-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I regret that my colleague has objected to this bill, but I reject the characterization that this would do anything to promote abortion.
But it is probably not important what I think. I will quote the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Last night, they said--and this is the Catholic bishops:
We believe that [this] version of the bill, read in light of existing liberty protections, helps advance the [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops'] goal of ensuring that no woman ever feels forced to choose between her future and the life of her child while protecting the conscience rights and religious freedoms of employers.
This is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last night.
And I think as a physician, I can now speak. As a physician, I will say that there are times when a woman, if she wishes to continue in the workforce, needs an accommodation.
The Louisville police officer who was quoted in a Cincinnati paper spoke about her need for light accommodation; but those who were ultimately her boss would not give it to her because she was not ``injured.'' So they have a policy in which if you need it and on a doctor's order you should, unless it was a doctor's order because of pregnancy. And she was told that if she sought to use that, she would lose her insurance. At 5 months pregnant, she is going to lose her insurance.
I would argue the pro-life position is to make an accommodation for that woman who has those needs so she can safely carry the baby to term.
Now, by the way, it is also good for business. Others are endorsing this from the business sector. I will just give one: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They clearly see that this is something that is a reasonable accommodation not forced by unnamed bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or important people who are employing others across the Nation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made this a top priority.
With regard to pro-life issues, let me also point out that the March of Dimes, who are so vitally concerned about the health of children, likewise supports it.
My colleague has mentioned that it passed out of the HELP Committee 19 to 2, strongly bipartisan, and then passed the House with 315 bipartisan votes.
Now, we have experience with these laws nationwide; 30 States have laws such as this already. But that leaves millions of American women uncovered, and our goal was to address it with this bill.
Now, let me just go back once more, because, apparently, this is a sticking point.
Is it possible that this law would permit someone to impose their will upon a pastor, upon a church, upon a synagogue, if they have religious exemptions? The answer is, absolutely no. This is what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was referring to. The title VII exemption, which is in Federal law, remains in place. It allows employers to make employment decisions based on firmly held religious beliefs. This bill does not change this.
There is an exemption in title VI related to pastors and ministers and Rabbis who conduct their business. All of that remains in place, which is why the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last night once again endorsed the bill.
Now, I think even those who oppose would agree that we need to have a safe environment for pregnant women and their unborn children in the workplace. They deserve our attention. I would say that this bill is pro-family, pro-mother, pro-baby, pro-employer, and pro-economy.
I hope at a later point we can pass it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source