[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 111 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4519-S4527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Women's Health
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to speak on an issue of vital
importance to all who value true liberty in the United States.
Last month the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hobby Lobby
case. In 2010, in the Citizens United case, the Court said corporations
have a First Amendment right to participate in elections. In the Hobby
Lobby ruling, the Court took it a step further and said that since a
corporation can be a person, it can also have religious views and
because a corporation is a person, it can impose its religious beliefs
on an employee and deny a woman insurance that protects her health by
providing contraception. So the folly of the Supreme Court has come
full circle, where an actual person will be denied their rights because
the views of a corporation have been given priority under the U.S.
Constitution as interpreted by this Supreme Court.
Instead of ``we the people,'' it is now ``I the CEO of a
corporation'' who has the right to exercise their constitutional
privileges as interpreted by this Supreme Court that truncates the
right of individual women in America to exercise theirs.
The Supreme Court majorities have continued to extend our basic
constitutional rights--the inalienable rights held by individuals--to
corporations. Corporations are not people.
Supporters of the Hobby Lobby ruling have accused Democrats of
hyperbole. They say we are making the Hobby Lobby case seem more dire
than it truly is. The corporate personhood supporters say the ruling
doesn't mean women can't use the contraception of their choice, just
that the insurance provided by their employer doesn't have to cover it
or they say the ruling doesn't mean a boss is imposing his or her
religious views on their employees. That is just wrong. It says that
the boss doesn't have to subsidize health care that violates the boss's
religious views.
What happens when the religious views of a CEO are imposed on the
real life of a working woman?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. MARKEY. In real life working women earn their insurance coverage.
It is part of their pay, and they depend on insurance to pay for their
health care--including contraception--for themselves and their
families. If that employer's choice of insurance doesn't pay for a
particular type of contraception, a woman will be forced to give up her
right to use it.
If one form of contraception is--just as Ginsburg explained in her
dissent--$1,000, and insurance won't cover even a penny, a working
woman is going to be forced to make medical decisions based on the
religion her employer practices, not on what she and her doctor
determine is best for her from a medical perspective. The religion of
the employer trumps the recommendation of a physician to a woman, and
this is just a step that changes the whole relationship between an
individual and their country.
If a corporation's insurance doesn't cover any contraception because
all contraceptives violate the employer's religious beliefs, then their
employee's religious views are especially burdened, and she will have
to pay for contraception out of her own pocket. Keep in mind that the
average woman makes 77 cents on the dollar to a man, but if you are an
African-American woman, then it is 66 cents on the dollar, and Latina
women earn 59 cents on the dollar compared to what a white man makes in
the United States of America.
In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court transformed religion from
a personal choice into a corporate decision, and the corporate world--
in real life--can impose its religious views on its employees. That is
why I am an original cosponsor of S. 2578, the Protect Women's Health
from Corporate Interference Act, or as supporters call it the Not My
Boss's Business Act.
Let's be clear. Corporations are not people, period. For-profit
corporations do not have religious views. For-profit corporations
should not be able to deny their employees critical health care or
force American taxpayers to pay for it
[[Page S4520]]
because of the owner's personal religious views.
The Not My Boss's Business Act will fix the Hobby Lobby decision by
making it illegal for corporations to deny their employees health care
benefits--including contraception--that are required to be covered by
Federal law. It will protect employees from having their health care
restricted by bosses who want to impose their religious belief on
others.
I urge my colleagues to vote to restore true liberty by voting to
pass S. 2578. I thank all of my colleagues.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, last month, as my friend from
Massachusetts just mentioned, the Supreme Court ruled that the Obama
administration's Health and Human Services mandate infringes on the
First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. This is a guarantee
that Americans have enjoyed for the entire history of our country. It
is the first freedom in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The
first sentence has the words ``freedom of religion.''
In the very recent past, the Congress of the United States voted for
a bill that protected freedom of religion unless there was some
extraordinary reason not to have freedom of religion in our country. It
is important to try to maintain some sense of good humor and be willing
to work with people on other issues. As it is, people come to the floor
and just say the same things over and over that are not true.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion on religious freedom.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion on the President's health
care bill. Everybody is not entitled to their own facts. If we were
dealing with the facts as they truly exist right now, this would be a
much different debate.
In fact, just a couple of days ago the Washington Post Fact Checker
said that what the Senate Democrats are saying in their rhetoric is
just wrong. He said: They are simply wrong. He said the court ruling
does not outlaw contraceptives. The court ruling does not prevent women
from seeking birth control. The court ruling does not take away a
person's religious freedom. In fact, all the court ruling does is say
that although many people are exempted from this law, we are going to
find a way to have people's religious rights upheld.
In America you should not be forced to choose between giving up your
business for your faith or giving up your faith for your business.
Under the Constitution and under the political heritage of this country
and the foundation this country was built on, the government has no
right to ask people to make that choice. There are plenty of
protections in the Religious Restoration Freedom Act that passed just a
few years ago that don't allow this to be taken to some unacceptable
extreme.
Religious freedom has historically been a bipartisan issue. In fact,
the law the Court based their decision on was introduced in the House
by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer--now Senator Schumer who sits right
over there--and the late Senator Ted Kennedy. They were the people who
proposed this legislation. President Clinton signed the bill into law.
The Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, voted for the bill.
The minority leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, was
a cosponsor of the bill, and this was just considered something that
was easily done.
It was unanimously passed in the House. It got three no votes--the
vote was 97 to 3 in the Senate. This was in 1993, not 1893. This was a
dozen years ago when the understanding was clear that there was a
principle in our country that if you are going to violate that
principle, you better have taken every step possible not to violate the
principle of religious freedom. People on the other side would say it
was only a handful of years ago when the bill passed and they didn't
know that was what it meant.
Of course they knew that was what it meant. One of the reasons they
know that is what it meant is because they knew at the time that this
principle was a principle the government would adhere to.
In fact, the specific language in the Respect for Rights of
Conscience Act that I introduced in the 112th Congress plus the
specific language that Senator Kennedy put in the Health Insurance
Consumer's Bill of Rights Act in 1997 exempted the protected religious
faith. It says that based on the religious or moral convictions of the
issuer, the issuer didn't have to do things they thought were wrong.
In the 103rd Congress Senator Moynihan introduced the Clinton health
care package--sometimes called Hillary care--which said that nothing in
this title should be construed to prevent any employer from
contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which
excludes coverage for abortion or other services if the employer
objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral
conviction. It can't get much clearer than that.
According to Senator Schumer--when the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act was introduced it said the government shall not substantially
burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from
a rule of general applicability unless it demonstrates such a burden
is, one, in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest or,
two, is the least restrictive means of furthering that governmental
interest.
