it again, compared himself to Kennedy:
THE NEW ObamaCare mandate forcing religious organizations to offer insurance coverage for practices that violate the teachings of their church gives the government control over the most personal aspects of our lives. It also erodes one of the basic protections of the Constitution - the right to practice religion without government interference.
The federal government is now saying to religious hospitals and charities, “Just do what you’re told, and leave the moral questions to us.’’ This over-reaching dictation from Washington is one reason I opposed and voted to repeal ObamaCare.
As a husband and father of two daughters, I believe insurance companies should have to cover services that many women want and rely on. But I also recognize that there are some people who, based on their deepest moral and religious convictions, don’t agree with me regarding some of those services. We must seek to respect their rights, too.
My predecessor, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, believed just as I do. In a 2009 letter to Pope Benedict XVI, he expressed his support for a conscience exemption: “I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health care field and will continue to advocate for it.’’
- more -
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/02/24/bill-supporting-exemption-matter-fundamental-fairness/52QLFwoDyNQdOumAdbMoDO/story.htmlElizabeth Warren called him in a counter op-ed
MAYBE YOU saw the pictures. Five middle-age men seated at a congressional hearing table to discuss freedom of religion and contraception. And not a single woman was on the panel. Unbelievable. Do you think Congress would ever have a hearing on prostate cancer and only have women speak? Of course not.
Washington is so out of touch with what’s happening to families across this country that the Senate is about to vote on an amendment that would allow any insurance company or any employer to claim a vague “moral conviction’’ as an excuse to deny you health care coverage. Here’s the really astonishing news: Senator Scott Brown is not only voting for this amendment, he is fighting to get it passed.
What does this mean? If you are married and your employer doesn’t believe married couples should use birth control, then you could lose coverage for contraception. If you’re a pregnant woman who is single, and your employer doesn’t like it, you could be denied maternity care. This bill is about how to cut coverage for basic health care services for women.
Let’s be clear what this proposed law is not about: This is not about Catholic institutions or the rights of Catholics to follow their faith. President Obama has already made sure religious institutions will not be forced to cover contraception - at the same time that he has made sure women can get the health care they need directly from their health care insurers. Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of Catholic Health Association, said that Obama’s approach “protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.’’
- more -
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/02/24/denying-women-coverage-under-any-guise-big-step-backward/HLh4hEudmKIJGgShv8NeTL/story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read