[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11957-11961]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOT MY BOSS'S BUSINESS ACT

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
repercussions of the Supreme Court's misguided Hobby Lobby decision 
which allows employers to refuse to cover contraception as a part of 
their employees' health plans under the false pretense that 
corporations can not only have religious beliefs but they can impose 
those beliefs on their employees.
  Several days ago I was home in the great State of Colorado. I stood 
shoulder to shoulder with experts in women's health care who joined me 
to highlight how the Hobby Lobby decision is already negatively 
affecting women in our State.
  One Denver-based OB-GYN explained how physicians might now have to 
consider an employer's religious beliefs when making medical 
recommendations. She said the Court's decision fundamentally interferes 
with health care decisions that should be based solely on a patient's 
well-being.
  Because of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision, women across America 
are now facing the uncertainty that their bosses may restrict the 
health care benefits Federal law currently secures for them.
  Birth control has been deemed an essential preventive health service 
by a nonpartisan independent group of doctors and other medical 
experts. Ninety-nine percent of American women have used birth control 
at some point in their lives. They use it for a variety of health 
reasons. In fact, just hours after Senator Murray and I introduced 
legislation in response to the Hobby Lobby decision, a Colorado mother 
called my office to share the story of how her college-age daughter was 
suffering from a health condition that was so debilitating that it kept 
her from attending class or really participating in any activities at 
school. As a result, her doctor prescribed a form of birth control that 
ended up managing her symptoms and getting her back on track. This 
Colorado mother wanted to make sure I knew that access to contraception 
is not just about birth control and that if her employer took away the 
contraception coverage in her family's health plan, her daughter would 
not have coverage for a medically necessary treatment.
  Regardless of why women take birth control, none of those reasons 
have any connection to how they do their jobs. Their bosses have no 
business interfering in those decisions. But with the Court's ruling in 
Hobby Lobby, corporations and CEOs have been handed the right to play 
the role of gatekeeper for what kind of health care employees and their 
families can access as a part of their health insurance plan. That is 
not acceptable to Coloradans.
  I have heard the arguments from those who say the Supreme Court's 
decision narrowly protects religious freedom. I think we can all agree 
that where religious freedoms are being threatened, we as Americans 
have a duty to act swiftly to address it. But the fact is that actual 
religious institutions are already exempt from requirements that run 
contrary to their beliefs. Remember, the men and women who went to work 
for Hobby Lobby signed up to work at a craft store, not a religious 
organization.
  This decision, in the words of Justice Ginsburg, is one of startling 
breadth. In the Hobby Lobby majority opinion, the Supreme Court said 
its decision only applied to ``closely held'' corporations, but up to 
90 percent of American companies are considered closely held and over 
half of Americans work for a closely held company. To call this 
decision ``narrow'' is as wrong as the reasoning behind it.
  Contrary to what supporters of the decision are saying, this is just 
not

[[Page 11958]]

about contraceptives. We have been warned by legal experts, including 
Justice Ginsburg and the other three Justices who joined in her 
dissent, that this decision could lead to employers discriminating 
against women, minority groups, and others because a company's owner 
may object to any number of medications or procedures, such as vaccines 
or HIV treatment.
  Just over 2 short weeks ago, before the Hobby Lobby decision, workers 
knew exactly what health services they had access to under their health 
plans. They did not need to be labor lawyers to figure out which 
benefits they would receive, which benefits they might be at risk of 
losing, or how much more they would have to pay out of pocket for 
prescription drugs or other critical health treatments. However, with 
the Hobby Lobby case, that has all changed.
  Supporters of the Hobby Lobby decision want women to believe this is 
not a big deal. But let me be clear. This has the potential to change 
health coverage for millions of women. I am not--along with millions of 
Americans--going to stand for this kind of discrimination. I trust 
women to make their own health care decisions. I do not believe their 
employers should have a say in that. Through their hard work and 
insurance premiums, women have earned and already paid for coverage 
that includes copay-free contraception under Federal law. Health 
insurance is a part of their compensation packages. There is nothing 
free about it; they have earned it.
  Not only does this case wedge bosses into private health care 
decisions, it unfairly burdens hard-working women, ignoring the fact 
that contraception can be crucial to women and families' economic 
success. The ability to decide when, how, and with whom to have a 
family is critical to the health and economic security of women and 
their families.
  The Supreme Court even stated this in its opinion in Planned 
Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. I wish to quote the Supreme Court from 
1992:

       The ability of women to participate equally in the economic 
     and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their 
     ability to control their reproductive lives.

