[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4119-4121]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to take a moment to recognize 
our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives who last week 
cast the 50th vote in their effort to dismantle the Affordable Care 
Act--their 50th. I know it is a tradition to give gold in celebration 
of a 50th milestone. I instead would like to gift my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle with a reality check.
  More specifically, today I would like to talk about a certain group 
of people who arguably stand to lose if their antics continue. So I 
have come to the floor this afternoon to set the record straight on the 
Affordable Care Act and how it is working for women in America. It is 
not much of a stretch for me to say the Affordable Care Act is probably 
one of the most significant pieces of legislation for women in my 
lifetime. Not because of the battles we fought to get it to the 
President's desk, not necessarily because of the size or scope of the 
law, but because of the

[[Page 4120]]

tangible and positive impact it has had and will continue to have on 
the health and well being of women in America.
  Four years ago health insurance companies could deny women care due 
to so-called preexisting conditions such as pregnancy or being a victim 
of domestic violence. Four years ago women were permitted to be legally 
discriminated against when it came to insurance premiums and were often 
paying more for coverage than men. Four years ago women did not have 
access to the full range of recommended preventive care, such as 
mammograms and prenatal screenings and more. Four years ago the 
insurance companies had all the leverage. Four years ago too often 
women were the ones who were paying the price. That is why I am proud 
today to highlight just how far we have come for women in the past 4 
years.
  Since the Affordable Care Act became law, women have been treated 
fairly with increased access to affordable health insurance, benefits, 
and services. Deductibles and other expenses have been capped so a 
health care crisis does not cause a family to lose their home or their 
life savings.
  Women can use the health care marketplaces to pick quality plans that 
work for them and their families. If they change jobs or have to move, 
they are able to keep their coverage. Starting in 2012, we saw these 
benefits for women expand even further. Additional types of maternity 
are now covered. Women are now armed with proper tools and resources in 
order to take the right steps to have a healthy pregnancy.
  Women now have access to domestic partner violence screening and 
counseling, as well as screening for sexually transmitted infections. 
Now women finally have access to affordable birth control. As public 
servants here, it is our job to help our constituents access Federal 
benefits available to them, particularly when it comes to health care. 
Since 80 percent of women are not only making health care choices for 
themselves but also their families and loved ones, it is our 
responsibility to serve as a guide when it comes to understanding how 
to best access these benefits.
  It might mean putting them in touch with a navigator to ensure they 
are getting the most affordable health insurance available or making 
them aware of an enrollment event where they can get information on 
available coverage options. But our responsibilities do not end there. 
It is our job to have an open, honest discussion about what the 
Affordable Care Act means for our constituents and to talk about ways 
to responsibly improve it.
  Instead, as we saw in the House last week, others have spent the 
better part of the last 4 years trying to take away the critical 
benefits that I just talked about, trying to score cheap political 
points on an issue that can literally mean the difference between life 
and death. I can understand why some of our colleagues disagree with 
certain parts of this law or maybe how it was implemented, but what I 
cannot understand is why anyone elected to Congress would decide to 
simply ignore real life stories of their own constituents whose lives 
were changed the day this law took effect.
  It is people like Susan Wellman. She lives in Bellingham in my home 
State of Washington. She is self employed. She has had to pay for 
individual insurance. Every year she has watched her health care costs 
rise higher and higher. It got to the point where she was paying $300 
monthly premiums with an $8,000 deductible, all for a plan she 
described as ``paying for nothing.''
  So as soon as Susan could access health care through the Washington 
State health care exchange, she jumped at the chance. She spoke on the 
phone with a real live person. She was able to sign up for an 
affordable plan in a matter of minutes. Now Susan is on a plan that 
costs her $125 a month instead of $300. It is a plan that has a $2,000 
deductible that actually pays for things. Guess what. She can afford to 
go to the doctor, not just in the case of an emergency but for a 
physical or a mammogram that could save her life, not to mention 
thousands and thousands of dollars in health care costs.
  That kind of preventive care is good for women like Susan. It is good 
for her family, and it is good for this country because when more 
people have access to preventive care, it makes health care cheaper for 
every single one of us.
  It is also good for women like Carrie Little. She is a certified 
organic farmer who lives in Orting, WA. A few weeks ago she was working 
outside when one of the rams on her farm attacked her, leaving her with 
bruises and a broken leg. Fortunately, because of her new health plan, 
her visit to the emergency room was painless. Well, as painless as it 
could be with a broken leg. But her hospital bills, her cast, and her 
visits to the orthopedic physician were paid in full.
  Until last year, Carrie had been spending half of her income for a 
catastrophic-only health plan, forcing her to pay out of pocket for 
even the most basic of care. Carrie wrote an op-ed, and I want to quote 
from it. She said:

       What a welcome relief that my new health plan covers 
     preventive care, like mammograms, immunizations, and yearly 
     doctor visits. I can keep the primary care doctor I have been 
     seeing for years. And I no longer worry about family members 
     getting kicked around due to pre-existing conditions. Thank 
     goodness. In agriculture, profits and losses shift like the 
     weather, so for our community, it is crucial that health 
     premiums stay affordable.