This is not a law--the Affordable Care Act--that people are not
exempted from. In fact, every woman and man in America who works for an
employer that has fewer than 50 people employed is exempted from this
act. There are entire religious faith groups exempted from this act if
they don't believe in government health care. There are waivers the
President has issued over and over that exempt people from this act--
many of whom were employees of fast-food restaurants and other places
that had minimal packages. The President said we are going to exempt
them for a while.
People who work for employers with under 50 employees are exempted
forever until the law changes. There are millions more people who work
for employers with under 50 employees than work for employers that will
have a sincere faith-based interest in not doing the wrong thing.
The majority of people who worship in this country in a given week go
to worship in a church where they say this practice is wrong. It
doesn't mean it is illegal. It doesn't mean anybody who hears them or
appreciates them can't do whatever they want to do. But it does mean
you can easily go to church and be told this is the wrong thing to be a
part of.
The companies involved in the court case have a great tradition of
following their faith. When you get a full-time job at Hobby Lobby,
your starting wage is $14 an hour--almost twice the minimum wage. You
have to work a couple of hours to have the extra $10 a month that some
of these particular medicines, procedures, and birth control pills
would cost. They are closed on Sunday. They close earlier at night than
their competitors so people who work there can have a family life. In
fact, the government conceded these were companies that were clear in
their belief.
Now, if you have millions of people who are not covered by the law,
why can't you find a way to exempt people from providing a small
portion of health coverage that they feel is the wrong thing to do?
What did the government say? The government said: Well, you have a way
out; you don't have to provide insurance at all. So if you are an
employer of faith and you want to do everything you can to provide the
best benefit--probably in excess of the government-required benefits in
almost all areas you want to provide--your choice is to not provide
insurance at all.
In fact, the suggestion was made that they would save money by not
providing insurance at all because it would cost $2,000 per employee
not to provide insurance at all. That was the penalty in the law, and
the government suggested that was probably a lot less than these
companies were paying for insurance.
They said: Why not just pay the penalty? You don't have to violate
your faith. You can just violate your belief to take special
responsibility for your employees. You can pay the $2,000 penalty and
save money.
[[Page S4521]]
While I'm on the $2,000 penalty, I will say that one of the egregious
overreaches of what the government was trying to do here is to say if
you don't provide insurance at all, your penalty is $2,000. If you
don't provide the exact insurance the government says you have to
provide--whether it is based on your faith or otherwise--your penalty
is $36,500 per employee.
You can provide better insurance in every other area than what the
government says, you can provide insurance in areas that the government
didn't even require you to provide insurance, you can do anything you
want to do beyond what the government says to do, but if you don't do
everything the government says, you have to pay $36,500 per employee
per year. And that was in the regulation.
That is the law that Members of the House and Senate voted for. I was
not one of them. I was against this law. But the law said you have to
pay $2,000 if you don't do anything at all. But the Obama
administration said you have to pay $36,500 if you didn't do exactly
what they said you have to do. It is the wrong application of religious
freedom. The idea that people could not have access to any FDA-approved
product is just wrong. Somehow if your employer can keep you from
having access to anything you want to have access to that has been
approved by the FDA is wrong as the millions of women and men who work
for companies who aren't covered under the law prove every day. They
prove it every day. If we listen to our friends on the other side, one
would think we would be driven backward--we are talking about on behalf
of religious freedom, being driven back into the dark ages of December
2013--when everybody who could buy a product in December of 2013 can
buy that same FDA-approved product today.
This is about religious freedom. It is not about money. In fact, this
bill proposed in the last Congress--I had a provision in that bill that
a few Democrats voted for--more Democrats voted for the bill than
Republicans voted against it. There was bipartisan support for the
bill. I offered an amendment that said if the Department of Health and
Human Services wants to, they can promulgate a rule that requires an
employer to add a benefit of equal value for any benefit the government
requires that they don't want to offer. That is an easy way to say
there is no economic motive at all. Maybe the government doesn't
require mental health coverage, and if an employer can offer that
mental health coverage of equal value to a benefit the employer's faith
prohibits being a part of--the bill that most Democrats in the Senate
voted against had that provision in there.
This is not about our pocketbooks. This is not about what something
costs. This is about whether the government has done everything
possible to accommodate people's deeply held religious beliefs. The
first freedom in the first sentence in the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution mattered when it was put in there, it mattered when 16 or
so of the current Members of the Senate voted for the Religious Freedom
Act, it mattered when Ted Kennedy and Senator Moynihan put this exact
same ability in the health care laws they proposed less than 20 years
ago, and it matters today.
I hope we move on to solving problems based on the real facts rather
than continuing to talk about facts as my friends would like them to be
rather than facts as they really are.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the
Protect Women's Health Care from Corporate Interference Act.
I thank my colleague Senator Murray from Washington and my colleague
Senator Udall from Colorado for introducing this bill and Senator
Murray for her long championed efforts on women's health. I am very
proud to support this bill.
I guess I would say to my colleague, who I know feels passionately
about these issues, that the issue is really how important prescription
benefits are to women's health and particularly how important
contraception is to women and the fact that it is not an add-on to our
health care but, rather, an essential part of our health care. So I
hope it doesn't really take us getting a majority of women on the
Supreme Court to convince people how central this issue is to the
health care of women and why we don't want to deal with a boss who
decides to say: I don't want to cover that in employee benefit
packages.
I hope I and my colleagues will get a chance to vote on this
legislation because I think the Supreme Court's ruling in this case 2
weeks ago really set us on a slippery slope. In a 5-to-4 decision they
held that corporations can deny contraceptive coverage for women who
are their employees if the owner--if the owner--professes a religious
objection.
I know my colleagues think, why don't we just make this product more
available so that women can pay an out-of-pocket amount for it?
It is an essential part of women's health and should be part of an
employee's package and should not have to be a component she has to add
on later.
This precedent by the Court is a troubling precedent. The decision
threatens access to critical preventive health services for women, and
it opens the door for employers to deny other health care services just
because of the owner's religious beliefs.
Many of my colleagues have come to the floor and articulated how this
is not about the religious exemption part of the Affordable Care Act
that can be sought by churches and religious organizations; this is
about employers who are corporations. So those exemptions for people
who do have religious beliefs and don't want to offer these health care
services are still preserved. But what is not preserved is a woman's
ability to say to her employer: Why are you discriminating against me
and my health care insurance that you are going to provide when you are
not providing the full range of benefits for women?
So, as I said, it really is a slippery slope, and the question is,
How many other things are going to be thrown into this same area?