  That is what the Court said in 1992.
  Today many employees are left wondering if that economic freedom is 
in jeopardy. Women are left to ask their bosses whether they will 
continue to cover their birth control--a topic of conversation which 
women should never be forced to bring up at work, an issue which is 
certainly not a boss's business.
  Throughout my time in Congress I have long believed we all have the 
fundamental right to live our lives as we choose, free from needless 
intrusion, whether by the government, by bureaucrats, or by 
corporations and CEOs, and certainly free from intrusion by 
politicians. Indeed, a women should be free to make her own health 
decisions based on what is right for her and her family, not according 
to her employer's religious beliefs.
  So the reason I am standing here today is to make very clear that 
this type of intrusion will not stand. I am proud to lead the effort 
with Senator Murray to ensure that employers cannot refuse to cover 
health services guaranteed to women under Federal law.
  Our bill, the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act, 
would restore a woman's power to make personal health care decisions 
based on what is best for her and her family, free from corporate 
interference. I invite my colleagues of both parties to join this 
effort, and I thank my colleagues who will stand with Senator Murray 
and me this week to say: Women's health care is not your boss's 
business.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join with the 
senior Senator from Colorado, and I thank him for his excellent 
statement and leadership on this issue as we kick off this important 
debate on our bill, the Protect Women's Health From Corporate 
Interference Act, or, as we just heard, the ``Not My Boss's Business 
Act.''
  I start off by asking our colleagues a few basic questions: First of 
all, who should be in charge of a woman's health care decisions? Should 
it be the woman making those decisions with her partner, her doctor, 
and her faith or should it be her boss making those decisions for her 
based on his own religious beliefs?
  To me and to the vast majority of the people across the country, the 
answer to that question is obvious: Women should call the shots when it 
comes to their health care decisions--not their boss, not the 
government, not anyone else, period. But we are here because five men 
on the Supreme Court disagreed.
  Five men on the Supreme Court decided there should be a group of 
women across America who are required to ask their boss for permission 
to access basic health care. Five men on the Supreme Court decided a 
corporation should have more rights than the women it employs. Five men 
on the Supreme Court rolled back the clock on women across America, and 
we are here today because we cannot allow that to stand. People across 
the country think the Supreme Court was dead wrong on this decision, 
and we are here to be their voice.
  When we passed health care reform, we made sure every woman has 
access to basic health care, including contraception, which is used or 
will be used by 99 percent of the women in this country. When 58 
percent of women use birth control for purposes other than pregnancy 
prevention--including managing endometriosis, ovarian cysts, and other 
medical conditions--we know this provision could have a sweeping impact 
on women across our country. In fact, according to the Department of 
Health and Human Services, 30 million women nationally are already 
eligible for this benefit, and when the law is fully implemented, 47 
million women nationally will have access to no-pay birth control, 
thanks to the Affordable Care Act. By the way, thanks to this benefit, 
women have already saved $483 million, and that is just in the last 
year alone.
  Contraception was included as a required preventive service in the 
Affordable Care Act on the recommendation of the 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. It is 
directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, to 
reduced risk of ovarian cancer, to better health outcomes for women 
and, by the way, far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which 
is a goal we all should share.
  We should all know improving access to birth control is a good health 
care policy and it is good economic policy. We know it will mean 
healthier women, healthier children, and healthier families, and we 
know it will save money for businesses and consumers. But with their 
ruling, setting a potential dangerous precedent, the Supreme Court has 
not only inserted a woman's boss into her health care decisions, in 
many cases they have given him the final word.
  In the aftermath of this decision, women across America are turning 
to Congress and demanding we fix this. And by the way it is not just 
women who want Congress to act. People across the country understand, 
if bosses can deny birth control, then they can deny vaccines or HIV 
treatment or other basic health care services for employees and for 
their dependents. I think what men across America understand is it is 
not just the female employees who are impacted, it is their wives and 
their daughters who are on their health care plan as well.
  As the ink was still drying on Justice Alito's misguided opinion in 
this case, I made an unwavering commitment to do everything I could to 
protect women's access to health care since the five male Justices of 
the Supreme Court decided they would not. That is why I have been 
working with my partner, the senior Senator from Colorado, to introduce 
this bill, and I am proud that

