Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5951-H5953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CORRECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF JULY 16, 1998, PAGES 5719, 5720
AND 5721, DURING DEBATE ON H.R. 4104, TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

______

amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H5952]]

Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
Add at the end of the bill:
Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, no funds in this
Act may be used to require any contract to include a term for
coverage of abortifacients.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) reserves a
point of order.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, due to the lateness of the
hour, I do not intend on taking the full 5 minutes.
Let me make it very clear that part of the problem with the Lowey
amendment was that it did not define contraception. Many of us have
been concerned that the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-abortion
organizations over the years have tried to fudge the line of
demarcation between fertilization post- and pre-fertilization. Many of
the chemicals, many of the devices that are now employed that are
permitted under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program do indeed
result in many abortions, newly created human lives that are not
permitted to implant in their mother's womb.
In a nutshell, my amendment is designed to clarify that if we are
indeed going to force all of the Federal providers of medical care, the
HMOs and all the providers as a condition of receiving reimbursement
for all of their prescriptions, whether it be for penicillin or any
other drug, that they have, to provide ``a provision for contraceptive
coverage'', let us at least make it clear that the gentlelady's
language excludes abortion-inducing chemicals. That is what my
amendment very simply seeks to do.
Earlier in the day we pointed out during the debate, that while RU-
486 isn't legal and, hopefully, never will be there are officials of
Planned Parenthood who are already talking about it as a morning after
pill. RU486 is baby pesticide and destroys life, the newly created
life, somewhere along the line up to the 7th week. This is a Federal
funding of early abortion but many Members of Congress remain
uninformed of that fact. I say with regret, that some abortifacients
like IUDs can be provided by the health care providers under the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The question is should they
be forced to. This says no one is going to be forced to do it. It is a
conscience type amendment. Still the plain language of Mrs. Lowey's
amendment only stipulates ``a provision for contraceptive coverage''--a
much, much, weaker version than the amendment she offered in her
Appropriations Committee. Clearly, under her amendment, if a plan
merely provided condoms or birth control pills, that would satisfy the
obligation created by the amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman clarify for me and for
others, when he says to include ``a term for coverage,'' what does that
phrase mean?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for asking the
question. It says very simply that a health care plan would not have to
include those devices and chemicals that may have the effect of an
abortifacient. Under my amendment it will not be mandatory. it will not
be forced upon the HMOs and upon the health care providers even though
the language of Mrs. Lowey's amendment require only ``a provision for
contraceptive coverage'' to satisfy the requirement.
Mr. HOYER. Am I correct then that the amendment means, ``a term for
coverage'' would mean the term that refers to the abortifacients?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I understand the gentleman's question
that is correct.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
to engage the gentleman from New Jersey in a colloquy.
I would like to ask the gentleman to define further his amendment.
Based upon the information that we have, the FDA has approved five
methods of contraception. This is the established definition of
contraception. It has nothing to do with RU-486 although,
unfortunately, there were some letters sent out saying it did. RU-486
is not included among the five methods of contraception. It has nothing
to do with abortion. There have been debates that have been going on
among us, in the country, about when does life begin.
This takes some serious discussion, and I am sure that we can have
some serious debates about this issue, but today what we are talking
about very simply is the five established methods of contraception that
have been improved by the FDA, nothing to do with abortion, nothing to
do with RU-486.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentlewoman would yield, let me just
ask the gentlewoman, because this will help me in responding, her
definition of contraception. Is it before fertilization occurs or is it
before implantation in the uterus?
Mrs. LOWEY. I am sorry. Will the gentleman repeat?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Part of the problem we have with the
gentlewoman's first amendment, as well as the amendment that was
offered and just passed, is a definitional one. How do you define
contraception? How do define pregnancy?
For some, it is implantation. For some, it is fertilization.
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Contraception by definition should mean
before a new life has come into being. There are many who want to blur
that line and say that chemicals affect the implementation or even
after that.
Mrs. LOWEY. If I may reclaim my time, could the gentleman explain
whether this includes the pill?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. This will have to be determined. There is a
body of evidence suggesting that IUDs, for example, may have the
impact, and many women are unaware of this, may have the impact of
preventing implantation.
What my amendment says, that is still permissible under Federal
Employees Health Benefit Program but not mandated.
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, if I might ask the gentleman, I
believe in response to my question as to whether the pill would be
included, since the pill is one of the five methods of approving
contraception from the FDA, you seem to be questioning this and I would
ask the gentleman, if you are not sure whether the pill is an
established method of contraception, what would the plans determine?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me just respond that there are several
schools of thought as to what the operation is as to what actually
occurs.
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, would the gentleman consider the IUD
a form of contraception? This is and approved method of contraception.
Or would you consider the IUD as abortifacient?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me make it very clear there has to be a
determination made, and maybe it is about time, with all of the
resources at our disposal, we really came to a firm conclusion as to
how some of these chemicals and how the IUD actually works, because,
again, even Planned Parenthood and others will say on their web page
that one of the consequences of the IUD may indeed be preventative of
implantation .
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, does the gentleman include the
diaphragm as a form of contraception?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No. As far as I know, that has never been an
abortifacient.
Mrs. LOWEY. I seems to me the gentleman has questions about the pill,
questions about the diaphragm, questions abut the IUD, and I assume the
gentleman has questions about Depo--Provera and Norplant.
Let me say this, there are five established methods of contraception.
If the gentleman supports the amendment to not cover abortion, then you
are saying that contraception cannot be covered; no method of
contraception can be covered.

