|
| Traduire à français Tradurre all'italiano Traduzca al español Traduza a português Übersetzen Sie zu Deutsch Oversett til Norsk |
Attack on freedom of conscience in US House of
Representatives
Congressional Record: November 20, 2004 (House)
Page H10087-H10096
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr20no04-194]
|
Related Links |
Introduction The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act passed the House of Representatives on 25 September, 2002 and was first introduced in the Senate as S.2008 in March, 2002. It was re-introduced, with additional sponsors, in July, 2003, but failed to progress. It was added by congressmen Henry Hyde and Dave Weldon as an amendment to an omnibus spending bill, which passed the House of Representatives in November, 2004. The amendment was attacked by the House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, and defended by Congressman Chris Smith from New Jersey. The text of their statements appears below in the highlighted column. Project commentary appears to the right, and relevant links to the left. |
|
| Weldon Amendment |
Nancy Pelosi House Minority (Democratic) Leader Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon amendment, an extraordinary sneak attack on women's rights → |
Project Commentary Ms. Pelosi's attack on protection for health care workers who choose not to participate in abortion is no less extraordinary, coming, as it does, from someone who purports to value freedom of choice. |
| → and a disgraceful display of ideology over health. |
Why is protection of freedom of conscience in health
care a "disgraceful display of ideology," while an attempt to suppress it
is not? |
|
|
This amendment is a radical change in policy that the House has not passed this
session and that the Senate has never considered, debated, or voted on.
Republicans slipped it into the appropriations in the dark of night when they
thought no one was looking. It is entirely outside the scope of this omnibus
spending bill, yet it is part of a must-pass bill at the insistence of House
Republican leaders. |
It is disturbing to read that ensuring freedom of conscience is "a radical change in policy" on the part of legislators, even if the speaker is referring only to herself and her supporters. | |
|
This language makes a mockery of Roe v. Wade. Under this provision, a woman will
not know where her right to choose will be honored or where it will be denied. |
The ruling in Roe v. Wade did not require any health
care worker or institution to perform or provide abortion. The simple
expedient of giving appropriate and continuing public notice will ensure that
women who choose to do so will be able to avoid institutions or organizations
that object to abortion. |
|
|
This was first advertised to me as an expansion of the conscience clause which
we all respect,→
|
The amendment will discourage local authorities from
suppressing freedom of conscience. Opposing the amendment is a strange way
to demonstrate "respect" for "the conscience clause."
|
|
|
[A]s a person who served . . . on the Labor-HHS committee . . . I knew full well
the importance of the conscience clause to Catholic doctors or other faith
doctors, but particular mention was always made of Catholic doctors. It was said
to me that this was merely an expansion of that from the doctors to the
hospitals, Catholic hospitals. But, I say to my colleagues, it is so very much
more than that. We all respect a conscience clause, but this goes well beyond
that. |
The measure does go beyond protection of Catholic doctors and hospitals, but it is not clear why Ms. Pelosi finds this objectionable. A legislator ought to have respect for the freedom of conscience of people of all faiths. | |
|
If a hospital, a health insurance company, or a doctor opposes Roe v. Wade, they
could simply ignore it. They could simply ignore it. |
Roe v. Wade did not demand that hospitals, insurance companies or doctors provide abortions. They do nothing improper if they ignore a ruling that has nothing to do with them. | |
|
This is the law of the land; a constitutional right could simply be ignored. |
As already noted, Roe v. Wade does not require health care workers to participate in abortion; this cannot be said to be "the law of the land." Freedom of conscience is also a constitutional right. As the next speaker explains, it is not just being ignored; it is being attacked. |
|
|
The Weldon amendment is essentially a domestic gag rule, restricting access to abortion counseling, referral, and information. |
The amendment does not affect health care workers who wish to do any of these things. It simply discourages local authorities from trying to force conscientious objectors to participate in them. |
|
|
Health care companies should not be able to prevent doctors from giving medically necessary information. |
Agreed. And health care companies and local authorities should not be able to force doctors to facilitate what they consider to be morally abhorrent acts. |
|
|
This language, again, makes a mockery of existing State and local laws, including many State constitutions. |
Local and state laws and state constitutions that suppress conscientious objection among health care workers make a mockery of an essential and time-honoured tenet of democratic freedom. |
|
|
Under the Weldon amendment, any law or regulation currently on the books to protect access to reproductive health services is at risk. |
This is true only to the extent that a law or regulation attempts to suppress freedom of conscience among health care workers. The amendment does not affect any non-coercive law or regulation that secures access to "reproductive health services." |
|
| The term "discrimination" in this amendment is so vague that it could be used against any Federal, State, or local government effort to provide reproductive health services. |
The amendment introduces nothing new about the
meaning of "discrimination." The term is already used in the statute
affected by the amendment, and in countless others.
