Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009 - Resumed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hatch-Nelson amendment. For 27 years, it has been my honor to serve in both the House and Senate. During that 27 years, the issue of abortion has been front and center as one of the most controversial and contentious issues we have faced. When I returned home to my congressional district, and now to the State, there have been many strong, heartfelt positions on this issue that are in conflict. Members of the Senate and House meet with people who have varying degrees of intensity on this issue all the time. We are not going to resolve this issue today with this amendment or this bill. We are going to do several things that I think are important.

What we set out to do in health care reform was honor the time-honored principles that we have now accepted. They are these: Abortion is a legal procedure since the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. For over 30 years now, we have said no public funds can be used for an abortion but to save the life of a mother or in cases of rape or incest. We have said that no doctor or hospital will be compelled to perform an abortion procedure if it violates their conscience. Those are the three basic pillars of our abortion policy in this country.

Now comes this debate about health care reform and a question about whether, if we offer health insurance policies through an exchange that offers abortion services, and the people are paying for the premiums for those policies with a tax credit, whether we are indirectly somehow or another financing and supporting abortion. I argue that we are not. We find, on a daily basis, many instances where Federal funds go to a private entity, even a religious entity with clear guidelines that none of the Federal funds can be spent for religious or private purposes.

Organizations far and wide across America live within those bounds. They keep their books clean, and they account for the money received, and no questions are asked. The audits show that they followed the guidelines. This bill before us strictly follows these guidelines, as well. No Federal funds shall be used for any abortion procedure in an insurance policy. It has to be privately funded.

I want to step back and make a slightly different argument too. There are those who have said in the House and in the Senate that unless the Stupak language in the House is adopted, they would seriously consider voting against health care reform. I argue to them that is a wrong position to take if they are opposed to abortion because the health care reform bill before us dramatically expands health care coverage.

Today, there are 17 million women of reproductive age in America who are uninsured. This bill will expand health insurance coverage to the vast majority of them, which means millions more women will have access to affordable birth control and other contraceptive services. This expanded access will reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions. So the family planning aspect of our health care reform will actually net fewer abortions in America--we know this because of the history of the issue--as more women have access to family planning. So those who argue that they either have this amendment or they will vote against health care reform should reflect on the fact that there will be fewer abortions in America with these health care services.

Senator Mikulski, in the first amendment we adopted, provided for more preventive services for women across the board. Those services, I believe, would result in more counseling, more contraception, and fewer unintended pregnancies. That is a reality. Every Federal dollar that we spend on family planning saves $3 in Medicaid costs. In 1972, we established a special matching rate of 90 percent for family planning services in Medicaid. Across the board, we know this money, well spent to allow women to decide their own reproductive fate, means there are fewer unintended pregnancies.

I argue that whether your position is for or against abortion, if you believe there should be fewer abortions, you want this health care reform bill to pass--with or without the Stupak amendment. I think that the Stupak amendment goes too far, and I think we have come up with a reasonable alternative that adheres to the three pillars I mentioned earlier on abortion policy in America, and it sets up reasonable accounting on these insurance policies. I think this language in the bill is the right way to move to lessen the number of abortions in America and stay consistent with the basic principles that guide us.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source