There was a colloquy on the Senate floor a little earlier on abortion and the Senate health-care bill. Via Mitch McConnell’s office, here is it, as prepared for delivery:

Statement of
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
on the
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
November 21, 2009
Note: Brownback responses are underlined; Johanns responses in italics
Mr. Hatch. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to express my deep concerns about Senator Reid’s bill on two very critical issues — coverage of abortion and conscience clause protections for medical providers opposed to abortion.
[CHART 1]
It should be abundantly clear to each member of this body that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed pro-life language exactly two weeks ago markedly different from that contained in the Reid proposal.
The House provisions, in contrast to the terribly flawed provisions in the Reid bill, contained language that would not only safeguard the rights of the unborn but also would prevent medical providers from being coerced into performing procedures that violate their conscience.
The Stupak/Pitts amendment was adopted by a significant margin – 240 to 194. That represents 55 percent of the House of Representatives, including 25 percent of the Democratic caucus.
Even more telling is two polls released this week by the Washington Post and ABC News and CNN. They confirmed that 61 percent of the American population do not support federal funding for abortion. This vote should serve as a strong signal to each member of the Senate that these protections cannot be ignored and must be contained in any measure that we adopt.
Unfortunately, the language in the Reid bill explicitly allows what the Stupak/Pitts language would prevent. The Reid language authorizes abortion in the government operated health plan (or the public option) and federal subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion. It is not the Stupak/Pitts language. And the sanctity of life is not an issue that can be traded away for political expediency.
I want to note that during Committee consideration of the health reform legislation, I offered two important pro-life amendments. The first amendment, which I offered in both the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee strictly prohibited federal dollars being used to finance elective abortions. The second amendment provided conscience clause protections to medical providers opposed to abortion. This language was based on the Hyde/Weldon provision contained in every Labor/HHS appropriations bill since 2004. It also was included in the House-passed bill.
Both of my amendments were defeated.
[HATCH QUESTION TO BROWNBACK AND JOHANNS]
Senator Brownback and Senator Johanns, what is wrong with including the Stupak/Pitts language in the Reid bill?
[PAUSE FOR RESPONSE]
The proponents of the Reid bill will tell us that the abortion funding language is essentially the Hyde language included in the annual Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. That is plain wrong and let me tell you why.
The Hyde amendment specifically removes abortion from government programs, but the Reid bill specifically allows abortion to be offered in two huge, new government programs.
The Reid bill tries to explain this contradiction by calling for the segregation of federal dollars when federal subsidies are used to purchase health plans. This “segregation” of funds actually violates the Hyde amendment, which prevents funding of abortion not only by federal funds but also by state matching funds, within the same plan. Simply put, today, federal and state Medicaid dollars are not segregated.
[HYDE COLLOQUY]
[CHART 2]
Senator Johanns. How does Hyde work today?
Senator Hatch. Today’s Hyde language, which has been in every annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill since 1976, specifically prohibits federal dollars being used to pay for abortions except if the pregnancy was the result of rape, incest or the life of the mother is endangered. The Hyde language applies to all five of the federally funded health care programs – Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, Tricare and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, FEHBP.
However, it is important to note that today there is no segregation of federal funds in any federal health care program. For example, the Medicaid program receives both federal and state dollars – there is no segregation of either the federal Medicaid dollars or the state Medicaid dollars.
States that do provide elective abortions for Medicaid beneficiaries must do so from a completely different account that is state only dollars. No federal or state dollars from the State Medicaid program may even be placed in that “state only” pot of money.
Senator Johanns: You mentioned, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Let me take a minute to talk about how it works. [Senator Johanns will speak about this issue in more detail.]
Senator Brownback. So what is in the Reid bill does not reflect the current Hyde language at all, does it?
Senator Hatch. It does not.
[END OF COLLOQUY]
Now, I would like to talk about the exchange and the types of plans that will be included in the exchange.
[HATCH QUESTION TO BROWNBACK]
Senator Brownback, isn’t it true that one health plan must be offered in the exchange that covers elective abortions? Isn’t that a departure from current federal policy?
[PAUSE FOR RESPONSE]
To be clear, the Reid health care reform bill would require at least one health plan to offer elective abortions in each state health insurance exchange. However, nothing in the Reid bill ensures that the one plan that must cover elective abortions be the plan that is the most affordable or least affordable. In other words, if I do not wish to have a plan that covers elective abortions but all I can afford is the bronze plan, where does that leave me? Should my constituents have to compromise their morals in order to receive health care? Today, no federal health program requires the coverage of elective abortions. This is a clear departure from current law.