I am getting a lot of letters. I have heard from several people from
the Northwest. In fact, this one individual wrote to me saying, ``I am
terrified that affordable access''--affordable access, not an add-on.
Just because I am a woman and I work for an employer, now I have an
add-on because you are discriminating against what my health care
services are. She said, ``I am terrified that affordable access to my
medically indicated preferred method of birth control may be in
jeopardy due to the recent Supreme Court decision.''
So, yes, we are hearing from a lot of people that the decision
imperils the ability of women to access evidence-based, clinically
effective contraceptive methods in their health care plans. These are
health care plans they pay for through their hard-earned wages as part
of their benefit package when they sign on to work for a company.
We know this is a vital component of health care, and it helps women
with everything from family planning to reducing risks of ovarian
cancer and other medical conditions. So we want to make sure these
recommendations, such as the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force, which says to include reproductive health care
methods as preventive services--we want those services to be offered.
As a result of those recommendations, about 675,000 women in Washington
State now have robust access to a set of 20 FDA-approved contraceptive
methods as part of a preventive services package. These services are
covered free of coinsurance, free of copays, and free of deductibles.
Now we are basically saying that because a person is a woman and even
though this is an essential part of health care, all of a sudden,
because of the Supreme Court decision, a woman might work for an
employer who is going to ask her to pay for that instead out of her own
pocket.
I think this decision threatens real progress for our health care
delivery system. We know this well because in Washington State
employers denying women basic health coverage is not a new issue. In
fact, women in my State have been fighting for decades.
In 1999 Jennifer Erickson was supervising as a pharmacist at Bartell
Drugs in Bellevue, WA. Upon starting her job, she learned that her
company didn't
[[Page S4522]]
cover one prescription that she needed--birth control pills--so she
appealed to the company asking them to cover that benefit. She was
denied. She went on to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of the
company's nonunionized employees. In a landmark ruling, the Federal
district court--Judge Robert Lasnik--held that Ms. Erickson had the
legal right to access birth control under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
What is more, the decision was based on a Supreme Court precedent.
Unlike the district court, though, the Supreme Court has gotten this
wrong, and the ruling is a dangerous precedent to allow employers to
deny other health care benefits just because the owner wants to
proclaim that his religious beliefs don't want him to offer those
coverages.
As Justice Ginsburg said, would the exemption the Court holds that
has been used on contraceptives based on religious grounds--would there
be other examples, such as blood transfusions because they are a
Jehovah's Witness or antidepressants because they are a Scientologist
or medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia and other
things, because certain other ethnic groups--Muslims, Jews, or Hindus--
said they didn't want to provide those services?
Does it set us up for a lot of medical necessities not being covered
by corporations simply because the CEO or many owners of that company
decide it is in their religious beliefs not to offer those important
services?
It is very important that we vote to make sure we speak on behalf of
these women who are writing to us now, that we give them the kind of
coverage for health care they deserve and that ensures every employer
who sponsors a health care plan has these same benefits included in the
package.
The good news is that 60 percent of working women in Washington State
get their coverage through their employers. But we need to make sure
the employers--just because the CEO all of a sudden has now become the
judge of whether they want to cover important health care services, we
have to make sure we pass this legislation to protect those employees.
I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I ask that the time during
the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to set the record
straight. Since the Supreme Court ruled on the Hobby Lobby case, a
flood of misinformation has spread, distorting the true meaning of the
Court's decision. We have seen a misrepresentation of the case, I think
to divide the American people, and I find these scare tactics very
disappointing.
It is time to move away from the overheated rhetoric and it is time
for us to discuss the facts. The Washington Post Fact Checker has
systematically rebutted a series of misleading claims from my friends
on the other side of the aisle. The Fact Checker concluded that,
``Simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not
allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control and does not
take away a person's religious freedom.''
In other words, under this ruling, no boss has the right to tell an
employee that they cannot use birth control. Nothing in the decision,
nothing takes away women's access to birth control. All women continue
to hold the constitutional right that was first articulated in Griswold
v. Connecticut to use contraceptives. The Court's Hobby Lobby opinion
reaffirms Griswold and unequivocally states, ``under our cases, women
(and men) have a constitutional right to obtain contraceptives.''
Discrimination based on gender continues to be illegal. Employers may
not punish, retaliate, or discriminate against women who choose to use
contraception.
Moreover, current privacy laws prevent employers from even asking if
an employee uses birth control.
The Court went on to state that its decision ``provides no such
shield'' against discrimination in hiring. An employer cannot prohibit
a woman from purchasing any form of contraception. Moreover, women can
continue to have broad access to safe, affordable birth control.
Even before the Affordable Care Act was passed, 28 States already had
laws or regulations on the books to provide for contraceptive coverage.
Over 85 percent of large businesses provide contraceptive coverage for
their employees. For women without such coverage, the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services administers five separate programs to
ensure affordable access to contraception, including Medicaid.
The bottom line: All women continue to have the ability to purchase
or use a wide variety of contraceptives. It is both possible to stand
tall for the principle of religious freedom and also to support safe
access to birth control. The two are not mutually exclusive. The issue
in Hobby Lobby is not whether women can purchase birth control, it is
who pays for what. Those of us who believe that life begins at
conception have moral objections to devices or procedures that destroy
fertilized embryos.
The Green family, the owners of Hobby Lobby, have similar objections.
They do not want to use their money to violate their religious beliefs.
I think most Americans would believe that is reasonable. In fact, the
Greens offered health coverage that pays for 16 out of 20 forms of
contraception, including birth control pills.
The Court narrowly ruled that the Green family's decision was
protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a bill led by
Democrats and passed with overwhelming support by both the Senate and
the House of Representatives. The bill requires the government to show
a high level of proof before it can interfere with the free exercise of
religion. The Court ruled that in this case the government failed to
meet that burden. Accordingly, it could not abridge the Green family's
legitimate religious views.
While not all Americans share these particular views, I do believe
all Americans understand the importance of preserving religious
liberty. Indeed, our Nation was largely founded by men and women
seeking that religious freedom. The Court's decision was a narrow one,
applying only to closely held, mostly family-owned companies. Some have
suggested the ruling could open the door to objections over blood
transfusions or vaccines. We heard similar fears when the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act was passed over 20 years ago. None of those
fears have been realized.
Finally, I would like to state my strong support for the legislation
I introduced with Senator Kelly Ayotte and Senator Mitch McConnell that
reaffirms the dual principles of religious freedom and safe access to
contraception for all women.
