Feeds:
Posts
Comments

TP reports:

[Police arrested 17 women and 14 men at a march outside of the Virginia Capitol while officers in riot gear held the hundreds of demonstrators back with shields. The crowd was protesting the Virginia General Assembly’s approval of a controversial bill on Thursday to require women to receive ultrasounds before abortions. The 31 people arrested […]/p

via Virginia Police Arrest 31 At Women’s Rights Demonstration. ]

Yesterday ThinkProgress’s Adam Peck reported that enough uproar had been created by Rush Limbaughs remarks over Sandra Fluke, that as many as 4 sponsors of Limbaugh’s show had canceled. It’s a good read.

Rush Limbaugh’s Advertisers Facing Social Media Firestorm

By Adam Peck on Mar 2, 2012 at 3:40

…So far, Sleep Number, The Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom and Citrix have pulled ads from the program, and several others are considering following their lead…..

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/02/436852/rush-limbaugh-advertisers/

I especially think people who sell beds WOULD want to stay away from insulting half the US population.

Over at the CS Monitor Peter Grier asks:

Is Rush Limbaugh damaging the Republican Party?

Before Rush Limbaugh spoke up, the Republicans thought they had a winning issue on contraception in health-care plans. Now, everyone is on the same side: against Rush Limbaugh.

By Peter GrierStaff writer / March 2, 2012

…Limbaugh himself remains unapologetic for his comments. On his radio show Friday he said, “This isn’t about contraception anyway. This is about expanding the reach and power of government into your womb, if you’re a woman.”…

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0302/Is-Rush-Limbaugh-damaging-the-Republican-Party

Good question Peter- except I think that question was answered in 2008, when Clear Channel signed that 400 million dollar contract for Limbaugh, during the last election. You can’t undo the anger of women then, by generating more outrage.

Erick Erickson decided a flank attack to defend Limbaugh was a good idea (Think Sun Tzu) and went after Carly Fiorina.

Does Carly Fiorina Just Not Get It?

Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)

Friday, March 2nd at 10:12AM EST

[Carly Fiorina is offended by Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke, who testified before Congress that she wants the American taxpayers to subsidize her sexual proclivities.

We should be insulted with Fluke, but Fiorina is insulted by Limbaugh.

“That language is insulting, in my opinion. It’s incendiary and most of all, it’s a distraction. It’s a distraction from what are very real and important issues,” said Fiorina on CBS’s “This Morning.”

…So of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. He was using it as a tool to highlight just how absurd the Democrats’ position is on this. It’s what he does and does quite well. And in the process he’s exposing a lot of media bias on the issue as people rush out (no pun intended) to make Sandra Fluke a victim of his insults and dance around precisely what is really insulting — her testimony before congress that American taxpayers should subsidize the sexual habits of Georgetown Law School students because, God forbid, they should stop having sex if they cannot afford the pills themselves.

Suddenly, an act Democrats have said for years was private and consensual, must despite that be paid for by the American taxpayers.

BONUS POINT: Why is a person who lost a U.S. Senate campaign after sucking up vast resources from Republicans donors that could have gone elsewhere somehow made the Vice Chairman of the GOP’s Senate Campaign Committee?..]

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/02/does-carly-fiorina-just-not-get-it/

Erickson is referring to her failed California Senate race for Barbara Boxer’s seat. If you read her interesting bio link attached to her name above, you’ll know I’m not near her political pasture. There is no doubt, however, she is qualified to be Vice Chairman of the GOP’s Senate Campaign Committee.

Money drives elections; Carly couldn’t have made the CA run if supporters weren’t willing to pay the money for her to do it. Money drives elections, yet Erickson would rather spread the misogyny and insult an important republican woman overseeing the Party’s finances, to support the Limbaugh  Hate Speech Club. Erickson’s stated opinion above that that Limbaugh WAS being deliberately insulting probably doesn’t help Limbaugh.

Carly gets it, Erick.

I’ll point out again, the Blunt bill was stupid and would have allowed unnamed and anonymous exclusions from the Affordable Care Act for any sort of “conscience” claim.

Birth control was not specifically identified  in the bill.

Contraception is for two.

If a woman wants sex with him the man has got to want it too.

Limbaugh’s hate speech is paid for, to the tune of 400 million dollars, by Clear Channel. No matter the right or left politics of it, or which political party comes out of this looking better, it’s hate speech against women, and, Sandra Fluke in particular. The man called her a “slut and round heeled”. The lawyers will have to decide if Limbaugh’s speech is also actionable.

