By Dave Andrusko
Last July when Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a bill which would have allowed Missouri individual and group insurance consumers to opt out of paying for coverage, such as coverage for abortion, that violates their moral or religious convictions, he did so in the face of massive grassroots support for SB 749. At the time the Archdiocese of St. Louis called the governor’s veto “a profound missed opportunity to assert conscience rights for Missouri citizens when those rights are in jeopardy from the federal HHS [Health and Human Service] mandate.”
On Wednesday the legislature is back to begin its annual veto session. All signs are the veto override vote will be very, very close.
In May, SB 749 passed the House 105-33 and in the Senate 28-6. A two-thirds vote is required to override Nixon’s veto–meaning 109 votes in the House and 23 votes in the Senate. Conventional wisdom is that the votes are there in the Senate but the override’s fate in the House is too close to call.
“The goal is simply to allow people to assert a religious liberty if they have a conflict. It’s pretty straightforward,” Mike Hoey, executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, told the St. Louis Post Dispatch. “This bill is not about denying contraceptives for people.”
The Post-Dispatch, which opposes the bill every which way but up, yesterday provided a telling illustration of just how close the veto override may be—and how keenly legislators understand that.
State Rep. Ed Schieffer “got out of the hospital Friday and is on pain medication after complications from knee surgery,” reported Elizabeth Crisp. “But he doesn’t want to miss the veto session. He favors the insurance bill and plans to vote to override the veto.”
Schieffer told Crisp, “I’m on home care right now, but I do plan to come Wednesday and I’m hoping we can get the vote in while I can still be there.” Crisp added that Schieffer “needs intravenous medication through a port twice a day.”
The connection of the bill to Obama’s HHS mandate abridging religious freedom was obvious. Under the mandate religious institutions are required to pay for health insurance plans that cover medical procedures and drugs even if they are contrary to their religious beliefs and conscience
Writing in the St. Louis Review (the publication of the Archdiocese of St. Louis), Joseph Kenny explained the outpouring of support which accounted for passage of SB 749 in the first place.
“Passage of the legislation was spurred on when some 3,000 people came to the Missouri Capitol on March 27 for a rally for religious liberty. People of faith came to the rally to protest the Obama administration’s edict that insurance policies cover abortion drugs, sterilization procedures and contraceptives. Rally participants were also advocating for passage of SB 749 as a way of asserting the rights of the citizens of Missouri to not have to pay for these items. Two days later the Missouri Senate approved the bill and sent it to the Missouri House of Representatives.”
This is further background to the fight over SB 749. Voters overwhelmingly approved an August 2010 referendum (Proposition C), 71%-29%. Proposition C prohibits governmental authorities from compelling citizens to purchase health insurance, or to penalize anyone for paying for health care services directly without health insurance.
Supporters of SB 749 explain that the bill protects the religious liberties of insurance consumers in two ways: (1) It asserts that no government entity can compel someone to pay for a health plan that covers abortion, contraceptives and sterilizations; and (2) it requires insurance companies to write policies that exclude abortion and contraceptive coverage if this violates the customer’s moral or religious beliefs.
Opponents of Senate Bill 749 argue that the bill conflicts with federal law and is therefore unenforceable since no state action can supersede a federal regulation that has been authorized by federal law. If the veto is overridden, a court challenge is likely.