Rather than seeking to divide Americans, our legislation brings
people together around ideas that we all can support. I would
especially like to commend Senator Ayotte for her strong leadership on
this issue. I have enjoyed working with her to push back against those
misleading claims about the Hobby Lobby ruling and ensuring that women
across America know the truth.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the assault
on women's health that has come from a majority of our Supreme Court in
recent weeks. It is unfortunate and frankly shocking that in the year
2014 we are still debating the issue of access to birth control. But
here we are. Millions of Americans are looking to the Senate today and
counting on us to stand for women's rights. They are counting on us to
put health care back between a woman and her doctor. They are counting
on us to stand for millions of Americans' access to affordable,
preventive health care of every kind. They are counting on us to say
that birth control is not your boss's business.
In short, they are counting on us to right this huge wrong from the
Supreme Court. We have that ability to
[[Page S4523]]
right this wrong. We have that ability here in this room. The Court, in
its decision, lays out a structure in which Congress does have the
power to overturn this misguided decision. The Court based its decision
on an act of Congress, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Now
Congress can respond. Congress can pass a new law that says: That is
not what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was meant to mean. The
Court got it wrong. We are going to make it right. We should all
remember that the act was set up to protect the religious choices of
employees. The Supreme Court has stood that on its head.
But for us to right the wrong we have to be willing to debate. We
have to be willing to go to the bill. We have to be willing to consider
each other's viewpoints, listen to each other. We have to be willing to
vote. But we cannot get to the bill if the majority is thwarted by a
minority which uses its filibuster power in a way never envisioned in
the past, never utilized until recent history, which has prevented
Congress from actually debating bills.
So let's all join together and say: Wherever you stand on this issue,
this issue is important enough to debate. Women's health care is
important enough to debate. Access to contraceptive care is important
enough to have that issue before this body. So let's all say yes to
debate this bill. The bill is formally titled The Protect Women's
Health from Corporate Interference Act or, as it is commonly known, the
Not My Boss's Business Act.
I hope we will all join collectively in saying this is an important
issue, because it really is about women's access to fundamental health
care. Whether contraceptives are used for family planning or for
painful medical conditions such as endometriosis, birth control is
essential health care for millions of Americans. While some are trying
to say this case has nothing to do with access to birth control, that
is simply not true. For most working families, affordability is access.
Without insurance, birth control can cost tens of thousands of dollars
over a lifetime. One-third of women in America say they have struggled
with the cost of birth control at some point in their lives. For
working families, getting by month to month, often paycheck to
paycheck, these costs, though they might be dismissed by Washington
pundits and even politicians here across the aisle, add up. They can
put contraception out of reach.
A loss of insurance coverage can certainly make certain types of
contraception totally unaffordable. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her
dissent, the upfront cost of an IUD is equivalent to nearly a month's
wages for a minimum wage worker. In the blue-collar community I live
in, in working America, a month's wage is a very big deal.
Not having insurance coverage equals not having access. Although our
Republican colleagues would have you believe otherwise, this dangerous
precedent could apply to all sorts of basic, essential health care.
What is to stop a boss from claiming a religious objection to
vaccinations under the theory espoused in this decision or from access
to a blood transfusion or to surgery or to HIV and AIDS, because all of
those fit the same pattern in that various religions have a strong
religious objection to those health care benefits.
I am not sure what is more troubling, the path charted by five
Justices that allows a boss to trump essential personal, preventive
health care choices or the Court's notion that it is okay to single out
women's health care in this decision.
The bottom line is this: The bill before us that we would go to on
the vote this afternoon, the Murray-Udall bill, is about putting women
back in charge of their own health care. Women do not want politicians
interfering in their health care. They certainly do not want their
bosses and CEOs interfering in their health care. Bosses belong in the
boardroom. They do not belong in employees' bedrooms or their exam
rooms. Let's send a message to all Americans who are watching this
body, this great deliberative body today, that the Senate is listening,
that we hear the concerns of millions of women across this land and
that we are ready to put women back in charge of their own health care
and get the bosses out of the exam rooms.
I urge my colleagues to join in voting yes to open debate on this
bill.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, whenever any Americans' religious
liberty is infringed, every American should be concerned. Religious
liberty is a part of the American character. Before our Constitution
was adopted, religious freedom was a part of the American character. It
was the reason the first Europeans settled on our shores. It was a
great source of the American Revolution.
My Scotch-Irish Presbyterian ancestors came here to escape religious
persecution from two churches, and when they came here they objected to
paying taxes to support another church.
So our very foundation as a country has in it the guarantees of
religious freedom.
That is why after the States created our Constitution, the people
came back and said: Wait a minute. You forgot something. You forgot the
Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights begins with guarantees of religious liberty. They
are emblazoned on the wall at the Newseum at the corner of Pennsylvania
Avenue and 6th, the guarantees of liberty. They were spoken by
President Roosevelt when he talked about World War II and why we were
fighting that great war.
So whenever any American's religious liberty is trampled upon, every
American should be concerned.
That is why I am so disappointed that Senate Democrats are proposing
to carve a giant hole out of America's religious freedom.
This is very different than what has consistently been the attitude
in this body. Twenty-one years ago Congress voted to pass the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, an act which reflects the American character
as well as any other act that Congress has passed. It created a very
high hurdle for government to burden a person's religious beliefs.
That legislation says that if the government is going to take an
action that creates a burden on a person's faith, the government must
prove there is a compelling national interest and that burden must be
as light as possible.
That bill passed nearly unanimously. It became law nearly
unanimously, with support from many in the Senate today, many on the
other side of the aisle who are supporting this carve-out for religious
freedom.
When he signed the bill into law, President Bill Clinton was eloquent
and said:
We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the
most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom.
President Clinton continues:
Usually the signing of legislation by a President is a
ministerial act, often a quiet ending to a turbulent
legislative process. Today this event assumes a more majestic
quality because of our ability together to affirm the
historic role that people of faith have played in the history
of this country and the constitutional protections those who
profess and express their faith have always demanded and
cherished.
But here we are debating a Democratic proposal to gut the law
President Clinton was describing and require Americans who own
businesses to provide insurance coverage for any health care item or
service that is required by Federal law or regulation, whether or not
it violates the employer's sincere religious beliefs.
So what has changed?
On June 30, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the law
meant what Congress and the President said it did when it was enacted.
They held that the Federal Government could not order the owners of a
closely held corporation to violate the basic tenets of their faith.
The company in question in this case, Hobby Lobby--and having been a
law student, I know that over time this will be known in law schools
across the country as the great case of Hobby Lobby because of its
importance and because of its name--is owned by the Green family, who
make their faith central to their business. They close their stores
[[Page S4524]]
on Sunday. They refuse to engage in profitable transactions that
facilitate or promote alcohol use. They contribute profits to Christian
missionaries and ministries.