If you were traveling with your horse through Nebraska or Wyoming in December you may want to pay attention to the FDA Bulletin that just came out. So far, those two states are the only ones listed.

308-247-2601

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – March 3, 2012 -Western Feed, LLC is voluntarily recalling two lots (M718430 and M720280) of Kountry Buffet 14% feed because it may contain monensin sodium (Rumensin). The feed is packaged in 50 lb. bags bearing the Payback logo with the attached tag identifying the product as Kountry Buffet 14%. Monensin sodium is a medication approved for use in some livestock and poultry species, but can be fatal to horses if fed at sufficiently high levels.

The lot number (M718430 and M720280) can be found towards the bottom of the tag, below the Feeding Directions.

This feed was distributed December 2, 2011 through December 15, 2011 to retailers in Nebraska and Wyoming. Retailers receiving product from the lot in question have removed it from their stores.

Western Feed had received a report of some horses that had died as a result of consuming the feed. Initial testing by a private laboratory has indicated the presence of a potentially harmful level of monensin sodium (Rumensin) in these two lots. Further follow up testing is underway.

The symptoms of toxicity vary with the amount of monensin ingested by a horse. Trace amounts may cause a horse to go off his regular feed, show signs of colic and appear unwell for a few days. Larger amounts will cause a horse to show more serious symptoms within a few hours including colic, stiffness, sweating, a lack of co-ordination and the inability to stand.

Customers who purchased Kountry Buffet 14% from lot M718430 and M720280 should stop feeding the product immediately and call Western Feed LLC at 308-247-2601, Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM MT.

At this time, the limited voluntary recall only applies to Kountry Buffet 14%, lots M718430 and M720280. No other Western Feed, LLC products and no other lots of Kountry Buffet 14% are involved.

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm294530.htm

After the announcement of Andrew Breitbart’s death, I did wonder about this and Politico has the scoop:

[Shirley Sherrod’s suit against Andrew Breitbart likely to continue

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 3/1/12 4:38 PM EST
A defamation lawsuit a former Agriculture Department employee filed against conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart is likely to continue despite Breitbart’s unexpected death on Wednesday night at age 43 …..

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/03/shirley-sherrods-suit- against-andrew-breitbart-likely-116078.html ]

Please go to their full article and read it. If all the kinks are worked out it seems likely that Breitbart’s estate and at least one co-worker will be subject to the continued court proceedings.

If you’re trying to remember who Shirley Sherrod is, I have attached a pdf of an older blog post from JohnSmart, now at:
http://johnwsmart.wordpress.com/

I liked John’s post, first because he laid out the timeline of events nicely, and because I thought he well represented the traps, pitfalls and honesty in opinion writing.

Can the the tenants of this lawsuit apply elsewhere? You lawyers out there will know, but it seems to me that one person who defames another and gets paid or promised 400 million dollars to do it ought to have made vulnerable the whole business system that allowed this defamation.

Even if he gets fired.

Even if he dies.

What are 15 million listeners supposed to think, when year after year Limbaugh and Company get away with this garbage and no one brings them to justice?

And, what about Danica?

Senator Boxer issued a press release on the defeat of the Blunt Bomb to day:

[Press Release of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer

For Immediate Release:
March 1, 2012
Contact:
Washington D.C. Office (202) 224-3553
Boxer Statement on Senate Defeat of Blunt Amendment
Republican Measure Threatened Vital Health Services for Millions of American Women and Families
Washington, D.C. ­ U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today issued the following statement after the Senate defeated an amendment by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would have allowed any employer or health insurance company to deny critical health care services to anyone:

³Today¹s vote is a victory for the millions of American women and families who were in danger of losing access to vital health services. It is clear that the Republican attacks on women¹s health are having ripple effects all across this country, and the fact that nearly every Republican voted for this amendment will not soon be forgotten.²

http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/030112.cfm%5D

Thank you, Senator Boxer, for your efforts. Yea, a lot of reds and a few blues voted for this mess. Maine’s Senator Snowe was the only Republican Senator to vote against it. I don’t wonder she wants to retire. As an actual Republican, it can’t have been easy for her the last four years either.

Sure enough, she just put out a statement to that effect:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/olympia-snowe-why-im-leaving-the-sena te/2012/03/01/gIQApGYZlR_story.html

There are currently 17 women in the Senate-obviously nowhere near 51% of the possible 50 seats. Snowe’s seat MUST go to a woman if only to retain the status quo. I know it’s Maine, but a little diversity wouldn’t hurt either.

Snowe herself has inferred that there is little room for a moderate in the current Senate. To break the deadlock in the Senate a Democrat or a Green in her seat would make the difference.

