Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the attack on women's health care that has been taking place over the last few weeks. There has been a heated debate in Washington about access to contraception for all women, regardless of her employer. There is a fundamental question here: Do women get control over their health care or do a small handful of people--the presidents of companies and the presidents of insurance companies--get to choose for a woman whether she has access to birth control?

First, I think it is important to note that 98 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives. The nonpartisan scientists and experts at the Institute of Medicine who first recommended covering contraception without a copay did so because there are tremendous health benefits that come from use. But now some in this Chamber are holding up this transportation bill, a bill that would create more than 1 million jobs across the country and 7,000 jobs in Oregon, because, apparently, it is a higher priority to take away women's health choices, to come between a woman and her doctor.

How is this relevant to a transportation bill? The answer: It is not. But regardless, we are going to vote on an amendment to this bill that would allow those CEOs of companies and insurance companies the right to refuse coverage not just of contraception but of any health care service they consider in violation of their personal convictions. So the personal convictions of one will be imposed on the dozens or hundreds of thousands of employees of that company. That is an incredible philosophy.

I wish one of my Republican colleagues was on the floor to have a little conversation about it, because I would simply ask the question: Please explain why you think that the CEO of a company should get to come between a woman and her doctor and choose what health care she has access to.

We talk a lot about big government. Well, this is big government. This is big government, giving power to an individual who runs a company, making choices for dozens or hundreds or thousands of their employees. Not only are we talking about contraception but any health care service.

A company CEO could deny access to HIV or AIDS treatment, to mammograms, to cancer screenings, to maternity care, to blood transfusions. The list goes on and on.

The Blunt amendment would allow an employer who objected to premarital sex to deny an unmarried pregnant woman maternity care. Is that right, that an employer should make that choice for all the employees who work for him or her? The Blunt amendment would allow an employer to deny children of employees access to vaccines because the CEO has a conviction that the vaccine poses a risk. Is that right, that the leader of a company should make that decision for Americans, coming between them and their doctors? The Blunt amendment would deny all health coverage if a CEO believes that physical health problems are simply God's will. That is the imposition of one's religion on those who work for you, making it their religious requirement. That is not the way the Constitution is designed. The Constitution is designed to allow us to all follow our own course, not to impose our course on everyone else through an employment relationship.

The Blunt amendment would allow a CEO to say we are not going to cover end-of-life care because, in that conviction of that CEO--whether it be a man or a woman, the CEO believes that such end-of-life care is interfering with God's will. The Blunt amendment would allow an employer to deny access of folks who suffer from obesity to health care-related obesity programs because they believe that obesity comes from a moral failing.

I think we can all understand with these examples that this is simply wrong--simply wrong--that a CEO should be able to take their personal convictions and impose them on their employees.

This amendment is just the latest in a litany of extraordinary and extreme efforts by my Republican colleagues to curtail women's access to health care services. In the last year alone, Republicans nearly shut down the government over Planned Parenthood, tried to eliminate title X funding for low-income women's health, and tried to take away preventive services such as cancer screenings for women because of ideological objections.

What this amendment is all about is that a few powerful CEOs dictate health coverage for the rest of America. If this, giving the powerful few the ability to dictate coverage for everyone else, isn't an overreach by an overly intrusive government, I don't know what is.

Some have said that blocking women's coverage of contraception through their insurance doesn't affect access. They say that contraception doesn't cost that much; that, in the words of one Republican House Member, there is not one person who has not ever been able to afford contraception because of the price. Well, tell that to our young women between age 18 and age 34 who actually know what contraception costs. More than half of women struggle to afford it at some point. Tell that to a young couple struggling to figure out how they can afford to buy their birth control and put food on the table for their children. Tell that to a college student deciding whether to buy textbooks or fill her prescription. The truth is, contraception is hugely expensive without insurance. Based on information compiled by the Center for American Progress, the cost to an average woman using birth control pills continuously between age 18 and menopause would be more than $66,000 over the course of her lifetime if she had to pay out of pocket.

I think this point bears reinforcement, because I would never have imagined that that is the price of birth control. I think the House Member I was quoting probably had no idea of what contraception costs, $66,000 for a woman between the age of 18 and menopause. Where I come from, that is a lot of money. A lot of money. That is 5.5 years of groceries for a family of four. That is putting two kids through the University of Oregon with 4-year degrees, not including the cost of room and board. That is a downpayment on a nice family home. In fact, where I come from, that is a third of the price of a nice family home. I think a lot of families would wish they had extra cash in their pockets right now. And I certainly have heard from many women in Oregon who are extremely concerned about the impact this amendment would have on their pocketbooks and on their health.

Therese from Washington County writes to me:

As one of your constituents, and a practicing Catholic woman on birth control, I am urging you to please back up the President on this most recent decision requiring contraception coverage for all of their employees .....

There are many, many reasons women use the pill in addition to preventing pregnancy. I have issues with pre-menopause. There are lots of women I know who have heavy periods, horrible acne, endometriosis, debilitating cramps ..... the list goes on. And to not treat these ailments because the treatment also prevents pregnancy is to allow women to suffer.

Bridget from Multnomah County writes:

This amendment does not protect religious freedom. Rather, it empowers insurance companies and businesses to impose their religious views on their employees and the insured. It is an example of government intrusion into the personal lives of millions of women who would prefer to privately make their own choice about family planning, without politicians interfering.

It is incredibly, vitally important to me that you do not support this amendment. I happily attended a Catholic college and cannot imagine what I would have done had I found out that my health insurance did not cover birth control. ..... This would be a disastrous decision.

It is not Congress's job, it is not an employer's job, to impose our beliefs on others. Let's let women and families make their own health care decisions without the heavy hand of government intrusion being provided from my colleagues across the aisle. Let's not put government between women and their doctors or between men and their doctors or between families and their doctors.

I am committed to fighting for women's health and will do whatever I can to defeat this amendment--this amendment, which is so wrong on health care and so wrong on imposing religious views of one or personal convictions of one on the many.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source