[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 135 (Friday, August 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12419-S12420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


RESTRICTING COVERAGE FOR ABORTION IN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS 
                                  PLAN

 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep 
concern over an amendment to the Treasury Postal-Service Appropriations 
bill that passed the Senate by a narrow margin last Saturday. The 
amendment, offered by Senator Nickles, would restrict coverage for 
abortion under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan [FEHBP], to 
cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is endangered. 
The amendment effectively and unfairly limits access to a legal medical 
procedure for over 1 million women who are covered under the FEHBP. 
This policy discriminates against women who work for the Federal 
Government and that is why I voted against it.
  Mr. President, we all have strong personal views about abortion. Some 
of us believe that no matter what our personal view are on abortion, a 
woman should have the legal right to choose under Roe versus Wade. I 
respect my colleagues who differ with me on this issue and I understand 
why they differ. But the debate over FEHBP coverage is not a debate 
over Roe versus Wade. The question we should be asking ourselves is 
this: should women who work for the Federal Government have the same 
effective choices as women who work for other employers? Two-thirds of 
women with health insurance have coverage for abortion. Removing 
abortion coverage from the FEHBP would effectively restrict the 
reproductive choices of the Federal employee--particularly the 
thousands of Federal employees with very modest salaries.
  A woman who has limited resources but does have health care coverage 
through FEHBP and needs an abortion would be out of luck. She may delay 
her abortion until she has been able to come up with the extra money 
necessary for an abortion. Later term abortions are more dangerous and 
the 

[[Page S 12420]]
delay would unnecessarily put the woman's health at risk.
  Mr. President, opponents to the amendment argue that many Americans 
oppose abortion and that their tax dollars should not be used to 
support this medical procedure. But health benefits are earned 
benefits, they are a part of compensation package for all Federal 
employees. We do not judge the way Federal employees spend their earned 
income--it is their right to make that decision. Neither should we 
judge or restrict their choice of insurance plan. Taxpayer money goes 
to Federal workers to compensate them for the job they do. Part of that 
compensation is comprehensive health insurance that covers legal 
medical procedures.
  Others speaking against this amendment have argued that those Federal 
employees who are morally opposed to abortion and should not have to 
contribute to plans that cover the service. They argue that providing 
coverage under the FEHBP forces federally employed abortion opponents 
to contribute to others' insurance coverage through their health 
insurance premiums. But only about half of the FEHBP plans provide 
coverage for this medical procedure, so those who do not want to 
participate in a plan that covers this reproductive health services 
have ample alternatives.
  We should not, de facto, make reproductive health decisions for any 
woman who is employed by or is a dependent of an employee of the 
Federal Government. Her reproductive health decisions should be a 
decision made by her and her health professional. I regret the Senate 
adopted the Nickles amendment.


                          ____________________