A Deeply Flawed Process

A DEEPLY FLAWED PROCESS

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleagues who read this bill-I don't know if I can hold it, but here it is. I asked that it be put on everybody's desk. That is a rule in the Senate. You can require that because I think just looking at this you see how not to legislate. I think Senator McCain has made that point eloquently.

I am going to speak for about 5 or 6 minutes now. I am going to speak more later.

I thank my colleagues who found that "Big Brother is watching you" language in this massive bill. It is a horrific thought that some person working for the Government can identify a taxpayer and go after him or her, or go after a business without penalty. This is unheard of. If this is a new America, then let me say we have a lot of work to do around here, and things are going to be slowed down because as much as everyone wants to get home and get with their families, not the least of which is the folks on the floor right now, we may have to sacrifice a little bit if this is the kind of legislation that comes before us in this huge packet.

I am going to take just a few minutes to run through another piece of legislation that was thrown in here without any vote in the Senate, without any hearing in the Senate, without any discussion in the Senate, and that is the so-called Weldon amendment which has very many adverse consequences for millions and millions of women of reproductive age in our country.

The Weldon amendment is a sham conscience clause. It takes a good conscience clause that was put in place so that doctors who have a moral or religious objection to performing abortion do not have to do that, but what this does is says anyone who wants can claim a conscience clause without giving any reason, and expands it to HMOs and insurance companies. Imagine giving an HMO a conscience clause. Since when do HMOs have a conscience? I haven't met one that did so far.

Now, any business entity can decide to tell its doctors who work for it that they cannot give women information about their constitutional right to choose, even in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. In this bill, millions of American women are now at risk, if they are the victim of incest or rape or their life is at stake, they will be denied services and referrals. It is extraordinary to me.

Women will be left abandoned in emergency by overriding the Federal Medicaid law. It abandons women in emergency rooms who have life-threatening pregnancies. It overrides title X requiring referral to appropriate clinicians or clinics. It overrides State laws.

Now you have from my colleagues who run this place, the Republicans, who always say they don't like Big Brother-first, you have them going after your tax return, and now you have them overriding State laws that respect a woman who may be in deep trouble because of incest, or rape, or her life may be threatened.

Can you imagine that? When the American people learn about this-that a woman could stagger in, having been raped by a relative, and she does not have to be told her constitutional rights. Let me tell you, that treats women worse than criminals.

Let us see what we do about criminals. We make sure criminal suspects have to be told their constitutional rights. These folks could be suspected of the most heinous crimes. We have to tell them they have a right to remain silent; anything they say could be used against them in a court of law; they have a right to an attorney before they can be questioned; if they can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed. And then they are asked, Do you understand these rights?

A woman who may be quite poor, who may not know all of her constitutional rights, up to now has been protected because all the laws we have on the books say she needs to be told what her rights are. Look what we do here to women. Women don't have their constitutional rights explained to them. Under Roe v. Wade, a woman has a right in the first 3 months of her pregnancy to be told that the decision is hers, without government interference. After that, she has to be told that her health and life must always be protected throughout her pregnancy. These are the constitutional rights of women.

Yet with this Weldon language which was put into this bill, without a Senate hearing, without Senate debate, without a Senate vote, a woman will be treated worse than suspected criminals.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In our State of New Jersey, public hospitals are not allowed to deny abortion services to a woman. What effect will this new Federal law have on those women's rights accorded to them under State constitutions?

Mrs. BOXER. The State law will be overridden, my friend. And your State-and I know you and Senator Corzine are here to fight for your State. You fight for your State every single day. Right now, in this package, without one hearing, your State, if this bill passes, is going to be told from now on they cannot in any way have protections for women in the law if that State takes Federal funds. Of course, they all take Medicaid funds. They will not be able to protect women. Not only won't they be able to protect women in the sense that the woman can have a legal procedure, but the woman won't even be able to get a referral.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can a doctor who works at a hospital that doesn't provide abortion services be prevented from providing a patient with a simple direction to say we don't do it, I won't do it, but there are places you can go and you ought to check the directory, or check Web sites and see if you can find a place to get this done?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. There is a gag rule on doctors. The way it would work would be this: If an organization, an HMO, or a hospital, or an insurance company decides it no longer wants to either provide abortion services or even refer a woman to abortion services, they can say to the doctor who works for them, if you want to work here, forget about it. You cannot refer a woman for an abortion. You can't tell her about her constitutional rights. It is a gag rule that will now be permitted on the doctors of this country to the detriment of the patient.

