[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 136 (Friday, October 2, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9338-H9339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CONTRACEPTION FOR WOMEN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.

[[Page H9339]]

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to have had to have come to the 
floor more than once on this issue. The Treasury, Postal rule went down 
again. There may be more than one reason why. But underlying that rule 
is a bill that allows basic minimal health protection for women.
  Since when does contraception for female government employees deserve 
to be in a bill whose rule is voted down? The women of America would 
say, no, never. And the bipartisan Women's Caucus of this Congress has 
said no in no uncertain terms.
  This is a bill that deserves the word ``noncontroversial.'' It passed 
unanimously in the Senate. In the House it has passed twice. What we 
are talking about is a provision that simply says that if a health plan 
pays for prescriptions, it must also pay for contraception 
prescriptions.
  Plans are often willing to pay for abortion. Plans are willing to pay 
for surgical procedures involved in reproduction. They certainly ought 
to be willing to pay for what prevents abortion. They pay for 
sterilization often, but not for simple contraception measures.
  Now, the provision contains a religious exemption. Among the 
religious plans would be Catholic plans. Catholic plans would not have 
to pay for contraception.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has inserted himself into 
this matter. He wants a morality exemption. That, of course, could 
never be granted by the Congress. One of the problems, I suppose, in a 
country like ours is we cannot figure out where everyone is on basic 
moral questions, but we do know where people are on religious 
questions.
  I do not know what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) or 
anybody else is doing in this matter. We are talking about a non-
conferenceable item. There was no disagreement between the House and 
the Senate. Why is this matter up for grabs? Unless we now are in a 
Soviet-style body where both sides can pass a bill but somebody else 
can zap in and overturn it.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has a provision that is a 
true insult to the women of America. He says, yes, they can cover 
contraception but only for the diaphragm. Surely only police states 
would tell women what kind of contraception to use. But let me be 
clear. Women need options in contraception precisely because some do 
not work, some make people sick, some are unsafe to some people, some 
have long-term effects and consequences. It is not for this body to 
decide.
  The health plan, if it is providing prescriptions anyway, should not 
be able to exclude this basic minimal kind of prescription that most 
women of childbearing age in fact need in one form or the other, and it 
is not for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) or any Member of 
this body to tell women which kind of contraception is the one that 
should be covered.
  Women indeed should not have to explain themselves to this body on 
this question. I am embarrassed to have to stand before this body to 
talk about contraception for women, especially for women who work for 
the Federal service.
  There are five major forms of contraception used, and none of them 
involve or come close to abortion. The pill, the diaphragm, the IUD, 
Norplant, and Depo-Provera. Ten percent of Federal plans offer no 
contraceptive coverage at all. This is a real family bill, when we 
consider that the woman of the family in this country pays 68 percent 
more for health coverage than the man in the family. We have got to get 
this thing down to size.
  This provision is central to women's health. Above all, we should not 
bring abortion-style politics into contraception. That is where we have 
a broad umbrella of agreement.
  Thus, this provision presents two fundamental issues for this House. 
One is simple democracy, when an item is non-conferenceable because 
both sides have agreed to it. Democracy works. We must leave it alone. 
We must not set the precedent that someone else can turn it around.
  And the second principle, of course, is that contraception is central 
to women's health. Leave it be. Pass this provision in the Treasury, 
Postal appropriations bill.

                          ____________________