Scott Brown's reading comprehension problem

Fact Check: Scott Brown's claim of supporting a conscience exemption like Sen. Ted Kennedy misleading

Published: Thursday, September 20, 2012

By Robert Rizzuto, The Republican masslive.com

Enlarge The Associated PressSen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., left, shakes hands with his Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, right, on the set before their first debate as moderator Jon Keller, center, looks on, Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012, in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

BOSTON - During a heated exchange with Democrat Elizabeth Warren at the WBZ-TV debate Thursday evening, Republican Sen. Scott Brown said that he supports a conscience exemption to the national health care law just like his predecessor, the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, but the claim is somewhat misleading.

In January, Brown joined Republicans in supporting a piece of legislation called the Blunt Amendment, named after Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., which would have added a sweeping provision to the president's health care law to, in the words of Republicans, "protect religious liberty."
The Blunt Amendment, which failed in a Senate vote along party lines, would have allowed any insurer or employer which administers an insurance plan to deny coverage of any procedure or prescription which is in contrast to their own religious or moral convictions.

Critics said the amendment would have put health care decisions, such as those relating to abortions and female preventative care, into the hands of peoples' bosses.

And in late February, Brown unearthed old legislation pushed by Kennedy and said he found language that was the same as that included in the Blunt Amendment. Not so!

The "Health Insurance Bill of Rights Act of 1997," sponsored by Kennedy, shares the words "religious or moral convictions."

But a Kennedy staffer who helped draft the legislation said that although the two bills shared some words, the commonalities between the bills stop there.

In section 2787c of the 1997 bill which never passed into law, the language says, "A health insurance issuer may fully advise licensed or certified health care providers at the time of their employment with the issuer or at any time during such employment, or enrollees at the time of their enrollment for health insurance coverage with the issuer or at any time during which such enrollees have such coverage, of the coverage's limitations on providing particular medical services (including limitations on referrals for care provided outside of the coverage) based on the religious or moral convictions of the issuer. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the rights and duties of a health care provider to determine what medical communications are appropriate with respect to each patient, except as provided for in subsection."

The clause was also included in similar legislation considered in the House of Representatives the same year.

Brown's staff interpreted this to mean that Kennedy was in support of a broad conscience exemption to health care laws.

Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown and the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy.

"The conscience clause supported by Ted Kennedy re-affirms that insurers with a religious or moral concern are free to offer coverage that are consistent with the teachings of their church," said Colin Reed, a spokesman with Brown's reelection campaign, at the time. And in Thursday's debate, Brown echoed the statement when pushed by Warren for his support of the Blunt Amendment.

But the Kennedy staffer who helped draft 1997 health care legislation, said the section's wording means nothing of the sort.

"The bill wasn't about mandating any benefits," the staffer, who asked not to be identified, told MassLive.com. "It was really about making sure patients got a fair shake with their insurance companies and health care providers."

The staffer said the clause was included to ensure communications between insurers, providers and patients weren't hindered by any conscience exemption which may have existed at the state level. He said it was never meant to endorse or support such exemptions.

At the time of the initial report, others including a law professor from Pennsylvania who specialized in health care law said Brown's claims were a stretch at best.

Brown's campaign declined to comment on the topic further following the Boston debate.
Health care and women's issues were among the many topics traversed in the hour-long showdown, which was the first of four scheduled before the Nov. 6 election.

Brown and Warren are set to square off at a debate hosted by the University of Massachusetts-Lowell on Oct. 1; a debate in Springfield hosted by a Western Massachusetts media consortium on Oct. 10; and a Boston media consortium debate to be held on Oct. 30.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/09/fact_check_scott_browns_claim.html?utm_source=Morning+9%2F21&utm_campaign=ML+afternoon+1&utm_medium=email