TPMLivewire
04:26 PM EST
Sandra Fluke Issues Statement On Limbaugh’s Comments And Public Support

Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who was the subject of Rush Limbaugh’s remarks Wednesday, issued the following statement on Limbaugh and the support she has received:

[“I thank the thousands of women and men, including members of Congress, Georgetown University students and faculty, and total strangers of all political stripes across the country who have offered kind words and support following recent egregious personal attacks.

“We are fortunate to live in a democracy where everyone is entitled to their own opinions regarding legitimate policy differences. Unfortunately, numerous commentators have gone far beyond the acceptable bounds of civil discourse.

“No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.

“The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women’s health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced.”]

Fluke testified at a hearing a week ago in which she talked about the burden of paying for contraception out of pocket. Limbaugh used those comments to call her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” Over 75 Congressional Democrats Thursday called on House Speaker John Boehner to condemn Limbaugh’s remarks.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/sandra-fluke-issues-statement- on-limbaughs-comments-public

Link below for TPM’s article on the remarks:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/fox-and-limbaugh-miss-the-point-o n-birth-control-costs.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

If you were out chopping wood to heat your house, after the weather we have had, you might have missed the tie-in of the Sandra Fluke story leading up to today’s vote to table the Blunt Bomb otherwise known as S.1467 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011². Last night, while trying to fall asleep, I came upon Nancy Pelosi’s pronouncement condemning Rush Limbaugh’s demented misogyny directed toward Ms. Fluke. I sure hope college student Fluke sues the gizzard out of Limbaugh and Clear Channel Vision and all those 600 stations and Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners.

Keep in mind though, Limbaugh is just the potty-mouth lap dog for those other paternalists who wouldn’t even let her speak at their hearing. I loved that the Pelosi site linked to this Think Progress page posted by Alex Seitz-Wald:

…[ While it¹s probably not even worth engaging with Limbaugh on the facts, Fluke¹s testimony was about a friend who is a lesbian and needed birth control for non-sexual medical reasons, so he¹s only wrong about three times over, and offensive many more times over than that….]

Clear Channel is to be blamed for this tripe. This kind of free speech does not deserve a 400 million dollar reward. That’s 50 million a year, and since his 8 year contract runs till 2016 we are going to be subjected to it for a while, unless we do something. COMPLAIN!!! BOYCOTT THE SERVICE!!

Clear Channel is owned by two groups. The first is Bain Capital which over the years has leveraged buy-outs on a lot of big name companies.

Founders for Bain Capital include:

Mitt Romney

T. Coleman Andrews III

Eric Kriss

Clear Channel’s other group is Thomas H. Lee Partners,(THL) which among other numerous assets, recently bought Warner Music Group. They also leverage big buy-outs.

The top three people for THL are:

Vice Chairman and Managing Director David Harkins
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Massachusetts/Boston/david-v-harkins/30357908 .aspx

Vice Chairman Scott Schoen

Co-President Scott Sperling
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Massachusetts/Boston/scott-sperling-P7833817. aspx

Sex is for two. Contraception is for humans. If there weren’t any men, women wouldn’t need it.

By the way, I hope you noticed who was at the top of the Bain list. No wonder he wasn’t sure how to answer.

UPI and alJazeera are reporting that Syria has begun an all out ground assault on it’s Hom District.  The UN Envoy was not allowed into the country, and UN’s Kofi Annan is calling for resolution and an end to the fighting.

The VOA has reported that a bomb exploded in Instanbul, Turkey, near the ruling party’s headquarters. Several police officers were injured.

AlJazeera has an interesting perspective on the situation HERE.

The New Policy effective March 1st.!

The ACLU has the scoop:

Google’s New Privacy Settings Go Into Effect Tomorrow

Posted by Ateqah Khaki, ACLU at 1:38pm

Tomorrow, Google will put in place a new privacy policy across the vast majority of Google products and platforms. As we told you when they announced the new policy back in January, the new policy makes clear that Google will, for the first time, combine the personal data you share with any one of its products or sites across almost all of its products and sites (everything but Google Chrome, Google Books, and Google Wallet) in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of you. And short of signing out of your Google account, there is no opting out…..

 

As the Digital Journal reported last week:

 

Go to the Google homepage and sign into your account.

Click the dropdown menu next to your name in the upper-right hand corner of your screen.

Click accounts settings.

Find the “Services section.”

Under “Services” there is a sub-section that reads “View, enable, disable web history.” Click the link next to it that reads: “Go to Web History.”

Click on “Remove all Web History.”

