Roy Blunt just offered an amendment to the highway bill that would protect conscience rights. The language is that of a bill he introduced in August.
Harry Reid objected.
Mitch McConnell replied:
Our country is unique in the world because it was established on the basis of an idea: that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights — in other words, rights that are conferred not by a king or a president or a Congress, but by the Creator himself.
The state protects these rights, but it doesn’t grant them.
And what the state doesn’t grant, the state can’t take away.
McConnell went on:
That’s what this week’s debate on a particularly odious outcome from the President’s health care law has been about:
Our founders believed so strongly that the government should neither establish a religion, nor prevent its free exercise that they listed it as the very first item in the Bill of Rights.
And Republicans are trying today to reaffirm that basic right.
But Democrats won’t allow it.
They won’t allow those of us who were sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution to even offer an amendment that says we believe in our First Amendment right to religious freedom.
I never thought I’d see the day.
I’ve spent a lot of time in my life defending the First Amendment.
But I never thought I’d see the day when the elected representatives of the people of this country would be blocked by a majority party in Congress to even express their support for it.
Amendment blocked, Blunt urged a vote on his bill Monday. He called the HHS mandate “unbelievably offensive” and voiced outrage at the Army’s editing of a pastoral letter and silencing of chaplains you hear about first here.
Neither Blunt nor McConnell, by the way, are Catholic.
You might care to urge your senator to insist on a vote.
No need to keep saying "so and so isn't Catholic". This isn't a Catholic issue, this is a Religious Liberties issue. I'm sure my local Baptist-affiliated Christian School doesn't want to be paying for the abortion pill anymore than Sisters of the Poor does. And while I admire the present defense of Liberty from Catholics, I would urge them all to use (to steal from the Left) more inclusive language.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would appear from my reading that Kathryn's purpose in noting that neither Senator is Catholic is to underline the assertion that "This isn't a Catholic issue, this is a Religious Liberties issue." On this you, I and Kathryn all agree. However, while transgressing the First Amendment should be an issue for everyone and an issue of particular interest to all religious believers, the HHS mandate falls especially hard on the conscience of Catholics in particular. I believe the administration would love to use this as a wedge issue to separate religious voters into two camps, those who object to birth control and those who do not. That is why we need to keep the focus not on birth control where they want it but on the larger issue of constitutionally protected religious liberty for all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"That is why we need to keep the focus not on birth control where they want it but on the larger issue of constitutionally protected religious liberty for all."
Totally agree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce a Constitutionally-protected right is violated for any group, it is in fact violated for all of us. If we don't think that way, then we will eventually have all our rights violated as the government will simply piecemeal them away, one group at a time.
"First they came for the..."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoesn't pointing out "so-and-so isn't Catholic" help to underscore the fact that, indeed, it is not a Catholic issue?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI took at as "see even non-Catholics are peeved". Adding allies to the Catholic cause. This is not a Catholic cause, it's a religious liberty clause affecting more than just Catholics. And I'm not putting down Catholics, I'm cheered that they are fighting the fight!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You might care to urge your senator to insist on a vote. "
My Senator is Harry Reid. Thanks ahead for your condolences.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHarry Reid is an evil little mouse of a man. 100% partisan lib/prog idealogue. He really does not like America and Her Constitution...just obstructs, sits on his boney rear collecting his excessive salary, benefits and pension, sniffing at all us "little serfs".
1000 + days and still no budget from "Mousey's" Senate but he always has time to demogogue and snear at the Citizens.
Just awful character. Just an awful man.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe need to move off of the Catholic issue, and even the religious freedom issue and get back to questioning what the HECK the government is doing telling private employers in the States what they can insure, what they must insure, and so on. This is a great time to fight back against the embrace of the nanny state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it is a mistake for the Republicans to say that Democrats are blocking them. THey should reach out to the Dems and state clearly that Lord Harry is the problem.
It isn't just this one item either. Reid has eviscerated the rights of the minority in the Senate to the point where the ONLY available option to affect policy in most cases is the filibuster or at least threaten to do so. No amendments, No real debate, no committee markup.
Dirty Harry is a disgrace to the Senate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShades of the "gag rule" enforced on slavery debates in the ante-bellum Congress. Coincidentally, it was also Democrats who insisted on the gag rule.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe blunt amendment is so bad that the Senators exempted themselves from it. If your employer decided, perhaps under pressure from his insurer, that your kidney transplant was immoral you could find yourself uncovered at the time you needed it most. The Cathoic Church has a long history of opposition to contraception and there position was well known. However, how can we tell what an individuals true motive is Bloody transfusions, vacinations, polio vacines, organ transplants, and even some contraceptive medicines used for purposes other than birth control have all been subject to conscience objections. it is no big secret that if every employer objected to contraception the abortion rate would skyrocket.. Secondly the true purchaser in employer based healthcare is the employee. They are the one who provide the item of value, their labor, to exchange for coverage. The employer provides only an escrow function essentially taking the employee's money and purchasing the coverage. Hence they have no religious freedom issue. They can tand many do hire a third party to perform this clerical function.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is not really a religious freedom. Remember it the Bishops who sought to impose their religious beliefs on the employees. They wanted to deny women their right to conception which many consider to be a moral choice. Either the Bishops are denied their preferrences or the employees were denied their rightrs.