I also want to make one point perfectly clear – the Stupak/Pitts amendment would not prohibit the ability of women to obtain elective abortions as long as they use their own money to purchase these policies.
[COLLOQUY ON WOMEN’S ACCESS TO PLANS COVERING ELECTIVE ABORTIONS]
Senator Johanns. Isn’t it true that the Stupak amendment allows women to purchase, with their own money, separate supplemental health coverage that includes coverage of elective abortions?
Senator Hatch. Yes, that is correct. Women would be allowed to purchase separate elective abortion coverage with their own money.
Senator Brownback. Isn’t it also true that the Stupak amendment allows women to purchase a health plan that includes coverage of elective abortions in addition to the supplemental abortion policy?
Senator Hatch. Yes, that is absolutely correct. The Stupak language allows women to purchase both a supplement policy for the coverage of elective abortions and a comprehensive health care plan that includes coverage of elective abortions as long as they pay for the plan with their own money.
Senator Johanns. So, when those who oppose the Stupak language say that a woman would never want to purchase abortion as a separate rider, they are truly misunderstanding what the Stupak language allows. The Stupak language also permits women to purchase an identical Exchange plan that includes coverage of elective abortions (in addition to other health benefits).
Senator Hatch. That is correct, a woman may purchase with her own funds either a supplemental policy that covers elective abortions or an entire health plan that includes the coverage of elective abortions.
Senator Brownback. And that follows current law, correct?
Senator Hatch. Yes, federal funds may not pay for abortion or plans that cover abortion. To be clear, the Stupak language does not prevent people purchasing their own private plans that include elective abortion coverage. This is the fundamental component of the Hyde language.
[END OF COLLOQUY]
I would now like to talk about the conscience clause protections for medical providers. The conscience clause protections in the final House bill for pro-life providers are not included in the Reid bill. The House adopted language codified the essence of the Weldon/Hyde conscience protections included in the annual HHS appropriations bill since 2004. This summer, the House Energy and Commerce Committee accepted these protections unanimously during consideration of its bill.
Let me emphasize that point again. Unanimously.
That means that all members of the Committee with ideologies ranging from Chairman Henry Waxman who represents Hollywood, California to Ranking Republican Joe Barton who represents a conservative congressional district in Texas recognized the importance of adopting this language. In contrast, the Reid bill has stronger protections for abortion providers than for providers who have conscience objections to abortion.
On one hand, abortion providers may not be “discriminated” against for performing any abortion anywhere; on the other hand, pro-life providers must cite a particular “moral or religious belief” to prevent discrimination. This is narrower than current law under Hyde/Weldon. Moreover, it does not extend the protections to pro-life health plans. In other words, a Catholic health system that requires a local hospital to stop providing abortions in order to become part of its health system could be accused of discrimination. What is wrong with this picture?
[HATCH QUESTION TO JOHANNS]
Senator Johanns, don’t you think it makes sense to protect health care providers who have objections of conscience to abortion so they are not forced to provide abortions?
[PAUSE FOR RESPONSE]
[CHART 3]
[QUESTION TO SENATOR BROWNBACK FROM SEN. JOHANNS]
Senator Brownback, I recall President Obama’s speech in a joint session of Congress on September 9th of this year. He said then, “And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
The President stated on multiple occasions that he would not support abortion in the health care bill. And as we all know the President has stated on multiple occasions that it is his goal to lower the incidence of abortion. That is what he says. But that is not what the Democrat-led Senate has done under his leadership with this bill. And here it is anyway – the Democrats’ radical abortion language can be found on pages 116 to 124 of this 2,076 page bill. The whole bill is damaging, but these pages are especially damaging and the President promised under his leadership he wouldn’t let it happen. Do the President and the members of his party who control the US Senate, and who wrote this bill behind closed doors, really think abortion is health care? Why didn’t they just strip this language out and add the Stupak compromise like they did in the House with the support of 64 Democrats? What do you think about the President’s commitment and his promise to us not to use federal dollars to fund abortion?”
Senator Brownback: You are absolutely right. The President has stated on multiple occasions that it is his goal to lower the incidence of abortion, and that he would not use any federal dollars to fund abortions. Your quote is correct. The President said very clearly and I will repeat his statement from September 9, 2009 which you can find on the White House website. He said, “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” So the President took the time in a carefully tailored and vetted speech, that was nationally televised, during prime-time, to tell Congress those words and make that specific promise to us. We sat there in the House chamber and heard him say these words. Our constituents heard these words watching the speech at home. I have to believe these are the kind of broken promises that are making our constituents lose their trust in government.