{time} 2115

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all. Right now the HMOs, and all of
the health care providers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
program, if they choose, can provide any of those methods that you
mentioned, from

[[Page H5953]]

IUDs to Depo-Provera. What your amendment, or what the thrust of your
original amendment was to force them to do it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, I just want to make it clear to my
colleague that the gentleman from New Jersey, it appears to me from
your statement, is trying to make every method of contraception an
abortifacient; is that correct?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all, and that is putting words in my
mouth, and I think that is unfortunate.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can make it clear, I think it is very
important, my colleagues, that we realize what the gentleman is
attempting to achieve with this amendment. He is stating that there is
no form of contraception that may not be considered an abortifacient
and, therefore, the American women have to understand----
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentlewoman will yield, I did not say
that at all.
Mrs. LOWEY. No, I will not yield. I will not yield. That the American
people who are listening to this debate have to understand that this
Congress wants to tell women that all forms of contraception are
abortifacients and they cannot be considered.
I would like to make that point again. The majority of American women
do support the use of contraceptives. These are very personal
decisions, we understand that, and each person has to make it for
themselves. But the majority of American women understands that.
Now, it seems to me from this discussion, that the gentleman from New
Jersey is saying to every woman who may take a birth control pill or
use another one of the five accepted methods of contraception that they
are abortionists.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all.
Mrs. LOWEY. I think it is important to clarify what we are talking
about because the FDA has approved five methods of contraception.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the amendment of the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to
explain his amendment and to answer any questions he may have.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to my
colleagues that birth control pills and diaphragms are not
abortifacients. IUDs and post-coital pills have the capability of that.
That is where there has been very little conversation, especially with
women, as to what might be happening when they think they are
preventing fertilization when, indeed, implantation is what is being
prevented.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is confusion about
this issue, and if I may, from my experience, please lend some of that
to our body, one; and, number two, also relay that I had a conversation
with the gentlewoman from New York, and I do understand what her
intention is and I do understand the intention of the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith). She has an honorable request. She won that in
her committee, and it should be honored in that way.
But let me clarify for this body that, in fact, the diaphragm is not
an abortifacient; that oral contraceptives are not an abortifacient;
that morning-after pills, in fact, are; that IUDs are, in fact,
abortifacients.
Now, there is not a medical question about how they work, and there
is not a medical question about how oral contraceptives work. Their
intention is to prevent ovulation or to prevent penetration of a sperm.
That is not an abortifacient. And there is no question in the medical
community about how they work.
So I would ask this body that if, in fact, we feel we want to make a
decision based on what the request of gentlewoman from New York really
is, that we supply oral contraceptives to women in this country, that
we accept the Smith amendment to that, and we can qualify and solve
this problem and this will go through. If, in fact, not, then we will
see we will have an extended debate on whether or not the bill will
make it.
An honorable amendment was brought forth in the committee. An
honorable amendment to the gentlewoman's amendment is now offered. The
clarity cannot be any clearer than what I have stated. The Smith
amendment does not limit oral contraceptives, it only limits those
things that are considered abortifacients.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I think that Members have
to be very sensitive to what my colleague from New Jersey is attempting
to do here today.
Is there no limit to my colleague's willingness to impose his concept
of when life begins on others? Conception is a process. Fertilization
of the egg is part of that process. But if that fertilized egg does not
get implanted, it does not grow. And so on throughout the course of
pregnancy.
For those who do not believe that life begins upon fertilization, but
believes, in fact, that that fertilized egg has to be implanted, the
gentleman is imposing his judgment as to when life begins on that
person and, in so doing, denying them what might be the safest means of
contraception available to them.
Some women cannot take the pill. It is too disruptive to them. Some
women depend on intrauterine devices and other such contracptives. When
we get to the point where we have the courage to do more research in
contraception, we will have many other options to offer women so that
they can have safe contraception.
For us to make the decision that that woman must choose a means of
contraception that reflects any one individual's determination as to
when in that process of conception life actually begins is a level of
intrusion into conscience, into independence, into freedom that,
frankly, I have never witnessed. Even the issue of being for or against
abortion is a different issue than we debate here tonight. We have
never, ever intruded to this depth.
When I talk to my friends who are obstetricians, because all my
colleagues know my husband is a retired obstetrician, how the pills
work is not simple. In some women they have one effect, and they may
have first effects and secondary effects. They prevent ovulation in
general but not absolutely. And if there is a fertilization while on
the pill, the pill prevents implantation.
So this is a complex process. And for us to imagine here tonight that
it is either right or proper or possible for the gentleman to impose
his determination on others at this level is extraordinary. As a
Republican who believes that government should stay out of our lives, I
oppose this amendment with everything in me. And I would ask my
colleagues, those who are pro life--and I honor that position. And I
would say that the pro-life members of our Nation have changed the
issue of abortion over these years. People take it far more seriously.
It is not as casual. They have made an enormous difference for the good
in our Nation. But that does not make it right for them to step, then,
into this level and try to make definitions that, frankly, are not
nearly so simple as my friend and respected colleague, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), implies.
The lines are not clear. They are not simple. I would ask my
colleague to respect that we are a Nation founded on the belief that we
should have freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and this
amendment deeply, deeply compromises those liberties.

____________________