[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1077-S1078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we were engaged in lengthy debate for 
months--maybe years--about health care in the United States, and I 
believe we passed a historic bill that addresses some of the most 
fundamental issues about health care: first, to address affordability 
because if you can't afford it, it doesn't matter how good medical care 
is; second, to make sure it was successful for people rich and poor 
alike; third, to make sure the basic health insurance policies being 
offered in America covered the most important things in a person's 
life. That was part of the debate, and an important part of it.
  A fundamental principle of health care reform is to ensure Americans 
have access to a comprehensive package of health services--we call them 
essential benefits under the law--which includes maternity care, 
vaccinations, and preventive care.
  Many years ago when I was a new lawyer working in the Illinois State 
Senate, someone approached me and said: Are you aware of the fact that 
you can buy a health insurance plan that covers a family and literally 
covers a newborn but exempts coverage for the first 30 days of their 
life in Illinois?
  I said: No, that is impossible.
  He said: No, that kind of health care is for sale, and it is a little 
cheaper because we all know that if a baby is born with a serious 
problem, the first 30 days can be extremely expensive.
  They were literally selling health insurance plans that left that 
family and baby vulnerable for 30 days. We changed the law in Illinois 
and said: You can't offer a health insurance plan that covers maternity 
and newborns unless you cover them from the moment they are born. So it 
was written into the law as a protection against consumers who 
unwittingly would sign up for the cheaper policy that would never be 
there when they needed it.
  When we talked about the Federal standards when it came to health 
insurance, we wanted to make certain that some of the most basic 
things--the essential services--were covered, and that includes 
maternity care, vaccinations, and preventive care for women.
  There is an amendment we will consider this week offered by Senator 
Blunt of Missouri that I am afraid will threaten the vital consumer 
protections in the health reform law. These protections ensure that 
women, men, and children have access to basic health care. The 
amendment by Senator Blunt would allow any employer or insurance 
company to deny health insurance for any essential or preventive health 
care service they object to on the basis of ``undefined'' religious or 
moral convictions. That means an employer can not only deny access to 
family planning and birth control, but they could deny access to any 
health care services required under our new Federal health care reform 
law.
  Many supporters of this amendment stress how the amendment will 
protect

[[Page S1078]]

employers with religious objections to things such as coverage for 
contraception, but in reality this amendment goes much further: it 
would allow employers to deny coverage for any health service. For 
example, under the Blunt amendment, if an employer objects morally to 
vaccinations, then their insurance policy would not have to cover 
potentially lifesaving vaccinations for the children of that employer's 
workers or if an employer has religious objections to mental health 
care, their employees would not have access to basic health care 
services that we fought to protect. The Blunt amendment will have a 
harmful effect on all people and would undermine our Nation's effort to 
ensure that everyone in this country has access to a basic standard of 
health coverage.
  Who opposes the Blunt amendment? It is not just women's groups, as 
you might expect, but the American Academy of Pediatrics, AIDS United, 
the American Nurses Association, and the American Congress of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
  Mr. President, I know your personal background and field of study has 
included theology and religious training, in that area, and I know this 
particular debate was brought on because of President Obama's decision 
when it came to the health care coverage offered by religious colleges, 
universities, and charities. The President's offer at this point says 
that no religious-sponsored institution, such as a college, university, 
hospital, or charity, will be forced to offer health services that 
violate their basic principles and values, their religious values. The 
President goes on to say, though, that the employees of that 
institution would have the right, on their own initiative, to a service 
not provided to them under the hospital or university policy that they 
could secure by going directly to the insurance company. It removes the 
church-sponsored, religious-sponsored institution from making the 
initial decision that might run counter to their values but gives the 
freedom to the individual employee to pursue the health care under the 
law which they consider to be essential, such as family planning. Some 
say this is unacceptable. I think it strikes the right balance--the 
balance between respecting the conscience and religious values of 
certain institutions while still protecting the freedom of individuals.
  There has been a lot of talk in this Presidential campaign about 
religion, and much of it has come from a former Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I would like to remind him and those who have not 
followed it closely that there are exactly three provisions in the U.S. 
Constitution when it comes to religion. One of them says that we have 
the freedom of religion, religious belief, which gives us the right to 
believe what we want to believe or to believe nothing. That is 
guaranteed under the Constitution. Secondly, the government will not 
pick a religion. I have heard candidates say we are a Christian nation. 
No. We are an American nation, which includes many Christians but also 
others of different religious beliefs, and the Constitution says the 
government will never pick its religion. The third point that is often 
overlooked--and I would refer to the Senator from Pennsylvania--it is 
in the Constitution that there will be no religious test for office. In 
other words, we could not establish under the law, if anyone cared to, 
that only Christians or Jewish people could be elected to the Senate or 
the House. That is strictly unconstitutional.

  Those three principles have guided us well, and it is important for 
us to make sure as we tackle the issues of the day that we apply the 
principles that have endured. In this circumstance, we have to 
understand that militant secularization is as intolerant as militant 
desecularization. We have to try to strike that balance.
  I recommend to those who are following my remarks and would like to 
read more an article that was published in the New York Times on 
February 24 by Joe Nocera entitled ``A Revolutionary Idea.'' Mr. Nocera 
is a thoughtful writer, and he traces the history of this. His opening 
remarks include the following: ``Rick Santorum is John Winthrop''--
referring, of course, to Mr. Winthrop who joined with the Puritans in 
trying to assert that our government needed to stand for puritanical 
values and beliefs. That debate, which even predates the Constitution, 
is one that molded our country and makes it what it is today. There 
emerged from that debate over the Puritans and what they would do a 
feeling that there had to be a separation between church and state, 
religious belief and secular administration of our government. That is 
the debate that continues today.
  This generation, regardless of the issue of the day, needs to 
preserve the same basic values that led to this debate in the early 
Colonies and ultimately to our constitutional principles. As we find 
countries all over the world bitterly and violently divided over 
religion, we need to take care in our generation that we protect the 
basics. The President's decision when it comes to health care through 
the insurance policies protects those basic values.

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________