No one doubts those are sincerely held religious beliefs. The Green
family offers health insurance which covers 16 of 20 forms of
contraception. It does not cover four forms of contraception that
prevent implantation of the embryo but employees are free to purchase
those four forms themselves.
The company in no way interferes with its employees' lives. It does
not tell them what to do with their bodies. It does not tell them how
to live their lives. It simply does not offer in the company's
insurance plan, coverage for the four forms of contraception that
violate the faith of the owners of the business.
Obamacare regulations tried to mandate 20 forms of contraception, but
recognizing this violated the beliefs of those who believe in life at
conception, they created a carve-out for several organizations,
Catholic hospitals for example. They could have created a similar
carve-out for closely held companies, but they did not.
Instead, the Green family and others were forced to defend their
freedoms in court, which fortunately ruled that the family was entitled
to protection from the government's mandates under the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act. This ought to have been a victory for everyone
if it is true in our country that when any American's religious freedom
is upheld, all of us benefit.
In 1993, the passage of the legislation was hailed as a momentous
achievement of religious freedom. The New York Times editorialized in
support of it. My friend Senator Reid from Nevada--now the majority
leader--said:
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation.
I congratulate the authors and the committee for creating a
fine bill.
The distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer--then a Member
of the House and the lead Democratic sponsor--said: ``This is a good
moment for those of us who believe in the flower of religious freedom
that so adorns America. . . . ''
But here we are debating a bill that would fundamentally undermine
that very act spoken of so eloquently by the Democratic leaders of
Congress and by the Democratic President of the United States.
What has changed? If they are successful, an American who opens a
business in this country will know that he or she will forfeit their
right to religious freedom. That is not consistent with the American
character. That is not the American way.
Why would Democrats who felt so strongly about this in 1993 feel so
differently today? Why would they be willing to do such damage to the
cause of religious freedom they so ardently proclaim? Because the
Democrats ``believe they have a powerful campaign weapon'' in this
issue, according to a report in Politico.
The Democrats charge that under the Supreme Court decision, an
employer's personal views can interfere with women's access to
essential health care services.
They say that under this decision corporations can limit their
employees' health care options and restrict their freedoms. That is not
true. It is patently false. It is absurd. It is wrong.
In the words of the Washington Post's nonpartisan Fact Checker Glenn
Kessler:
Nothing in the ruling allows a company to stop a woman from
getting or filling a prescription for contraceptives . . .
Second, the Fact Checker says:
Democrats need to be more careful in their language about
the ruling. All too often, lawmakers leap to conclusions that
are not warranted by the facts at hand. Simply put, the court
ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses
to prevent women from seeking birth control and does not take
away a person's religious freedom.
Today, women have the same rights they did before Obamacare--at least
in terms of religious freedom. The Supreme Court decision did nothing
to change or alter a woman's ability to access birth control or other
contraceptive care.
Hobby Lobby's insurance today already covers 16 of 20 forms of
contraception for the company's employees. A Hobby Lobby employee who
wishes to use a drug or device not covered by the company's insurance
is in no way prohibited from purchasing it. Nothing in the Hobby Lobby
decision prevents a woman from making her own decisions about
contraception. The only effect of the decision is that certain
employers cannot be forced to include it in their insurance coverage
against their religious objections.
The Supreme Court decision covered certain closely held, for-profit
companies--meaning they are controlled by five or fewer individuals--
where the owners have sincere religious beliefs. The Court's decision
does not mean all Americans of faith who own businesses and ask for
religious exemption from a general law will receive that exemption.
The Court's decision does not mean employers will be able to use the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a reason to refuse to cover
critical health services, such as vaccines, blood transfusions, and HIV
treatment. In fact, such fears were raised by opponents of the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act before it became law in 1993. The
Democrats didn't believe those objections then, and they shouldn't
believe them now because 21 years later these doomsday predictions have
not come true. Courts are well-equipped to dispel spurious or frivolous
claims.
I think the Democrats know all of this. I think they are just trying
to win an election.
This Supreme Court decision was about individual freedoms that do not
disappear if you decide to open a business. It was not about
contraceptive rights.
What is really happening is my friends on the other side of the aisle
are trying to change the subject. They want to talk about health care,
but they don't want to talk about Obamacare and what it is doing to the
women of this country. Let me tell a story that gives an example of
what it is that really concerns me.
First, what concerns me is the destruction of anyone's religious
freedom.
While we are talking about women and health care, let me talk about
Emilie of Lawrenceburg, TN. She is 39 years old. She came to see me.
She has lupus. Under Tennessee's laws, she had an insurance policy
granted by something called CoverTN. It was created by our then-
Democratic Governor and Blue Cross. It gave her the policy she needed
at a cost of about $50 a month. When Obamacare arrived, it canceled
Emilie's policy. She went on the exchange to try to replace it,
according to Washington's wisdom.
This is Emilie. This is a real woman in Tennessee who is really hurt
by the Obamacare law. We should be talking about her. This is what she
wrote to me:
I cannot keep my current plan because it doesn't meet the
standards of coverage. This alone is a travesty. CoverTN has
been a lifeline [for me]. . . . With the discontinuation of
CoverTN, I am being forced to purchase a plan through the
Exchange. . . . My insurance premiums alone will increase a
staggering 410 percent. My out-of-pocket expenses will
increase by more than $6,000 a year--that includes subsidies.
Please help me understand how this is ``affordable.''
Here is an American woman who has been hurt by ObamaCare. She lost
her policy--a policy that she could afford, that fit her health care
needs and her budget--but all of the wise people in Washington said:
This is the policy you need. So she got the policy Obamacare says she
should have, and her insurance premiums went up to approximately $400 a
month, and she got an insurance policy that does not fit her budget and
does not fit her health care needs. She is the one who has been hurt.
Unfortunately, Emilie is not the only one experiencing rate shock.
Millions of Americans are losing their insurance plans. They are being
forced to buy new plans, many of them with higher premiums, many with
higher deductibles, many of them with coinsurance.
Let me talk about a Tennessee woman whose name is Carol, a single mom
with a son starting at Austin Peay University in the fall. She is an
office administrator in an office that used to have CoverTN insurance
that cost less than $100 a month in premiums and covered all of her
health care needs. Carol said:
Now, thanks to Obamacare, I must pay over $300 per month
[compared to $100 a month] in insurance premiums for a policy
that has a $2,500 deductible and a $4,000 out of pocket
limit.
[[Page S4525]]
If we want to talk about a war on women, let's talk about the war on
Emilie and Carol in Tennessee and millions of other women who are hurt
by ObamaCare. Carol earns too much to qualify for a subsidy, so now she
puts a big chunk of her income toward her premiums--such a big chunk
that now she can't afford to help pay for her son's education.