When you click on “Remove all Web History,” a message appears that says “Web History is Paused.” What this means is that while Google will continue gathering and storing information about your web history it will make all data anonymous, that is, Google will not associate your Web History information with your online accounts and will therefore be unable to send you customized search results.

 

Google’s ability to gather personalized information about you by assigning data to your Gmail and YouTube accounts will remain “Paused” till you click “Resume.”…

 

Go HERE for more Information.

 

Update:

120301 – Politico is reporting that the Senate has defeated the Blunt bill SS.1467 by a vote of 51 to 48. Yay! 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73497.html

In can what can only be seen as a slap in the face to women’s rights, attached to Barbara Boxer’s (Of all women!) huge transportation bill entitled “MAP-21 or, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century”, is the Blunt Bomb. Senator Roy Blunt’s bill entitled “S.1467 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011” is being debated today in the Senate. It is one of many likely to be attempted over the next few years to undermine the line items achieved for women in the Affordable Healthcare Act. (Obamacare.) Remember, since women do not have the benefit of equal rights under the eye of the law, each line item can be targeted.

The Bomb is a stupid amendment to the Act, (See bottom of the page.) even for the perennially uterus obsessed. Though it calls out the “distinct” elements of the Act for women it does not specifically address them. In fact, the thing is so vague it appears under this proposed bill insurance companies could have a crisis of conscience over just about anything and decide their employees be able to say no to covering, I don’t know, maybe child abuse injuries. Some of the “solons” who are on the lists below ought to know better.

If you see one of yours on the lists below, call them up and yell at them:

Below find a list of the Senate co-sponsors:

Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] – 2/9/2012 
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Coats, Daniel [IN] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] – 2/9/2012 Sen Boozman, John [AR] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Paul, Rand [KY] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Hoeven, John [ND] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] – 2/13/2012 
Sen Portman, Rob [OH] – 2/15/2012 
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] – 2/16/2012 
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] – 2/17/2012

The Senate bill is short and similar to the House Bill “H.R 1179” of the same name, introduced by Representative Jeff Fortenberry. The House currently has a total of 242 Republicans. I’ll leave it up to you to determine whether any of the with 214 cosponsors on the list below are not in the red zone:

Rep Adams, Sandy [FL-24] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 9/20/2011 
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] – 10/24/2011 
Rep Amash, Justin [MI-3] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 11/3/2011 
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] – 12/6/2011 
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 11/1/2011 
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 1/23/2012 
Rep Berg, Rick [ND] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 8/1/2011 
Rep Black, Diane [TN-6] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 11/3/2011 
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] – 2/2/2012 
Rep Bucshon, Larry [IN-8] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Buerkle, Ann Marie [NY-25] – 4/14/2011 
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 8/9/2011 
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Canseco, Francisco “Quico” [TX-23] – 5/24/2011 
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] – 11/3/2011 
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] – 8/1/2011 
Rep Cravaack, Chip [MN-8] – 11/1/2011 
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Critz, Mark S. [PA-12] – 1/25/2012 
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] – 2/15/2012 
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] – 8/23/2011 
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-21] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Duffy, Sean P. [WI-7] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 11/15/2011 
Rep Fincher, Stephen Lee [TN-8] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [PA-8] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] – 2/13/2012 
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. “Chuck” [TN-3] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 4/7/2011 
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] – 1/23/2012 
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 6/14/2011 
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] – 2/15/2012 
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-18] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 8/16/2011 
Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-1] – 2/3/2012 
Rep Gowdy, Trey [SC-4] – 10/24/2011 
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] – 9/7/2011 
Rep Graves, Tom [GA-9] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 11/18/2011 
Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] – 5/4/2011 
Rep Grimm, Michael G. [NY-13] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Guinta, Frank C. [NH-1] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 9/7/2011 
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] – 7/27/2011 
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] – 7/27/2011 
Rep Heck, Joseph J. [NV-3] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] – 4/14/2011 
Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] – 9/7/2011 
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] – 8/16/2011 
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] – 2/3/2012 
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] – 2/2/2012 
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] – 9/20/2011 
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 8/1/2011 
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] – 2/2/2012 
Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3] – 10/25/2011 
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] – 10/13/2011 
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Kinzinger, Adam [IL-11] – 10/12/2011 
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 9/22/2011 
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Landry, Jeffrey M. [LA-3] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 4/14/2011 
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] – 10/13/2011 
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] – 8/1/2011 
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] – 3/17/2011 
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] – 10/12/2011 
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 9/20/2011 
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 2/2/2012 
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] – 2/17/2012 
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 6/23/2011 
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 7/22/2011 
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 5/4/2011 
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] – 2/6/2012 
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] – 10/13/2011 
Rep McKeon, Howard P. “Buck” [CA-25] – 11/1/2011 
Rep McKinley, David B. [WV-1] – 2/15/2012 
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Meehan, Patrick [PA-7] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 10/6/2011 
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] – 8/23/2011 
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 8/23/2011 
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 4/7/2011 
Rep Noem, Kristi L. [SD] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Nugent, Richard [FL-5] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 9/13/2011 
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 1/23/2012 
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] – 8/9/2011 
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] – 5/24/2011 
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 2/13/2012 
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Quayle, Benjamin [AZ-3] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Reed, Tom [NY-29] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Renacci, James B. [OH-16] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Ribble, Reid J. [WI-8] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] – 11/3/2011 
Rep Rivera, David [FL-25] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Roby, Martha [AL-2] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Runyan, Jon [NJ-3] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Schilling, Robert T. [IL-17] – 8/9/2011 
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] – 7/28/2011 
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-5] – 2/3/2012 
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Scott, Tim [SC-1] – 9/20/2011 
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] – 7/22/2011 
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 2/13/2012 
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] – 7/28/2011 
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] – 6/14/2011 
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Southerland, Steve [FL-2] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Stivers, Steve [OH-15] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] – 2/15/2012 
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 7/22/2011 
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 10/6/2011 
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] – 1/23/2012 
Rep Turner, Robert L. [NY-9] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Walsh, Joe [IL-8] – 9/23/2011 
Rep West, Allen B. [FL-22] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 2/15/2012 
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] – 2/2/2012 
Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] – 2/13/2012 
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Young, Todd C. [IN-9] – 2/7/2012

