Senator Reid Introduces Amendment to Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

Date: March 11, 2003
Location: Washington, DC

Mr. REID. Madam President, this amendment is to end insurance discrimination against women and improve awareness and understanding of emergency contraception, ensure that rape victims have information about and access to emergency contraception, and promote healthy pregnancies of babies by allowing States to expand coverage for prenatal and postpartum care. That is what this amendment is.

The debate that has been going on in the last few minutes has nothing to do with the amendment offered by the Senators from Washington and Nevada.

As I mentioned earlier today, the abortion debate has been a divisive one for our Nation for many years. We recognize the issue is not going to go away soon, but there is a need—and I thought we had an opportunity, and I hope we still do—to find common ground and to take steps toward a goal I hope we all share: Reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in America and reducing the number of abortions.

We put forth a good-faith effort to find common ground by offering commonsense solutions in our amendment. Instead of giving serious consideration to our amendment that would improve access to contraception and improve access to care for pregnant women, the other side has instead chosen to hide behind a technicality. That is what it is. If my friends on the other side of the aisle were serious about improving women's health, serious about improving access to contraception, and serious about reducing unintended pregnancies, they would not dismiss this amendment on a technicality.

When the Bush administration decided it would allow a fetus to be covered through the SCHIP program but it was all right to exclude the mother from coverage, we did not have the opportunity to dismiss this shameful and absurd regulation on a technicality. As a result, we are missing the opportunity to provide critical health care coverage for low-income women and their babies.

The sad irony of tonight's vote is that the measures contained in our amendment would actually save the country money. In fact, as the Washington Business Group on Health has found in its report "Business, Babies and the Bottom Line," more than $6 of neonatal intensive care costs could be saved for every $1 spent on prenatal care, and low-birth-weight babies are 64 percent more likely to attend special education classes than normal-birth-weight babies. That is why the neonatologists came to see me, as I reported earlier today. They want women who have not had the opportunity to have prenatal care to have prenatal care. It saves the Government money.

Furthermore, an Agency for Health Care Research and Quality report has found 4 of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to care of infants with complications, respiratory diseases, prematurity, health defects, and lack of oxygen. All of these conditions can be improved and, in most cases, eliminated through quality prenatal care.

The same holds true for EPICC legislation that would improve access to contraception by requiring insurance plans which provide coverage for prescription drugs to provide the same coverage for prescription contraceptives.

The Washington Business Group on Health estimates that not covering contraceptives in employee health plans would cost 17 percent more than providing the coverage. It is a loser to vote against this amendment. If my colleagues are concerned about money—and that is what this technicality is all about—then vote with us because we are going to save the State, local, and Federal Governments money.

The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which has provided contraceptive coverage for several years now as the result of an amendment made on this floor, shows that adding such coverage does not make the plan more expensive.

This vote is not about money. If the other side were serious about improving women's health, serious about improving access to contraception, and serious about reducing unintended pregnancies, they would not dismiss this amendment on a technicality.

I hope people will vote their conscience, the conscience to help women have healthy babies.

arrow_upward