These are the kinds of stories all of us hear from people who are
being harmed by Obamacare. These are the kinds of stories our friends
on the other side don't want repeated, so they even go so far as to
bring up carving big chunks out of America's character by trampling on
religious freedom--the freedom that is talked about in the First
Amendment.
We have proposals to help Americans like Carol and Americans like
Emilie. We have offered them on the Senate floor repeatedly since 2010
when the ObamaCare law was passed. They would move our country in a
different direction toward health care as rapidly and as responsibly as
we could go--a direction toward more freedom, more choices, and lower
costs for Emilie and Carol and for millions of women and millions of
men and millions of younger people across this country.
Our bills would allow Americans to keep more of their insurance
plans, as the President promised.
Our bills would allow people to buy insurance in another State if it
fits their budget and fits their needs. Let's say Emilie, who has
lupus, finds a policy regulated in Kentucky that fits her budget and
fits her needs. We would allow Emilie to buy that.
We would allow small business employers to combine purchasing power
with other employers and offer their employees lower cost insurance.
More freedom, more choices, lower costs.
We would allow Americans to buy a major medical plan to insure
themselves against a catastrophe--today, some Americans can, but under
Obamacare all Americans cannot--buy a major medical plan to insure
against catastrophe--that is what a lot Americans would like to do--and
then open a health savings account that is expanded to pay for everyday
health expenses. More freedom, more choices, lower costs.
We would like to repair the damage Obamacare has done. We would like
to prevent future damage. Republicans want to move in a different
direction that provides more freedom, more choices, lower costs. We
trust Americans to make decisions for themselves. That is the American
way. That is what we believe in. Religious freedom and health care
freedom--that is the American way.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record the article from the Washington Post by the Fact Checker.
In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an
excellent editorial today in the Wall Street Journal, an op-ed by two
of my colleagues, the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from
Nebraska, Senators Ayotte and Fischer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Washington Post--Fact Checker, July 14, 2014]
Democrats on Hobby Lobby: ``Misspeaks'' ``Opinion'' and Overheated
Rhetoric
(By Glenn Kessler)
``Really, we should be afraid of this court. The five guys
who start determining what contraceptions are legal. Let's
not even go there.''--Houe Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-
Calif.), at her weekly news conference, on July 10
In the wake of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling that, as a
closely held company, Hobby Lobby was not required to pay for
all of the birth-control procedures mandated by the
Affordable Care Act, Democrats have rushed to condemn the
court. But in some cases the rhetoric has gotten way ahead of
the facts.
Here's a round-up of some of the more noteworthy claims. In
some cases, lawmakers concede that they make a mistake; in
others, they are argue that they are offering what amounts to
opinion, even though the assertion was stated as fact.
Statements on Supreme Court cases are notoriously difficult
to fact check because rulings are open to interpretation--and
the full impact is often difficult to judge until lower
courts begin to react to the ruling. Both Democrats and
Republicans use adverse Supreme Court rulings to rally their
respective bases, but lawmakers have a responsibility not to
succumb to overheated and inaccurate rhetoric.
Nothing in the ruling allows a company to stop a woman from
getting or filling a prescription for contraceptives, but
that salient fact is often lost as lawmakers jump to
conclusions that the cost will be prohibitive. That may or
may not be the case depending on circumstances. Moreover, it
is worth remembering that when the Affordable Care Act was
passed, 28 states already had laws or regulations that
promote insurance coverage for contraception. The law sought
to extend that across the country--and even with this ruling,
that will remain the case for the vast majority of workers.
``Really, we should be afraid of this court. The five guys
who start determining what contraceptions are legal. Let's
not even go there.''--Pelosi
This is a very odd statement from the House Democratic
leader, given that the majority opinion flatly states that
``under our cases, women (and men) have a constitutional
right to obtain contraceptives,'' citing the 1965 ruling in
Griswold v. Connecticut, which under the right to privacy
nullified a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
Drew Hammill, Pelosi's spokesman, acknowledged that she
``misspoke.'' ``Obviously the impact of the court's decision
is not to make these four contraceptive methods illegal--i.e.
no longer allowed to be sold'', he said. ``But the overriding
point here is that the decision does in fact limit access,
which is the key point Pelosi made.''
Hammill cited Justice Ruth Ginsburg's dissent that women
have a compelling interest in being able to plan their
pregnancies and that they need reliable birth control.
Later, in the same news conference, Pelosi decried that
``five men could get down to specifics of whether a woman
should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or
her boss.''
Hobby Lobby involved the owners' objection to four types of
birth control but not diaphragms, but here Pelosi adhered
closer to the essence of the case (and a related temporary
injunction the court awarded to Wheaton College): the
question of who should pay for contraceptives. (The court
also vacated a decision by an appeals court that had ruled
against a Michigan company that objected to providing any
contraceptives under its employee health plan, so that would
include diaphragms.)
Ginsburg's dissent pointed out that it costs $1,000 for the
office visit and insertion procedure for intrauterine devices
(IUDs)--``nearly the equivalent to a month's full-time pay
for workers earning the minimum wage.''
Our colleagues at PolitiFact gave Pelosi a rating of
``false'' for her comments, and we certainly agree, though we
generally do not award Pinocchios when politicians fess up to
a mistake.
Still, we note that despite her office's admission of a
mistake, the transcript of the news conference had not yet
been corrected three days later. ``It will be,'' Hammill
said. ``We're migrating to a new site in the next two weeks,
so everything is a little slow.''
``The one thing we are going to do during this work period,
sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women's lives are
not determined by virtue of five white men. This Hobby Lobby
decision is outrageous, and we are going to do something
about it.''--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.),
remarks to reporters, on July 8
The Hobby Lobby decision was written by Justice Samuel
Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. That's
certainly five men, but Thomas is African American.
``That was a mistake, and he knew it right away,''
spokesman Adam Jentleson said. He noted that on other
occasions Reid has simply said ``five men.'' (The four
dissenters included three women.)
``This is deeply troubling because you have organized
religions that oppose health care, period. So if you have an
employer who is a member of an organized religion and they
decide, you know, I wouldn't provide health care to my own
family because I object religiously, I'm not going to allow
any kind of health-care treatment.''--Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (Fla.), Democratic National Committee chair,
appearing on MSNBC, June 30
While there are some religions that object to certain
medical procedures, Wasserman Schultz goes to quite an
extreme to suggest that employers could block an employee
from seeking any kind of health-care treatment. (Again, the
issue was who would pay for contraceptives, not whether
someone was barred from getting contraceptives.)
``The Chair was referring to the Justice's ruling which
puts employers' religious beliefs ahead of the medical needs
of employees,'' spokesman Michael Czin said. ``We
fundamentally disagree with the logic behind that ruling.''