[[Page 11959]]

in the many days since then we have received such strong support from 
people across the country.
  Our straightforward and simple legislation will ensure that no CEO or 
corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to 
health care, period.
  This shouldn't be a controversial issue. The only controversy about 
birth control is the fact that it is 2014 and women across America are 
still fighting for this basic health care.
  The data is clear. Ensuring access to contraceptive coverage isn't 
just the right thing to do, it is a critical part of making sure women 
and their families have a fair shot. In the 21st century, women and 
their families shouldn't be held back by outdated policies and unfair 
practices.
  Again, it is not just about access to contraception. This includes 
pay equity, access to childcare, higher minimum wage, and it absolutely 
includes the right to make their own medical and religious decisions 
without being dictated to or limited by their employer.
  The bottom line is this: Women use birth control for a host of 
reasons, none of which should require a permission slip from their 
boss.
  I thank Leader Reid for moving this bill to the floor so quickly and 
for his commitment to getting this done because women across the 
country are expecting action. They do not want to wait. As we move 
forward on this bill this week, I hope enough Republicans can put 
proven science over their partisan politics and join us and revoke this 
Court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans 
to make their own decisions about their own health care and their own 
bodies.
  I thank Senator Udall once again for his work with me on this 
commonsense and bicameral legislation. I also thank the Members of the 
House Pro-Choice Caucus who introduced their companion legislation in 
the House, and I sincerely hope our Republican colleagues on both sides 
of the Capitol will join us. For those who don't, for those Republicans 
who have already said they oppose our legislation, I am interested in 
hearing their answer to the question I posed a few minutes ago: Do they 
think bosses should be in charge of a woman's health care decision? Do 
they think women should have to ask their boss permission for health 
care used by 99 percent of the women? Do they think we as a country 
should start down the path where CEOs and corporations can start making 
decisions for all kinds of health care for their employees?
  Women across the country will be watching this debate, and I think 
they will be very interested in seeing who is on their side.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). No objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise to support the ``Not My Boss's 
Business Act,'' which will help to fix the recent Supreme Court Hobby 
Lobby decision by making it illegal for a company to deny their workers 
specific health care benefits, including birth control, as is required 
to be covered by Federal law.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill which is 
necessary to ensure that all women have access to preventive care.
  I wish to say, on a personal note, I was a young child growing up in 
a household with a working mother. Mom worked for a big corporation and 
worked in human resources. My table would often be one where it was 
discussed that my mother was dealing with challenges of racial 
discrimination, challenges of sexism in the workplace. I watched how my 
mother, in human resources, would fight to make sure that we as a 
nation, as well as this particular corporation, continued to advance in 
fairly treating all of its employees. I was proud to watch my mother 
assert her independence, her freedoms, and her basic sense of equity, 
which resonates with the highest values of this Nation.
  What is frustrating to me now is here we stand in 2014, and we seem 
to be fighting so many battles and advancements we won before that are 
still needing to be fought.
  It is unthinkable to me that as we should be turning our focus toward 
other things such as paid family leave or raising the minimum wage, 
here we are again fighting about whether women should have the right to 
have access to birth control. This is unfortunate because contraception 
is essential to a woman's right to make her own personal health care 
decisions. Birth control is not only basic to making health care 
decisions, but it is one in which 99 percent of women avail themselves. 
Throughout their lifetime we will see 99 percent of American women 
avail themselves of birth control.
  These women should not be forced to decide between contraception and 
a tank of gas or between contraception and meals for their family, 
contraception and paying rent.
  The Hobby Lobby decision, if you think about it, is imposing the will 
of a corporation--one corporation's board member's religious beliefs or 
what-have-you can be imposed such that it would cost women who now want 
to exercise their freedom up to $1,000 a year. For minimum-wage or low-
wage workers, the out-of-pocket cost for birth control each month is a 
real and substantive financial burden.
  Let's be clear. Workers have insurance coverage through their labor. 
It is part of their earned pay. This is not a free giveaway. They 
earned this coverage. What they spend their health care coverage on is 
their business, not their boss's business.
  I deeply value ideals of religious liberty. This is what this country 
was founded on. But religious liberty belongs to all of us; it does not 
belong to a corporation. Religious liberty means being free from having 
other people's religions foisted upon you, imposed upon you, or forced 
upon you.
  Most employees would never dream of telling their bosses what they 
must decide and abide by in terms of religious freedom. And by that 
same principle, no boss should have the right to impose his religion on 
the people who work for him.
  That is one of the reasons why so many faith leaders have spoken 
against the Hobby Lobby decision. It is now making it acceptable for a 
corporation to impose on the individual liberty of others their 
religious beliefs, also the financial freedom that goes along with 
that, and also the ability for a woman to make critical health care 
decisions. They might even be interfering with a doctor telling a 
patient what is best for them and their health.
  The views held by companies' owners should not be able to interfere 
with this basic understanding of fundamental rights. The Not My Boss's 
Business Act protects workers' religious liberty by not allowing their 
bosses to impose this hardship, to impose their religion, and to impose 
what I believe ultimately comes down to discrimination.
  Finally, the precedent set by this decision could open the door wider 
and wider for more court cases and more employers who want to deny more 
aspects of basic health coverage and services because they claim it 
conflicts with the boss's religious beliefs. From blood transfusions to 
vaccinations, we are now in a minefield in which we can have the 
destruction of religious freedom of employees and the health care 
freedom we have fought so hard to manifest.
  The Hobby Lobby decision is a step backward that we must correct. It 
is a step against women's rights. It is a step against religious 
freedom. It is a step against workers who earn basic benefits to have 
the ability to make those benefits real in their lives.
  The Not My Boss's Business Act will make it clear that bosses cannot 
discriminate. The Not My Boss's Business Act will make it clear that 
there should be equal treatment under the law for the tens of thousands 
of workers whose coverage now hangs in the balance.

