That is according to the Boston Globe and the rebirth of the Blunt Amendment.
It would seem as though Senator Brown is lying, yet again.
Kennedy bills appear to undercut Brown
The late Senator Edward M. Kennedy (click title to entry - thank you) sponsored bills in the 1990s and 2000s that would have required all employers who offer prescription drug coverage to include contraception coverage, an action that seems to undercut Senator Scott Brown’s contention that Kennedy shared his views on allowing exemptions based on moral objections.
The most recent version of the bill, in 2005, did not allow for exemptions based on moral objections of churches or other employers. Advocates said earlier bills were similar.
Brown, a Republican in a tough reelection battle, has come under fire from Democrats and one of Kennedy’s sons, former Rhode Island congressman Patrick Kennedy, for invoking Kennedy’s name in support of his position. Brown has cosponsored a bill that would allow employers and insurers to exclude coverage of drugs and procedures that go against their moral views....
...But his son, Patrick Kennedy, and three former aides to the late Massachusetts senator say he never supported allowing employers to exclude health coverage for contraception, as Brown’s measure would do.
“Contraceptive insurance coverage is essential for women’s health,’’ Kennedy, then chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said during a 2001 hearing on the bill that would have extended insurance coverage for contraceptives....
Women need to file a lawsuit against Senator Brown for imposing discriminatory standards against women. Women are BORN with a uterus not a reproductive disability!Brown is taking everything out of context and giving it his own definition. Besides, action speaks louder than words. Senator Ted Kennedy NEVER presumed to have a conscience for every woman alive. He RESPECTED them !!!
