crap?
So far, it seems like Dean Heller wants to join his BFF Mitt Romney in playing both sides of this issue and pandering to the radical "tea party" right while still looking vaguely "moderate".
I guess he's afraid that his other BFF, Joe Heck, was perhaps a little too blunt on Blunt.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if Heller tries to claim "this has nothing to do with women's health issues". Joe Heck already proved how radically out of touch he is with Nevada women. Will Dean Heller show the same?
(By the way, now's a great time to sign PLAN's petition to Heller and Senator Reid to ask them to oppose the Blunt Amendment and stop the attack on women's health care.)