[[Page 11960]]

  A woman's health care decisions should be between that woman and her 
doctor. There is no room for a boss's religious beliefs in that 
equation, period.
  I watched for decades, growing up, not only my mother but countless 
people fight to establish basic principles in the workplace. We cannot 
go back now. This is such a critical piece of legislation, to correct 
for the mistakes in this Supreme Court decision and assert those 
fundamental American ideals, that individuals should be able to make 
their own health care decisions, that bosses and corporations should 
not impose religious beliefs on others, and that we are a nation where 
every woman can create a sacrosanct and private relationship with her 
doctor and make ultimately the health care decisions that are best for 
her, not ones in any way influenced or affected by a corporation.
  I thank again the Senate and the Presiding Officer for this time but, 
most importantly, I thank Senator Murray and other Senators who have 
led on this issue. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am proud to follow my colleague from New Jersey, and I 
am proud to say I am a cosponsor of Senator Murray's bill and Senator 
Udall's bill, the Udall-Murray bill, that is going to make sure we 
protect the health of our families.
  I am going to put up a beautiful photograph of the Supreme Court 
where above the portico these words are inscribed: ``Equal Justice 
Under Law.'' We have reprinted them here. I am going to keep this for 
the remainder of my remarks, because I think that is the essential 
issue before us. Those four words are the promise of our country that 
every American should be treated equally, should be respected, should 
be honored.
  I wish to note that these words don't say: Equal justice under law 
except for women. They don't say: Equal justice under law except for 
birth control. And they don't say: Equal justice under law as long as 
it is OK with your boss.
  The beauty of this Nation is we respect each other's rights and 
freedoms, and we have shed blood to make sure those freedoms are 
protected.
  Yet with this Hobby Lobby ruling, five men, who happen to be 
appointed by Republicans, decided that a corporation has the power to 
deny me or to deny you coverage of critical health care for us and for 
our families.
  What is very upsetting to me is that they have seized on the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to justify giving for-profit 
companies the sweeping power to deny their employees access to 
affordable birth control, and we believe it will prove to be other 
health care benefits required under Federal law.
  I speak as someone who voted for the Kennedy bill, the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act, that if anybody thinks Ted Kennedy wanted to 
deny access for birth control, then they didn't know Ted Kennedy and 
they didn't read at all the Record as we debated that bill.
  I voted for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it was 
written to protect an individual's freedom of religion so that if I, as 
a religious individual working for a corporation, don't want to use the 
birth control coverage, I don't have to. But if I want to, I make that 
choice. If I, as an independent individual, want to vaccinate my child, 
it is covered under law, under the insurance. I can if I want to. No 
one can force me to do that.
  The idea behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was to protect 
the individual, and I quote: ``Government shall not substantially 
burden a person's exercise of religion.''
  Let me repeat: ``a person's exercise of religion.'' It doesn't say a 
corporation's exercise of religion, your boss's exercise of his 
religion. It was about protecting the individual.
  What the conservative majority of the Court did 2 weeks ago turned 
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on its head. As someone who 
supported that act, it made me angry, sad--put in the adjective. It is 
wrong to reinterpret what a law meant. It stood the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act on its head when they ruled a corporation can put its 
