[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1104-S1105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            BLUNT AMENDMENT

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the amendment 
to the surface transportation bill offered by my friend and colleague 
from Missouri, Senator Blunt.
  For reasons beyond me, the other side has demanded a vote on birth 
control. It seems they wish to debate whether we should take away 
access to contraception for millions of women.
  Cooler heads are not prevailing on the other side of the aisle these 
days. There are some wiser voices on their side who do seem to regret 
they are having this debate, but they are the minority.
  Just this morning, the senior Senator from Alaska is quoted in the 
New York Times expressing exacerbation. Of her party's push to roll 
back access to contraception, she says:

       I don't know where we are going with this issue.

  I sympathize with the frustration shown by my friend from Alaska. 
There is no good answer about where the other side is going with this 
issue--except, perhaps, back to the 19th century.
  This whole debate is an anachronism. Our country progressed beyond 
the issue of whether to allow birth control a long time ago. Yet here 
we are in 2012 and some in the Republican Party suddenly want to turn 
back the clock and take away contraception from millions of women.
  Make no mistake, that is what this debate is about, as backward as it 
is. I keep hearing this measure being referred to as the Blunt 
amendment, named after its sponsor, my friend, the Senator from 
Missouri. We should, instead, call it for what it will be: an attempt 
to take away for millions of women birth control.

[[Page S1105]]

  If this amendment passes, it would ban contraception coverage for any 
woman in America whose boss has a personal objection to it. The measure 
would force women to surrender control of their own health decisions to 
their bosses. That concept is not merely quaint or old-fashioned, it is 
dangerous, and it is wrong.
  According to the Department of Health and Human Services, some 20 
million American women could be cut off from health services by this 
proposal. The other side does not want the debate framed in those terms 
because they know it makes them look silly. So instead, they are 
spinning.
  In the last week, there have been op-eds penned by the minority 
leader, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, and the junior Senator 
from Missouri, all seeking to frame this as about protecting religious 
liberty.
  The debate may have been about religious liberty for a time, but now 
some on the other side have overplayed their hand. They may have 
started seeking protections for religious-affiliated employers, but now 
they sense a ripe time to make headway on a far-right social agenda.
  The debate reminds me of a famous quote that our former colleague 
Dale Bumpers used to invoke. It was a quote by H.L. Mencken, who said:

       When someone says it's not about the money, it's usually 
     about the money.

  Well, when the other side tries so hard to claim this is not a debate 
about contraception, that is how you know this debate is precisely 
about contraception.
  The amendment is not about religious liberty. The truth is religious 
institutions have always been exempt under the law from certain 
coverage requirements. Under the President's compromise, an even larger 
set of employers--those with a religious affiliation such as certain 
hospitals and schools--also will not have to pay for contraception 
coverage. It will, instead, be covered by the insurance company. The 
President's compromise has been widely embraced, including by many of 
the same church-affiliated organizations that expressed concern 
originally.
  The administration is working on a solution for self-insured 
employers. I am confident they will find a way that works for everyone.
  The amendment being voted on tomorrow is not responsive to any real 
concerns about religious freedom. Its reach extends far beyond church 
organizations that legitimately seek considerations based on 
conscience. It wants to let any employer in the country decide to cut 
off services for any reason whatsoever.
  Under the guise of religious liberty, some on the hard right are 
trying to accomplish a political goal: banning contraception more 
widely. This is a goal the other side has been pursuing for a while now 
at the State level. At the heart of many of the personhood proposals 
being advanced in State legislatures is an attempt to cut off women's 
access to certain forms of contraception.
  Some Republicans in the Senate now seem to want to nationalize this 
fringe debate over whether contraception should be allowed. It is not a 
political winner. Even the House Republicans seem to have the good 
sense not to bring up the amendment on the floor of their Chamber. But 
here the other side is pushing ahead with the ban.
  It is so far-reaching, it has stirred a wide collection of health 
organizations to speak out against it. These are groups such as the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, and Easter Seals. These are 
groups with no agenda other than protecting the health of those they 
serve.
  In a letter these groups sent earlier this week, they pointed out the 
wide variety of services that an employer could decline to provide, 
such as child vaccinations and mammograms.
  It is true that all these services and more are threatened by this 
amendment. But are Republicans against child vaccinations and 
mammograms? I doubt it. So let's admit what this debate is really about 
and what Republicans want to take away from millions of American women. 
It is contraception. We should call this debate and this amendment for 
what it will be for millions of women whose boss may have a personal 
objection: This is a contraception ban.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________