Here's her email:
Dear Mrs. Peterson:
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for an amendment introduced by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) to the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
I understand you support Senator Blunt's amendment, which would authorize employers to decline to cover any health service authorized by the health reform law on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.
I oppose efforts to restrict access to preventative health benefits such as contraception. In addition to preventing unplanned pregnancies and reducing the number of abortions, oral contraception is also often prescribed to treat medical issues. Since my election to the Senate, I have strongly supported access to comprehensive reproductive care for all women.
As you know, there has been substantial debate regarding the requirement that employers provide no-cost contraception coverage for their employees.
The Obama Administration recently finalized its policy to include contraception coverage as part of the preventive health services recommended for women. The policy stated that employers are required to provide no-cost contraception or another option to their employees, with a narrow exemption for religious employers.
On February 10, 2012, the Administration announced an accommodation to this policy, which will expand the exemption to organizations with religious affiliations, such as hospitals and universities. The accommodation requires health insurance companies to directly offer contraception at no-cost to employees if the employer with religious affiliations declines to pay for this coverage.
The Administration's accommodation solidifies its commitment to respecting religious and moral beliefs while ensuring women have access to contraception – a proven preventative health benefit.
Again, thank you for writing. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
United States Senator
Dear Ms. Feinstein,
Thank you very much for your quick response to my email.
I am very aware of your stance on the issues.
I understand that there is indeed a very "narrow exemption for religious employers." In fact, it is so narrow that a private business owner has no religious protection when they are forced to provide abortifacients. This is wrong. No doubt about it. And just to be clear, insurance companies provide nothing for free. I don't know what kind of insurance companies you have, but let's take my recent home owner's insurance case for example: We had a terrible wind storm where I live that damaged my garage door, knocked over our 20 year old tree, trashed my kids' play house, dented my car and our travel trailer, and broke our flag pole... after being assessed by our insurance co, we were awarded $1000 to repair all the damages. That won't even pay for the garage door...let alone the other things. My point is that insurance companies never give one penny more than they have to. Are you planning to force insurance companies to pay for the birth control and abortifacients that employers won't? Because all the insurance company will do is raise the premium....which those same "religiously exempted" employers will have to pay for...essentially not solving the problem at all. This is no compromise and we are not stupid.
Also, let me address "preventative health." Pregnancy is not a disease...contrary to popular belief. So, please let's keep the facts straight. I am happy to prevent disease, but I'm not happy to pay one penny of my tax dollar to kill one more baby...because, let's face it, I've unwillingly directed my money down that road for years now. Thanks for not caring that I keep my conscience clear. But, certainly you make it clear that you are more interested in women getting the birth control they "need" rather than protecting religious freedom.
I would appreciate another response.