own ideology ahead of the religious freedom and health care needs of 
its employees.
  A female employee should be able to decide whether to use birth 
control. And that is not all that is at stake after the Hobby Lobby 
decision, because we know if you follow their logic that if a 
corporation can deny birth control because of a religious objection, 
what if they object to a blood transfusion? There are certain religions 
that do. Then the employee can't get a blood transfusion. And what if 
they object to a vaccine or HIV treatment? Then, in order for employees 
to have access to those treatments, they wouldn't have the insurance. 
We all know, from looking at the real world, if you don't have 
insurance, these treatments become very expensive and you may not be 
able to avail yourselves of them.
  Chief Justice John Roberts, during oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby 
case, made it clear that Congress can fix this and override the Court's 
decision, and I agree. That is why I am so thankful to Senator Murray 
and Senator Udall for working so hard and so fast so we can have the 
remedy right now. It is important that we act fast. People are very 
confused out there as to what they can count on in their insurance 
coverage.
  We are going to have a vote on this tomorrow. It is a cloture vote to 
end debate so we can actually get to a vote on the substance. Sadly, it 
means we need 60 votes, a supermajority. But I hope and frankly pray 
that we get those 60 votes because we need to protect women's health.
  The Murray-Udall bill is called the Protect Women's Health from 
Corporate Interference Act, but they have nicknamed it Not My Boss's 
Business Act, which I like. It is not my boss's business what I decide 
to do.
  It would require employers to follow the Federal law when offering 
health insurance to their employees, notwithstanding the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act which, as I said, I believe the Court stood on 
its head. It was meant to protect individuals, not corporations, not 
your boss.
  The bill says corporations cannot hide behind the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act to deny their workers coverage to the benefits we have 
in law. More than 180 House and Senate lawmakers have cosponsored this 
bill so far, and I hope our colleagues will vote for it.
  I was saying we need to act fast because there is confusion out 
there. Virtually so many women rely on birth control at some point in 
their lives, it is amazing. Sixty percent of women who take birth 
control, 6.5 million American women, do so in whole or in part to treat 
painful and difficult medical conditions.
  Let me say that again. One may take a birth control pill for birth 
control, but there are many other uses for that pill; 1.5 million women 
out of the 6.5 million who use it, at least in part for other 
conditions, use it solely as a medication to treat those painful and 
difficult conditions.
  By allowing employers to deny coverage for contraception, the Court 
is depriving many women and families of health care. Surveys have shown 
that 55 percent of young women, aged 18 to 34, struggle to afford birth 
control, which can cost as much as $600 per year. Maybe the Supreme 
Court Justices in their ivory tower think that is not a lot of money, 
but let me state, for women working the minimum wage, even for women 
earning more than the minimum wage, it is quite a hit to their 
pocketbooks.
  Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent that a woman earning 
the minimum wage would spend nearly an entire month's wage to get an 
IUD, $1,000. Imagine. This case has unjustly singled out women's health 
services.
  I have to make a note here. I do not know of any employer that is 
dropping coverage for Viagra. I don't. I have asked around. I have been 
on TV, I have invited folks to let me know. Oh, no, Viagra is fine; 
birth control is not fine. Just put the pieces together yourself. I 
think this decision discriminates against women, and in the slippery 
slope argument you are going to see it

