Brown: "If anything like that happened in Massachusetts, people would obviously be sued, and other types of things...create these issues, to take away from the focus..."No, the Blunt bill is a legal document, a law, that judges will read to mean just what the language of the law plainly states. Republicans say this all the time too. The courts don't interpret law based on what a lawmaker once said was their intent, it's based on the precise legalese on the books.
The following video is a 6 minute compilation; Rachel Maddow reviews how Republicans in the past supported the contraception requirements Obama put forward, and looks at Blunt's outrageous proposal.
Blunt's amendment -- which he said aims to block health care mandates that interfere with constitutional "rights of conscience" -- is backed by more than two dozen faith-based or social conservative organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention. “The Constitution, at its core, makes clear that faith-based principles are to be protected," said Blunt, “If you are opposed to something because it costs money, that's different from being opposed to it because you have a moral objection to it or a faith-based objection to it.”
"This is about freedom of religion," Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell. "
Critics say the measure would allow employers not directly affiliated with a religious organization that have objections based on "moral convictions," which are not defined, to opt out of providing health-care services that could extend well beyond access to contraceptives. Sen. Barbara Boxer claimed that Blunt's measure "would allow anyone to deny any health-care service for any reason." "If I believe that prayer should cure all disease, that's my belief, and I'm an employer, I can deny coverage for any life-saving intervention." Boxer said.
But instead of providing a fact base rebuttal, Blunt just makes the claim opponents critiques are “unequivocally false.” In fact, Blunt would run up the legal bills of health care patients who are forced to sue. They would lose based on bills language, not the empty promises by Republicans that say they didn’t mean what they wrote.
Disturbed by such claims, Blunt issued what his office called a "fact check" document (that) labels as "unequivocally false" any suggestion that his amendment would allow anyone to deny health care for just about any reason. "Federal courts are well equipped to identify spurious claims" by employers who falsely claim "conscience rights" to deny coverage, he says.