But the fact of the matter is, as so many people have pointed out, abortion is very much in this health care bill. Many Democrats and Republicans acknowledge this. Mr. Stupak is just one of them.
If we want to do more than pay lip service to lowering the incidence of abortion we need to oppose the motion to proceed and we should have had the Stupak compromise language included in the bill in the first place, since the President clearly stated he didn’t want to use federal dollars to be used in the funding of abortion.
And consider the fact that when Federal funding is not available for abortion, fewer abortions occur. When Federal funding is available, as we have seen in the past, thousands more will occur. When federal funding is not available for abortion, as it is not available under Medicaid today, 30 percent of eligible women who would otherwise have had an abortion, choose life for their child.
And here is why the Hyde Amendment is so important. The administrators running the Medicaid Program from 1973 to 1976 funded as many as 300,000 abortions per year, until the Hyde amendment was enacted in 1976. That is almost one million abortions our country’s taxpayers paid for out their pockets. That was until the Hyde amendment was enacted in 1976, because the American people disagreed with being forced to pay for abortion. Whether they are pro-choice or pro-life, they didn’t want taxpayer dollars to go for this.
One other example of government ushering abortion through health care legislation is when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently passed its State-mandated insurance, Commonwealth Care. They failed to include an explicit exclusion of abortion. So, abortions there were funded immediately in Massachusetts. In fact, according to the Commonwealth Care Web site, abortion is considered covered under “outpatient medical care.”
The Federal Government should not go down this road. The President made a commitment to the American people and the Democrat-led Senate failed us. They included radical language that will increase the incidence of abortion.
[PAUSE]
Pro-life groups across the board strongly oppose this bill due to the weak language on issues such as federal funding of elective abortions and conscience clause protections. And these groups represent millions of Americans across the country.
Let me take some time to quote the reaction of these groups to the Reid bill.
The National Right to Life Committee’s Legislative Director Douglas Johnson issued a statement that says, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs.”
[CHART 4]
Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that Senator Harry Reid’s bill is the worst he has seen so far on the divisive issue. The conference believes the bill violates the longstanding federal policy against the use of federal funds for elective abortions and health plans that include such abortions – a policy upheld in all health programs covered by the Hyde Amendment, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program – and now in the House-passed “Affordable Health Care for America Act.” We believe legislation that violates this moral principle is not true health care reform and must be amended to reflect it. If that fails, the current legislation should be opposed.
Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President for Family Research Council Action described the legislation as “a direct attack on the principles set forth in the “Hyde amendment over 30 years ago. This bill is one only an abortionist could love.”
Concerned Women For America said the following, “In a dramatic departure from current policy, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will provide government funding for “elective” abortions. Overall, this bill raises serious pro-life concerns.”
Polls across the country indicate the majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars paying for elective abortions. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, six in 10 Americans favor a ban on the use of federal funds for abortion. It also indicates that the public may also favor legislation that would prevent many women from getting their health insurance plan to cover the cost of an abortion, even if no federal funds are involved. This poll indicates that 61 percent of the public opposes the use of public money for abortions for women who cannot afford the procedure, with 37 percent in favor of allowing the use of federal funds. When is this Congress going to start listening to the American people?
[HATCH QUESTION TO JOHANNS]
Senator Johanns, have you seen similar polls indicating that a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars paying for elective abortions?
[PAUSE]
[HATCH QUESTION TO BROWNBACK AND JOHANNS]
I know that my constituents are very upset about the possibility of their tax dollars being used to pay for elective abortions. I even brought a few of their letters down to the floor so I could read them. (Read some of the letters.)
Senator Johanns and Brownback, have you received similar letters and phone calls from your constituents?
[PAUSE]
Finally, I want to talk about the important vote before the Senate tonight. If you support the sanctity of life, you need to vote against the cloture motion to proceed so we may include the language that will ensure that federal funds will not be used, in any way, to pay for elective abortions.
[HATCH QUESTION TO JOHANNS]
Senator Johanns, maybe you could take some time to explain why defeating the cloture motion to proceed is so important.
[PAUSE FOR RESPONSE]
To me, it is clear that the cloture motion to proceed must be defeated. Mr. President, the Reid health care reform legislation, must, at a minimum include the Stupak language from the House bill. Any language that is less than that is simply unacceptable.
One thing is for certain, if the cloture motion to proceed does pass, I will file and offer the Stupak abortion funding amendment.