[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S381-S382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WOMEN'S PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I watched many of the statements made by
so many of our women Senators who came to the floor in the past hour to
talk about this issue of women's preventive health services. I was
unable to get to the floor at the time. I want to be here now because,
unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion about what the Affordable
Care Act does and does not do with respect to women's preventive health
services.
As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
and as someone who is very much involved in crafting this legislation,
especially the preventive services part of that legislation, I hope to
explain the facts and debunk the myths and the misinformation that has
recently arisen on this issue.
First, women--nurses, teachers, professors, homemakers, attorneys--
everyone from all walks of life, all women in America now have the
right to preventive health care services. Beginning this August, the
Affordable Care Act guarantees that insured women will have access to
expert recommended preventive health care services. These basic
services include well-women visits, mammograms, prenatal care, cervical
cancer screenings, and contraception.
These critical services will be offered without any out-of-pocket
costs such as copays or deductibles. It is the latter, the ability of
women to have a health insurance plan that covers contraceptives that
has led to this recent controversy, this outpouring, this outburst of
political accusations.
Here let me emphasize people of strong faith and good conscious have
very different views when it comes to these matters. I understand that.
I have great admiration for the many contributions that religious
institutions make to our country. Catholic charities provide vital
assistance to low-income Americans. Religious universities teach and
prepare thousands of young people to be outstanding citizens and
productive members of our society. In fact, I attended law school at
Catholic University right up the street. I also attended Catholic
elementary schools and Catholic high school.
Catholic hospitals are instrumental in providing first-class health
care to so many of our fellow citizens. I have spoken many times about
the care that Mercy Hospital in Des Moines, a Catholic hospital, gave
to my father when he was elderly and in bad health because of black
lung disease and he had no money. They provided care for him at no
cost. So I have very deep feelings about the generosity and the care
that these religious hospitals provide.
It is for this reason I would oppose any measure that threatens the
fundamental religious liberties of these institutions. I believe,
however, that the President properly balanced the essential health care
needs of women with the rights of religious institutions. Let me
clarify what this rule does, and most importantly does not do since
folks, such as Governor Romney, are misleading the American people--
perhaps intentionally distorting the facts--using the issue for
demagoguery.
First, churches and other houses of worship are specifically exempt
from the requirement that they carry insurance plans that provide
contraception.
Second, no individual health care provider, neither religious nor
secular, will be forced to prescribe contraception. The President and
his administration have previously and continue to express strong
support for existing conscience protections. Moreover, other
religiously affiliated organizations that employ people of different
faiths--such as Catholic colleges and hospitals--can qualify for a 1-
year transition period as they prepare to comply with the new law.
Let me point out, no individual will be forced to buy or use
contraception. No individual will be forced to buy or use
contraception. Under this policy, women who want contraception will
have access to it through their insurance without having to pay a copay
or deductible, but no one will be forced to buy or to use
contraception. Let's make that clear.
Drugs that cause abortion, such as RU486, the morning-after pill, are
not covered by this policy. Let me repeat that. Drugs that cause
abortion, such as RU486, the morning-after pill, are not covered by
this policy and nothing about this policy changes the President's firm
commitment to maintain strict limitations on Federal funding for
abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.
Let me quote what Governor Romney said in Colorado just yesterday:
Just this last week, this same administration said that in
churches and the institutions they run, such as schools, and
let's say adoption agencies, hospitals, that they have to
provide for their employees, free of charge, contraceptives,
morning-after pills--in other words abortive pills and the
like at no cost.
Mr. Romney said.
Think what that does to people in faiths without sharing
those views. This is a violation of conscience.
Mr. Romney, this does not cover morning-after pills. And the adoption
agencies and the hospitals do not have to provide free of charge
contraceptives. All they have to do is to make available, through the
broad insurance coverage they have, for women who choose to use
contraceptive services, that they can get those without any copays or
deductibles. But this does not cover the morning-after pill. Yet I keep
hearing it.
I was working out this morning while watching CNN, and somebody else
came on talking about how the Catholic Church is opposed to abortions;
they should not be forced to fund abortions. This has nothing to do
with that. All it says is, if you have a broad-based insurance policy
and you are not a religious institution or a church and you are, let's
say a hospital, and you have insurance that covers a broad array of
people, we have said that insurance must cover a broad variety of
preventive services: mammograms, cervical cancer screening, well-women
visits--all of that--and contraception--and contraception, a preventive
service.
Mr. Romney is going around saying these things, but it is not true.
It is simply not true. He is either misinformed or he is purposely
trying to mislead the American people--neither of which is acceptable.
As I said, churches and other houses of worship are specifically exempt
from the requirement that they carry insurance plans that provide
contraception.
Second, no individual health care provider, neither religious nor
secular, will be forced to prescribe contraception. No individual will
be forced to buy or use contraception against her own conscience. All
the rules the President announced ensure that all women, no matter
who their employer, have the opportunity to enjoy the same insurance
and the same vital preventive services--every woman. In fact, there is
nothing radical about such a policy. Fifty percent of Americans
currently live in 28 States that require insurance companies to cover
contraception. Imagine that.
Several of these States--such as Arizona, New York, Oregon, and
California--have had this law in effect for years, saying if you have
insurance
[[Page S382]]
coverage, you have to provide contraceptive services under that broad
coverage of insurance, and these four States have identical religious
employer exemptions as the rule the President announced.
Let me repeat, Arizona, New York, Oregon and California have
identical religious employer exemptions, the same as the rule the
President announced. I did not hear Mr. Romney going after the
Governors of Arizona or of New York or Oregon or California. This has
now become a political issue, and it should not be. It should not be.
Religious institutions continue to serve the public by providing
exemplary health, education, and antipoverty services in these States,
and I am hopeful that nothing will change in the rest of the country.
Twenty-eight States, half the people who already live in those States
that cover the same thing.
The health of women in this Nation is far too important to become a
sound bite on the evening news, a headline in the morning paper, or
political rhetoric--again, to divide us. The President's policy and
what we have done does not divide us. In fact, if anything it unifies
the country. I do not think anyone thinks we should pass a law banning
contraceptives. We did in the old days, you know. There was a Supreme
Court case about that. As a matter of fact, I read it in law school
when I was at Catholic University Law School: Griswold v. Connecticut,
if I am not mistaken.
The Supreme Court said, no; the State has no interest, no vital
interest in telling women they cannot use contraceptive services and
devices. That is an old case. If someone is conscience-bound and they
say they don't want to--that is fine. No one is being forced to do
anything against their consciences. No one is being forced to do
anything we have not already done in this country in 28 States. But now
it has become political rhetoric. How else do we explain Mr. Romney's
total misinformation? To try to divide us as a country again.
It is time to put this aside. It is time to put aside these
differences, these divisions, and focus on giving people access to the
affordable health care they deserve. That is what the Affordable Care
Act does, and we should not let political rhetoric, political
gamesmanship, a political campaign again try to tear us apart, try to
misinform people to inflame passions that somehow we have gone off on a
different path; that we are doing something totally different than what
we have done before. We are not. We are not. To include in this the
inflammatory rhetoric of abortion and all that it entails is doing a
disservice to the women of this country.
I hope the truth will get out, that this misinformation will fall by
the wayside, and people will see this for the political rhetoric it is,
and that we will move forward with a health care system that does
provide broad preventive services to every woman in America. That is
what this is about.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
____________________