Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009--Resumed
Floor Speech
SERVICE MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT OF 2009--Resumed -- (Senate - December 08, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Nelson-Hatch amendment.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act we have before us does so many good things. It gives women access to preventive care. It makes health care more accessible to families across the country. It changes the way patients receive the care they need. We must not let the issue of reproductive choice overshadow all of the things this bill gets right.
For over three decades, the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk, has been the law of this land. Abortion should play no role in this health care debate. The Finance and HELP Committees spent countless hours drafting legislation that is part of the language in our health care bill to make sure it remains neutral on the issue of choice.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is currently before us maintains the Hyde amendment prohibiting Federal funding of abortions. As a result, neither the pro-choice nor the pro-life agendas are advanced.
This is clearly explained in an analysis done by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this analysis.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the health reform legislation before us preserves the Hyde language and maintains the status quo in this country. We should keep it so. This should be a debate about health care. It should be about patients and about ensuring they have access to quality care at all stages of their lives, regardless of what may happen in their lives. It is a mistake to make this debate one about abortion.
The amendment that is before us, the Nelson-Hatch amendment, would restrict any health plan operating in the exchange that accepts affordability credits from offering abortion services. In essence, the amendment before us would amount to a ban on abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange regardless of where the money comes from. Put another way, a woman who pays for insurance with money out of her own pocket would most likely not be able to get insurance that covers abortion.
Make no mistake about it, this amendment is much more than a debate on whether Federal funds should be used for abortion, which is already established law. It is established law that is maintained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act before us.
The Nelson-Hatch amendment is a very far-reaching intrusion into the lives of women in how we would get private insurance. It is unprecedented, and it would mean millions of women would lose coverage they currently have.
It is true, as we have heard from those people who support this amendment, that a woman would be able to buy an abortion rider. What we heard from Senator Stabenow and what we have seen from the National Women's Law Center shows us that in the five States that do require such a rider, there is no evidence that such plans exist. And even if they did exist, who would purchase that kind of a rider? No woman expects to need an abortion. This is not something you go into planning ahead of time.
Finally, this amendment would have effects that reach well into the private insurance market. An independent analysis by the School of Public Health and Health Services at George Washington University concluded that a similar amendment adopted in the House--what is commonly known as the Stupak amendment--will have an ``industry-wide effect,'' eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women.'' That means any type of abortion for which there is a medical indication of need would go uncovered.
I ask unanimous consent that ``Introduction and Results in Brief'' of the George Washington University analysis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. SHAHEEN. When we pass this legislation that will reform our health care system, it should not be done in a way that would lose benefits for women. All women should have access to comprehensive health care, including reproductive health care, from the provider of their choice.
I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendment that threatens reproductive care that women have counted on for over 30 years.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source