``[In Griswold v. Connecticut,] the Supreme Court said that
the right of privacy of individuals and families trumped any
state right to ban contraceptives. It was a breakthrough.
They found privacy, at least the inference of privacy, in the
Constitution. I
[[Page S4526]]
asked that question repeatedly of Justice Roberts and Justice
Alito to make sure that they would honor that same tradition
of privacy. The Hobby Lobby decision violates that
fundamental premise. [While both justices were careful in
their answers before confirmation,] they both said they stood
by the Griswold decision.''--Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.),
quoted in ABC's ``The Note,'' July 10
Durbin serves on the Judiciary Committee and is the second-
ranking Democrat on the Senate. Here, he appears to come
close to saying what Pelosi asserted--that the ruling
signaled a possible ban on contraceptives. He specifically
mentions the Griswold decision, which as we noted was cited
by Alito in the majority opinion as settled law.
But a Durbin spokeswoman said he was not trying to say the
court was on a path to overturn Griswold. ``He was saying
Hobby Lobby was out of line with the general `tradition of
privacy' that permitted women to make their own choices about
birth control,'' she said, asking not to be identified. ``He
was critiquing this ruling and its impact on women's access
to contraceptive coverage, not making a prediction about
future cases.''
``The U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision opened the
door to unprecedented corporate intrusion into our private
lives. Coloradans understand that women should never have to
ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms
of birth control.''--Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), in a news
release, July 9
Udall's remarks were contained in a news release he issued
with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) about a bill that seeks to
overturn the Hobby Lobby decision. There is a bit of an irony
here: Udall voted for the Affordable Care Act, which built
upon the employer-based health-care system in the United
States and thus led to a ruling by the Supreme Court in the
first place. So it's a chicken-or-egg question about how the
door was opened in the first place.
Again, the issue is not whether women will have access to
birth control, but whether the health plan will cover the
cost. Spokesman Mike Saccone argues that this is, in effect,
``a permission slip.''
``Following the court's decision, women will need to
effectively ask their employers if they will continue to
cover contraception,'' Saccone said. ``They will need to
determine if their boss will give permission for their
insurance plans to cover birth control.''
He added: ``Without insurance coverage, IUDs (what Hobby
Lobby objects to covering) cost up to $1,000, which poses a
huge barrier for women, especially if she is making the
minimum wage. Without her boss's permission to get coverage
for that service in her health plan, it becomes much more--
potentially prohibitively--expensive for that woman.''
``Before the Hobby Lobby decision, the fight against
corporate influence was mainly about making sure real people
and their ideas were in charge of elections. But now it is no
longer just about a democracy; it is about keeping
corporations out of our private lives, out of our bedrooms,
and out of our religious decisions.''--Sen. Jon Tester (D-
Mont.), statement in the Congressional Record, July 10
Here again, a lawmaker mixes up the question of paying for
contraceptives with a broader prohibition against all
contraceptives.
``If an employer doesn't cover contraceptive care, for many
women access to birth control is effectively blocked because
it becomes cost-prohibitive,'' argued spokesman Dan Malessa.
``If an employer refuses to cover contraceptives based on its
religious views, then its religious views trump the religious
views of its employees.''
``You know, what I am objecting to is that these bosses
should not be able to tell their employees that they cannot
use birth control. Motherhood is not a hobby. That is what I
am objecting to.''--Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisc.), speaking on
MSNBC, July 1
Moore also falls into the trap of claiming that corporate
bosses can now dictate whether women can have access to birth
control. No boss under this ruling has the right to tell an
employee that they cannot use birth control. That's simply
wrong, but Moore's spokeswoman argued this is open to
interpretation.
``Congresswoman Moore was referring to the Supreme Court
decision that now allows certain employers to deny
contraceptive coverage to their employees through employer-
sponsored health care plans. By denying this coverage to
their employees, many workers may not have the financial
means to access this health care necessity,'' spokeswoman
Staci Moore said. ``To your point on the Hobby Lobby decision
concerning only certain forms of contraceptive coverage, the
congresswoman would argue that the ruling opens the door for
employers to challenge other vital health-care coverage, not
limited to the four contraceptives you mentioned.''
``What they've done, Chris, is taken away the religious
freedom of their employees. They have to comply with the
religious freedom of their employers.''--Rep. Louise
Slaughter (D-N.Y.), interview on MSNBC, June 30
Is Slaughter really saying that the court has taken away an
employee's religious freedom because some contraceptives may
not be covered by insurance? Eric Walker, her spokesman, says
this is a matter of opinion.
``By forcing an employee to live with the religious choices
imposed on them by their employer, the employee's own
religious freedom is infringed upon,'' Walker said. ``I think
it's fair to say that `freedom from religion' goes hand in
hand with `religious freedom.' The first amendment protects
Americans from having religion thrust upon them by others--a
standard the court failed to uphold, in the congresswoman's
opinion.''
The Pinocchio Test
The Fact Checker generally does not award Pinocchios for
``misspeaking'' or for statements of opinion. And we
obviously take no position on the Supreme Court opinion. But
this collection of rhetoric suggests that Democrats need to
be more careful in their language about the ruling. All too
often, lawmakers leap to conclusions that are not warranted
by the facts at hand. Simply put, the court ruling does not
outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses to prevent women
from seeking birth control and does not take away a person's
religious freedom.
Certainly, a case can be made that perhaps this is a
slippery slope (as Ginsburg argues in dissent) or that the
cost of some contraceptives may be prohibitively high for
some women who need them. But the rhetoric needs to be firmly
rooted in these objections--and in many cases the Democratic
response has been untethered from those basis facts.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2014]
The Hobby Lobby Decision and Its Distortions
Nothing in the Supreme Court's recent ruling denies women access to
birth control.
(By Kelly Ayotte and Deb Fischer)
In the days since the Supreme Court's June 30 Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby decision, we have been troubled by those who seem
eager to misrepresent both the facts of the case and the
impact of its ruling on women--all to divide Americans and
score political points in a tough election year.
The biggest distortion: the #NotMyBossBusiness campaign on
which falsely suggests that under the ruling employers can
deny their employees access to birth control.
That's flat-out false. Nothing in the Hobby Lobby ruling
stops a woman from getting or filling a prescription for any
form of contraception. Those who distort the court's decision
insist that one cannot support religious liberty and also
support access to safe, affordable birth control. But these
are principles that we, and millions of others, support.
Americans believe strongly that we should be able to practice
our religion without undue interference from the government.
It's a fundamental conviction that goes to the very core of
our character--and dates back to the founding of our nation.
The Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case, which
protects rights of conscience, reaffirmed our centuries-old
tradition of religious liberty.
Contrary to the misleading rhetoric, the Hobby Lobby ruling
does not take away women's access to birth control. No
employee is prohibited from purchasing any Food and Drug
Administration approved drug or device, and contraception
remains readily available and accessible for all women
nationwide. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll,
prior to ObamaCare over 85% of large businesses already
offered contraceptive coverage to their employees. And the
ObamaCare mandate under review in the case doesn't even apply
to businesses with fewer than 50 employees. For lower-income
women, there are five programs at the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services that help ensure access to
contraception for women, including Medicaid.
The court's decision applies to businesses whose owners
have genuine religious convictions. In the Hobby Lobby case,
the company's owners--the Green family--offered health-care
plans that provide coverage for 16 of the 20 FDA-approved
contraceptive drugs and devices, including birth-control
pills, required under the Affordable Care Act.
The Greens only had moral objections to the remaining four
methods, which they consider to be abortifacients. The family
felt strongly that paying for insurance that includes these
methods would compromise their deeply held religious belief
that life begins at conception.
In its narrow ruling, the court agreed, basing its decision
on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which was
introduced in the Senate by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.,
Mass.) and in the House by then-Congressman Charles Schumer
(D., N.Y.), and supported by over a dozen current Democratic
senators, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State
John Kerry.
Kennedy and Mr. Schumer sponsored this bipartisan law in
the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in
Employment Division v. Smith, which held that ``generally
applicable laws'' that have nothing to do with religion could
effectively prevent Americans from fully exercising their
religious rights.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed the
Democratic-controlled House by voice vote and was approved by
the Democratic-controlled Senate in an overwhelming vote of
97 to 3.
When President Clinton signed the bill, he said: ``What
this law basically says is that the government should be held
to a very high level of proof before it interferes with
someone's free exercise of religion.''
[[Page S4527]]
In the Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court ruled that
the government failed to make that case.
With misinformation now swirling, it's important to
understand what the court's decision doesn't mean.
The court's majority opinion explicitly states that the
ruling does not ``provide a shield for employers who might
cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.''
Additionally, the court said that ``our decision should not
be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must
necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious
beliefs''--meaning, you must show a legitimate religious
objection.
While some Americans may disagree with the Green family's
views, nearly all Americans believe that religious freedom is
a fundamental right that must not be abridged. When President
Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, he
said: ``Our laws and institutions should not impede or
hinder, but rather should protect and preserve fundamental
religious liberties.''
Congressional Democrats used to share that view. What's
changed? We can preserve access to contraceptives without
trampling on Americans' religious freedom.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the
nomination of Ronnie White to serve on the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri. I was proud to chair Justice White's
nomination hearing before the Judiciary Committee in May.
Justice White has the experience, the integrity, and the
qualifications to be an outstanding district court judge.
He came from humble beginnings. He was born in St. Louis to teenage
parents and grew up poor in a segregated neighborhood. He has worked
since age 11 to help make ends meet and to put himself through college
at St. Louis University and law school at the University of Missouri-
Kansas City.
Justice White went on to accomplish great things in his legal
career--most notably, becoming the first African-American Supreme Court
Justice and Chief Justice in Missouri's history. It was a powerful
moment when Justice White was sworn in to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The ceremony took place at a courthouse where slaves were once sold on
the steps.
I am pleased that the Senate is voting today on Justice White's
nomination to the Federal bench.
It is not often that the Senate gets the chance to correct a historic
mistake, But by confirming Ronnie White to the Federal bench, we will
be able to do so.
Justice White's previous nomination to the district court was
defeated on the Senate floor in 1999 on a partyline vote. At the time,
the claim was made that Justice White was ``pro-criminal.'' This was a
grossly inaccurate claim, both then and now.
Over his long career as an attorney and a judge, Justice White has
been widely recognized as fair, unbiased, and committed to the rule of
law. Just read the letter from the Missouri State Lodge of the
Fraternal Order of Police in support of Justice White's nomination. The
Missouri FOP said:
As front line law enforcement officers, we recognize the
important need to have jurists such as Ronnie White, who have
shown themselves to be tough on crime, yet fair and
impartial. As a former justice on the Missouri Court of
Appeals and as the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme
Court, Ronnie White has proven that he has the experience and
requisite attributes to be a quality addition to the U.S.
District Court. We can think of no finer or more worthy
nominee.
This is a compelling endorsement from the Missouri FOP.
In 2001 I had the opportunity to ask Justice White in a hearing
before the Judiciary Committee about the allegation that he was somehow
hostile to law enforcement. Here was his response. He said:
That is not true that I was opposed to law enforcement.
Senator Durbin, I have a brother-in-law who is a police
officer in St. Louis. I have a cousin who is a police officer
in St. Louis. I have served on boards and commissions with
police officers in the St. Louis community, and I also, when
I was city counselor for the city of St. Louis, was the
lawyer for the St. Louis City Police Department and we
defended police officers. As a judge, all I have tried to do
is to apply the law as best I could and the way I saw it.
Overall, Justice White's track record shows that his judicial
decisions were well within the legal mainstream and were supported by
precedent and legal authority. His decisions showed respect for the
rule of law, even in hard cases that involved difficult or emotional
facts.
The bottom line is that Justice White is a man with integrity, a
wealth of judicial experience, and a real respect for the law. He is
going to be an outstanding Federal judge.
I urge my colleagues to support this nomination and to put this good
man on the Federal bench.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of
Ronnie White to serve as a United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
In the Senate, as in life, there rarely is a chance for a do-over--to
get something right that went wrong a long time ago.
For me, Ronnie White's nomination is a chance to do that. This year
should have been his fifteenth as a district court judge--he would be
close to senior status today had his nomination by President Clinton
been confirmed in 1999.
I was very pleased this year to see him appear once again before the
Judiciary Committee, and I believe he will distinguish himself as a
Federal district judge.
Let me simply quote from a letter from the Missouri State Lodge of
the Fraternal Order of Police, which wrote a letter on May 13, 2014 in
support of Judge White's nomination:
As a former justice on the Missouri Court of Appeals and as
the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, Ronnie White
has proven that he has the experience and requisite
attributes to be a quality addition to the U.S. District
Court. We can think of no finer or more worthy nominee.
Ronnie White's confirmation is long past due, and I really am pleased
it is likely to come to pass. I just wanted to say that, and to urge my
colleagues to support him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the confirmation of the nomination of Ronnie L. White, of
Missouri, to be United States District Court Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri?
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin),
the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 227 Ex.]
YEAS--53
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--44
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Cardin
Mikulski
Schatz
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________