Here is the bill:

S.1467 — Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate – IS)

S 1467 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1467

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

August 2, 2011

Mr. BLUNT (for himself, Mr. RUBIO, and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services.

1.           Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) As Thomas Jefferson declared to New London Methodists in 1809, `[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority’.

(2) Jefferson’s statement expresses a conviction on respect for conscience that is deeply embedded in the history and traditions of our Nation and codified in numerous State and Federal laws, including laws on health care.

(3) Until enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148, in this section referred to as `PPACA’), the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers, purchasers of insurance, plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, such as individual or institutional health care providers.

(4) PPACA creates a new nationwide requirement for health plans to cover `essential health benefits’ and `preventive services’ (including a distinct set of `preventive services for women’), delegating to the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to provide a list of detailed services under each category, and imposes other new requirements with respect to the provision of health care services.

(5) While PPACA provides an exemption for some religious groups that object to participation in Government health programs generally, it does not allow purchasers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline providing or obtaining coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.

(6) By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates in PPACA jeopardize the ability of individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions, without fear of being penalized or discriminated against under PPACA; and

(2) to ensure that no requirement in PPACA creates new pressures to exclude those exercising such conscientious objection from health plans or other programs under PPACA.

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.

`(B) FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS- Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services under this title (or any amendment made by this title) or to fulfill any other requirement under this title because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider pursuant to this paragraph.

`(C) NONDISCRIMINATION IN EXERCISING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE- No Exchange or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall discriminate against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of such plan’s, sponsor’s, provider’s, or person’s unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services pursuant to this paragraph.

`(D) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be construed to permit a health plan or provider to discriminate in a manner inconsistent with subparagraphs (B) and (D) of paragraph (4).

`(E) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION- The various protections of conscience in this paragraph constitute the protection of individual rights and create a private cause of action for those persons or entities protected. Any person or entity may assert a violation of this paragraph as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.

`(F) REMEDIES-

`(i) FEDERAL JURISDICTION- The Federal courts shall have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of this paragraph by granting all forms of legal or equitable relief, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, costs, and attorney fees.

`(ii) INITIATING PARTY- An action under this paragraph may be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States, or by any person or entity having standing to complain of a threatened or actual violation of this paragraph, including, but not limited to, any actual or prospective plan sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering a plan, any actual or prospective purchaser or beneficiary of a plan, and any individual or institutional health care provider.

`(iii) INTERIM RELIEF- Pending final determination of any action under this paragraph, the court may at any time enter such restraining order or prohibitions, or take such other actions, as it deems necessary.

`(G) ADMINISTRATION- The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this paragraph and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.

`(H) ACTUARIAL EQUIVALENCE- Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the Secretary from issuing regulations or other guidance to ensure that health plans excluding specific items or services under this paragraph shall have an aggregate actuarial value at least equivalent to that of plans at the same level of coverage that do not exclude such items or services.’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective as if included in the enactment of Public Law 111-148.