side bar
logo
Sunday, February 18, 2018

Columns

GOP amendment undermines Obama


An amendment that would have restricted the ongoing health care legislation was defeated by a narrow 48-51 vote on Thursday.

This amendment, endorsed by Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, would have allowed any employer or insurance company to refuse coverage for any activity they claim a religious or moral objection against.

For example, if an employer does not approve premarital sex, the insurance company would not cover sonograms.

The amendment would have been senseless. One of the reasons it was proposed was to tear down President Barack Obama’s health care reform law. Most Republicans oppose Obama and therefore want to destroy every single change he has made during his presidency. Obama’s health care reform, for the first time in history, required all insurance policies to cover a package of preventive services, including flu shots, prenatal care, etc.

The policy has made a mark for the upcoming years and will also help the citizens by providing them with a better treatment at a lower cost. The Obama administration expanded the law in August that list to include birth control and screening for H.I.V. and cervical cancer, among other services.

The final decision of the voting was agreeable, and provided justice to women and the undermining of the separation church and state. They both are rough on women’s issues, including their health care issues. They do not look at the perspective on giving women the freedom of choice.

They also brought in a matter of freedom of religion dealing with women taking birth controls and unmarried women being pregnant. It is ridiculous on how the two are bringing the topic of religious freedom in the matter of women taking birth control and being pregnant out of wedlock. The matter was not actually about religious freedom, but about denying the consumers — mainly women — the right to make their own medical decisions and keeping up the antigovernment and anti-President Obama rhythm.

If one of the two wins the presidency in November 2012, America is going to be in danger and will undergo gender discrimination from the White House. They are also going to destroy the law if either one becomes a president.

A fear comes into people’s mind that what the next president is going to do to America after this amendment was so close to being in the Constitution. Are women going to have the same amount of freedom they have currently or is it going to change?

This comes in every person’s mind after such close defeat to the amendment. If the amendment were to pass, it would have had an extremely bad effect on America and its people. The few votes have saved America and its people from gender discrimination and a misunderstanding of the freedom of religion aspect of the Constitution.

The only purpose of this amendment was to fail Obama’s health reform and Republicans were unable to achieve the goal.

Saniya Maya is an journalism senior and may be reached at [email protected]

Tags: , , , ,


  • coug78

    This editorial is full of wrong headed ideas. The coverage that the administration is mandating is forcing all employers and their insurances to cover free of charge a wide range of contraceptions and abortion pills. It is definitely wrong to mandate companies and insurances to offer services free of charge. This is taking away the freedom of choice for companies and insurances. What is wrong with allowing companies choosing the type of coverage that they want to provide for their employees?

  • Guest

    No your comment is full of non – facts. Abortion pills? No. Mifepristone is not included in the act. Only hormonal contraception like birth control pills and iUDs will be covered at 100%. Studies by bipartisan and right leaning business groups have proved that contraception coverage actually saves employers a good deal of money in absenteeism and pregnancies. They are not free either. Your insurance pays them. The same studies show that it saves insurances companies money to cover contraception. Get your facts straight beforeyou jump to slut-shaming.

  • Dylan

    According to Coug78, mandating insurers cover pre-existing conditions would also limit their freedom of choice. What insurance company would choose to cover HIV-positive or cancer patients? In reality the argument against this is a conservative christian one, and I would appreciate it if the church would be left out of my state.

Back to Top ↑
  • Sign up for our Email Edition

  • Polls

    How was your first week of classes?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...
  • Recent articles

  • Special Sections