Senate Defeats Blunt Amendment - NYTimes.com I was glad to see the Senate defeat the Blunt amendment today, rejecting an attempt by religious conservatives to weaken the separation of church and state. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Roy Blunt, the Missouri Republican, would have allowed any employer - not just churches or church-affiliated organizations - to deny insurance coverage based on religious or moral objections. The bill focused on contraceptives but could have applied to almost anything. (What if an employer objected to the notion of having children out of wedlock? Would it have license to refuse insurance coverage for prenatal care to single moms?) It was defeated only 51-48, which means a two-vote shift would have sent this addle-brained bill to the House. Three Democrats joined the Republicans in support of the amendment, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. The latter two are running for re-election this year, and are no doubt pandering to conservative voters by casting a vote for a bill they knew wasn't going anywhere. But I hope their constituents demand an explanation for veering dramatically to the right. They have company there - the 45 Republicans who also voted for the amendment. Only one Republican voted against it, Olympia Snowe of Maine, whom I trust will stay true to her moderate-Republican image more often in the coming months, since she's announced her plans to retire. The other so-called moderate Republican from Maine, Susan Collins, offered one of the lamer excuses I've heard from a politician to explain a bad vote. She said the Blunt amendment's scope was too wide (now, there's an understatement). But that she had to support it anyway because the administration's policies lacked specificity, leaving unclear the status of self-insured faith-based organizations. "I feel that I have to vote for Sen. Blunt's amendment with the hope that the scope will be narrowed and refined," she said, adding, "I do this with a lot of conflict." So let me see if I got that. Instead of working to refine a vague health care rule, she voted to approve an even vaguer rule, because she figured it wouldn't go into effect the way it was written, and that someone would refine it? Like who, for example? Certainly not Senator Collins. This blog post has been revised to reflect the following correction: An earlier version of this post said that Senator Ben Nelson was running for re-election this year. Actually, he's retiring.