I will go over this quickly.

Under current law, doctors can choose a conscience objection to provide abortion services. We all support that. If a doctor personally declares a conscience objection problem, he or she does not have to perform an abortion. However, if a doctor doesn't have a conscience objection, under the Weldon amendment, HMOs and insurance companies who no longer wish to provide women with information on their constitutional rights can prohibit doctors from performing them and referring women; they will lose their job.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is my understanding this provision now being described not only deals with conscience issues but also deals with what potentially HMOs or insurance companies can choose to not inform, not because of an issue of morality or religious beliefs, but because they just flat out believe it is not in their best business interests to do that. So we are changing the whole generic and fundamental reason on how we are addressing this issue.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. That is why I call it a sham conscience clause. It took a conscience clause we passed in 1997 that was very fair, because none of us, pro-choice or not, wanted to say to a doctor you must perform a procedure that you have a religious objection to, and now we have taken that and thrown it out. We say for whatever reason or for no reason, not only a doctor but an HMO, an insurance company, can decide they don't want to offer the service regardless of State law, regardless of local law, and regardless of Federal law.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, to put this in the context of this 3,500-page bill that we are legislating outside of the Constitution, of the formal processes of hearings, not unlike the abomination of the IRS where we are creating policies that are changing both State law and privacy issues, both in the case of a woman's right to have access to protecting her health, and dealing with things like the Federal privacy laws with regard to the IRS-what we are doing with these 3,500 pages is the American people are getting legislation tucked into bills without any kind of debate or transparency.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. What we have going on here is this enormous spending bill, and buried in it is legislation that was tacked on, in many cases never discussed, such as this one Senator Conrad discovered, where a committee staff can look at Senator Grassley's tax returns or my tax return, or Senator Corzine's income tax returns, or anybody's tax return, and give it to the press. They could choose someone who is a constituent of ours. They could choose someone and find out what charities they are contributing to.

This is the big government watching us, and the Weldon amendment is tucked in here without any vote by this Senate, either in committee or on the floor. I will tell you right now, talk about big government watching you. This is big government overriding State laws in many States. It is big government that is abandoning women in the emergency rooms who have life-threatening pregnancies, who walk into emergency rooms, and under a different law that protects this woman, she has to be stabilized. No more; not with the Weldon amendment.

I wanted to say to my colleagues that I was willing to stand on my feet as long as it takes because of the outrage I feel for the women in this country because of the way they are treated in this bill. But I have been able to work with Senator Frist, Senator Reid, and Senator Daschle, and it looks as though we will be able to reach an agreement to have a vote on my bill to repeal this Weldon amendment within the next couple of months. At that time, we will shed light on it. I will have far more to say about it. I wanted to tell my friends here-and I thank Senator Feinstein, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Corzine, who are on the floor-how much I appreciate your leadership on this.

This is an outrage.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may ask the Senator from California, the Senator is saying she has a commitment. Will that be expressed?

Mrs. BOXER. I will not allow a vote until we have a colloquy read on the floor between myself, Senator Reid, and Senator Frist which promises we will be able to have an up-or-down vote on the Weldon amendment sometime around April, sometime before that, where we can debate this on both sides, where we can share our views on it. Then I will feel in my heart we have done the right thing by the women in America, at least protecting them by letting the light shine on this piece of legislation, which is a shame for the women of this country, overriding State law, overriding laws that protect a woman who might walk into an emergency room, practically at death's door, and no longer would receive treatment.

I thank my colleagues.