Dear Friend,

In an historic, all-day session on Saturday, November 7, the House finally passed health care legislation (H.R. 3962) by a vote of 220 to 215.  I believe this landmark bill represents an important step toward improving the quality, accessibility, and affordability of the U.S. health care system.   The focus now shifts to the Senate, which must pass its version of reform legislation; then the House and Senate bills will be reconciled in Conference Committee.

Thousands of constituents have called and emailed to voice their views on this critical issue.  I value this input immensely and encourage you to continue to share your thoughts.  In the meantime, I want to make clear my views on two provisions that have generated particular concern: the Stupak (anti-choice) amendment that was added to the bill, and the Kennedy language on advanced medications known as biologics. 

The Right to Choose
I am a life-long, passionate supporter of a woman’s right to choose.  I believe that abortions should be safe, accessible and as rare as possible.  As the health reform bill neared a final vote, Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) offered an amendment, which passed, that greatly limits the ability of many women to purchase insurance to pay for abortions. 

In my opinion, this is not simply chipping away at a woman’s right to choose, the Stupak language is an outright assault on women’s constitutional rights – and it is wrong.  I am old enough to remember the days of back alley abortions.  Some women I know had them.  I cannot bear the idea that the 111th Congress would restore that horror.

H.R. 3962 already contains the so-called Hyde language, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions.  The Hyde language has been included in House appropriations bills since 1976.

The Stupak amendment is insulting and destructive and goes well beyond Hyde.  I voted for H.R. 3962 because meaningful health care reform is urgently needed.  But if the bill contains the same anti-choice language when it emerges from Conference Committee, my conscience demands that I reconsider my support.  Along with 90 of my colleagues, I signed a letter to President Obama expressing our shared view that health care reform not be misused to limit women’s access to reproductive health services.

Biologic Medications
The House health care bill also included some important language—originally drafted by the late Senator Ted Kennedy—to increase the availability of biologic drugs.  These medications represent some of the best options for treating AIDS, cancer, and other life-threatening diseases.  Making generic versions of biologics available is important to ensure low-cost access to vital treatments.  But biotechnology costs billions of dollars to develop, test and bring to market—these advanced medications must be “grown” in laboratories and are much more difficult to create than standard pharmaceutical drugs.  No company would invest in such painstaking R&D if it knew it would have to compete with generic producers who could bypass this costly part of the process.  Without some period of “data exclusivity,” biotechnology research would likely decline as investors focus instead on traditional pharmaceuticals and other ventures.

Senator Kennedy recognized the need for a compromise—one that would acknowledge a product’s proprietary nature while also providing a path to low-cost generics.  In 2007, his Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee passed a bill that called for a 12-year exclusivity period for biologics.  In 2009, that Committee included the same provision in its version of the health care reform bill.  And when health care legislation was before the Energy & Commerce Committee—on which I serve—I followed Senator Kennedy’s lead, voting for his legislation when it was offered as an amendment by Rep. Anna Eshoo. 

Twelve years is the same amount of patent protection that all other drugs enjoy, and it’s important to note that the 12-year clock starts ticking at the time of FDA approval.  Because the majority of the leading biologic drugs in today’s market were approved more than a dozen years ago, they would be quickly available as generics if health care reform is enacted and signed into law by the President.

I understand that these are complex and sensitive issues and welcome hearing from you.  Please respond to the survey on the right or email me with your thoughts.

Regards,