[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 26 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            RELIGIOUS LIBERTY VERSUS CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE

  (Ms. HANABUSA asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, we began today's session with a debate on 
contraception. It seems to pit the availability and access to care, 
which I believe is a fundamental right, against whether you can 
legislate the behavior of religious institutions. It seems like an 
intractable dilemma that we face, but that's not so.
  Mr. Speaker, look to Hawaii. Since the 1970s, Hawaii has led the way 
in terms of medical plans and medical provisions. We have had prepaid 
health care since then, and of course, as you can imagine, we've had 
this debate. We had this debate in 1999. The way the State resolved 
it--and I was there--was that there was the religious exemption given 
for religious organizations broadly defined, but the employee was also 
entitled to buy coverage from the insurer at no extra cost.
  What does this mean?
  This means that it may have been, maybe, an additional $2 or $3 a 
month. The reality of it is, Mr. Speaker, that they didn't pay 
anything. The insurers covered it because they knew that it was in 
their best interests. And guess what? Many of the religious 
organizations did not opt out.
  So don't speculate. See the reality. Look at Hawaii.

                          ____________________