  Or women like Ingrid Gordon. Ingrid is a small business owner from 
Seattle who immediately enrolled in coverage when it became available. 
After an hour on the Web site, she told us, with minimal technical 
difficulties, Ingrid was enrolled and received her insurance card in 
the mail a few days later. Since her coverage began on January 1, 
Ingrid had her first dental and physical exams in 14 years. She cured a 
skin disorder thanks to prescription medicine. She scheduled a 
colonoscopy now that she is 50, and finally had her bothersome knee x-
rayed.
  All of those exams, visits and prescriptions would have cost Ingrid 
thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket just 1 year 
ago. But thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Ingrid paid a grand total 
of zero dollars in copays.
  Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, women like Susan and Carrie and 
Ingrid are now fully in charge of their own health care, not their 
insurance company. That is why I feel so strongly that we cannot go 
back to the way things were. While we can never stop working to make 
improvements, of course, we owe it to the women of America to make 
progress and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care 
needs.
  As we all know, unfortunately, there are efforts underway all across 
the country, including here in our Nation's capital, to severely 
undermine a woman's access to some of the most critical and life-saving 
services that are provided by the Affordable Care Act. No provision of 
this law has faced quite as much scrutiny as the idea of providing 
affordable, quality reproductive health services to the women of 
America.
  We have seen attempt after attempt to eliminate access to abortion 
services and low-cost birth control all while restricting a woman's 
ability to make personal decisions about her own care. I guess we 
should not be surprised. The truth is that the tide of these 
politically driven, extreme efforts continues to rise.
  In 2013 our Nation saw yet another record-breaking year of State 
legislatures passing restrictive legislation barring women's access to 
reproductive services. In fact, in the past 3 years the United States 
has enacted more of these restrictions than in the previous 10 years 
combined. That means that now more than ever, it is our job to protect 
these kinds of decisions for women, to fight for women's health, and to 
ensure that women's health does not become a political football.
  For this reason I was very proud to lead members of my caucus in 
filing a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., where a secular corporation 
and its shareholders are trying to get in between a woman and her 
health.
  Just like the many attempts before this case, there are those out 
there who

[[Page 4121]]

would like the American public to believe that this conversation is 
anything but an attack on women's health care. To them it is a debate 
about freedom, except of course freedom for a woman to access her own 
care. It is no different than when we are told that a tax on abortion 
rights is not an infringement on a woman's right to choose; they are 
about religion or State's rights; or when we are told that restricting 
emergency contraception is not about limiting a woman's ability to make 
her own family planning decisions; it is about protecting pharmacists; 
or just like last week, when an Alaskan State Senator said he did not 
think there was a compelling reason for the government ``to finance 
other people's recreation.'' That was in reference, of course, to 
contraception coverage in health care. In fact, after doing some 
research, this State Senator concluded that since birth control costs 
about ``four or five lattes'' the government should really have no 
reason to cover this cost to women.
  The truth is that this is about contraception. This is an attempt to 
limit a woman's ability to access her own health care. This is about 
women. Allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access to 
birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and 
age, and it would take us back to a place in history when women had no 
voice and no choice.
  In fact, contraception was included as a required preventive service 
in the Affordable Care Act on the recommendation of an independent, 
nonprofit institute of medicine and other medical experts because it is 
essential to the health of women and families.
  After many years of research, we know ensuring access to effective 
birth control has a direct impact on improving the lives of women and 
their families in America. We have been able to directly link it to 
declines in maternal and infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian 
cancer, better overall health outcomes for women, and far fewer 
unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we all should 
share.
  But what is at stake in this case now before the Supreme Court is 
whether a CEO's personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access 
free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act.
  Every American deserves to have access to high-quality health care 
coverage, regardless of where they work. Each of us should have the 
right to make our own medical and religious decisions without being 
dictated to or limited by our employers. Contraceptive coverage is 
supported by the vast majority of Americans who understand how 
important it is for women and their families.
  In weighing this case, my hope is that the Court realizes women 
working for private companies should be afforded the same access to 
medical care regardless of who signs their paychecks. We can't allow 
for-profit secular corporations or their shareholders to deny female 
employees access to comprehensive women's health care under the guise 
of religious exemption. It is as if we are saying: Because you are a 
CEO or a shareholder in a corporation, your rights are more important 
than your employees', who happen to be women. That is a slippery slope 
that could lead to employers cutting off coverage for childhood 
immunizations if they object to that idea or prenatal care for children 
born to unmarried parents if they think it is wrong, or blocking an 
employee's ability to access HIV treatment.
  I was proud to be joined in filing the brief by 18 other Senators who 
were here when Congress enacted the religious protections under the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and who were also here when 
Congress made access to women's health care available under the 
Affordable Care Act of 2010. They are Senators who know Congress did 
not intend for a corporation or, furthermore, its shareholders to 
restrict a woman's access to preventive health care.
  In the coming weeks, as the Supreme Court prepares to begin oral 
arguments in this case, these Senators and our colleagues who support 
these efforts will echo those sentiments, because we all know that 
improving access to birth control is good health policy and good 
economic policy. It means healthier women, healthier children, 
healthier families, and it will save monies for our businesses and 
consumers.
  I know many of our colleagues here believe that repealing the 
Affordable Care Act and access to reproductive health services is a 
political winner for them. But the truth is this law and these 
provisions are a winner for women, for men, for our children, and our 
health care system overall.
  I am very proud to stand with my colleagues who are committed to 
making sure the benefits of this law don't get taken away from the 
women of America, because politics and ideology should not matter when 
it comes to making sure women get the care they need at a cost they can 
afford.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________