[[Page 11961]]

affect everyone. And we need to listen to the women who rely on birth 
control to improve their health and the health of their families. Let 
me tell you a few stories. Raquel from Sacramento was diagnosed with 
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2010. After her treatment her doctors told 
her she needed to use birth control to ensure she did not become 
pregnant for the next 3 years because she was really sick. Luckily, her 
employer covers birth control and now, happily, 4 years later she is 
pregnant with her first child. What could have happened to her if she 
had gone through an unintended pregnancy? It could have been pretty 
devastating. What if she had worked for a different employer who 
refused to offer her that birth control? Her health and the health of 
her child would have been at risk and that would have been tragic. So 
let's listen to her.
  Let's listen to Katherine from Pleasant Hill, CA, who relies on birth 
control after having her first child.

       Both my husband and I want to be the best possible parents 
     for our son, and having another child so soon would hurt our 
     ability to do that. A variety of affordable birth control 
     options are crucial for me and for all first-time moms like 
     me!

  Many years ago I was on the board of Planned Parenthood, and what we 
said all the time was that our dream was that every child be a wanted 
child--a wanted child. As a parent myself and as a grandparent I tell 
you right now it takes a lot to raise a child. Hillary Clinton said it 
takes a village. It certainly takes loving parents, and it takes a 
loving family. It certainly costs money, and it certainly takes energy.
  We want our families to be healthy. We want our families to be 
productive, and birth control is a success story. It breaks my heart 
that women just like Katherine who work at Hobby Lobby and other for-
profit corporations now could be denied access to affordable health 
care unless we fix this.
  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was not about giving your boss 
the power over you like this. It was about giving you the right to make 
your own choices and decisions. We need to listen to women like Ariana 
in Redding, CA, who wrote:

       I am a recent college graduate trying to make ends meet and 
     pay off my student loans. It is a great relief to know I can 
     get the birth control I need without a copay.

  These are real stories. If the boss doesn't like that you choose 
birth control, that is his right. If he wants to sit down with his 
daughter and tell her his religious objection, and if she agrees with 
him, that is fine. I mean, that is what America is about. But don't 
take your religious beliefs, your ideology, your biases, your 
prejudices, and your opinions and foist them on your employees. That is 
not this country. That is not what we are about.
  Shouldn't we care more about the rights of women and their families 
than the rights of a few employers who can exercise that in their 
families? This bill we are going to vote on is critical, and I hope it 
won't die as a result of partisanship. We have to rise above 
partisanship around here.
  ``Equal justice under law''--that is what it says over the portico. 
And frankly, there is another issue. If you look at what has happened 
to the rates of abortion since we have seen more use of birth control, 
they are going down. There has been a study in one of our Nation's big 
cities that proved that because there was broad use of birth control, 
abortions went down by 50 percent. Imagine. So if that is our concern 
regardless of whether we are pro-choice or not, we shouldn't be 
embracing decisions that make it more difficult for women to get access 
to birth control.
  So equal justice under the law doesn't say: ``except for women.'' It 
doesn't say: ``except if my boss disagrees with me.'' It is pretty 
beautiful. It is pretty clear. It is something that we have to respect. 
It is for the ages, and tomorrow we are going to see if our colleagues 
agree. Every Senator must take a stand tomorrow for individual liberty. 
When we vote tomorrow, let's be reminded: Women are watching. The 
American people will hold each of us accountable if we fail to protect 
their rights and their ability to decide what is best for their 
families.
  I have been around a while. I was around when one of the Bushes was 
actually on the board of Planned Parenthood--George Herbert Walker 
Bush. Suddenly this issue is back--birth control--and suddenly we are 
arguing over it again.
  So I say this. I may be wearing a white jacket, but it is not a white 
doctor's coat. I am not a doctor, and I don't want to put myself, as a 
politician, in between a woman and her doctor or in between a family 
and their doctor. Let's leave important health care choices where they 
belong: with women, with families, with doctors, and not with 
politicians, in the Senate or Justices sitting in a courtroom.
  Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________