Moreover, nothing in the amendment will interfere with Federal, State or local efforts to provide "reproductive health services." It discourages only the coercion and conscription of conscientious objectors. |
|
|
This language makes a mockery of Title X. The Title X family planning program provides much-needed reproductive health services that reach millions of low-income, uninsured individuals; and it really is sad because we all want to reduce the number of abortions in our country. That is a goal that we all share, and reproductive family planning is one way to do that. |
Title X initiatives, including provision of abortion and abortifacient drugs, can continue. However, it will not be possible to use Title X to force objecting health care workers to facilitate abortion. |
|
|
But under this amendment, clinics could participate in Title X programs without
providing a full range of reproductive health services. |
Exactly as noted above, clinics, including those
offering abortion, will continue to participate in Title X programmes.
However, the amendment will make it more difficult to force clinics to provide
abortions if they do not wish to do so. |
|
|
Federal dollars should not be used to deny the federally protected right to
choose. Let me repeat that. Federal dollars should not be used to deny the
federally protected right to choose. |
Agreed. Federal dollars should not be used to deny constitutionally protected freedom of conscience. The amendment ensures that the 'right to choose' will be protected, not only among Pelosi and her supporters, but among those who disagree with them. | |
|
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but Republicans are gutting it step by step.
|
Applied to this amendment, the claim is extravagant. Once more, Roe v.Wade did not demand that hospitals, insurance companies or doctors provide abortions. | |
|
The Weldon amendment will have a major and harmful impact on women's health. |
Women's health does not depend only or primarily upon provision of abortion. The amendment discourages coercion of conscientious objectors, but not the provision of abortion. |
|
|
This sweeping new exemption from current laws and regulations should not be the law of the land, and it certainly should not be a part of the omnibus appropriations bill. |
If current laws and regulations do, in fact, suppress freedom of conscience among health care workers, this amendment should be supported by those respectful of that freedom. If Pelosi and her supporters believe that citizens should be compelled to participate in what they consider to be morally abhorrent acts, she should say so openly, and she should explain why others should be compelled to live their lives according to her personal moral judgement. |
|
|
The Republican assault on women's rights must be stopped. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Weldon amendment.
|
Women remain free to seek abortions from health care professionals willing to provide them. The amendment changes nothing in that regard. |
|
|
Mr. Chris Smith (R)of New
Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in 1973, Congress passed the Church Amendment to protect the conscience rights of hospitals and health care providers from being forced into involvement with abortion. The amendment provides that the receipt of Federal funds in various health programs will not require hospitals or individuals to participate in abortions if they object based on moral or religious convictions. It also forbade hospitals in these programs to make, willingness or unwillingness to perform abortions a condition of employment. |
Project Commentary For historical reasons, the Church Amendment concerned only abortion. More recent developments around the world indicate a need for more comprehensive protection, including reference to assisted suicide, euthanasia, and artificial reproductive technology. |
|
| US Protection of Conscience Laws | Since 1973, and I think many Members know this, various conscience protections, many of which deal specifically with abortion, have been enacted into law. | |
|
UN, US officials acting oppressively in East Timor |
Unfortunately, over the years, gaps in the protection of existing law have been exploited by pro-abortion organizations which have now undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care providers to participate in abortion. | The "campaign to require all health care providers to participate in abortion" is actually international in scope, but the international campaign relies heavily on American funding and leadership. |
|
The Campaign to Force Hospitals to Provide Abortion |
That campaign has met with some success, and there are a number of those which I will put into the Record, including trying to compel Catholic hospitals as a condition of a merger and acquisition to provide abortions. In one case in my own State, they compelled a $2 million settlement that had to go into a trust that paid for abortions. That's outrageous. |
Why should groups supporting abortion not use their own money to build up such trust funds, rather than using it to fund efforts to force others to participate in the procedure? |
|
A national battle over healthcare ethics |
To counteract this extreme campaign--to force health care providers to participate in abortion--Federal conscience law when signed by President Bush, will now be strengthened. |
Opponents of the amendment should explain why they believe health care workers should be forced to participate in abortion. Alternatively, they should explain why no effort should be made to protect them from such coercion. |
|
The principle of the Hyde amendment was that no one should be forced to participate in abortions in any way, and that needs to be affirmed. |
It appears that the intended reference here was the Church Amendment . |
|
|
That is what this Weldon-Hyde amendment will do. The addition of conscience protection to the Hyde amendment remedies current gaps in Federal law and promotes the right of conscientious objection . . . |
Promoting the right of conscientious objection does not interfere with the provision of abortion by health care workers who do not object to it. |
|
| . . . by forbidding federally funded government bodies to coerce the consciences of health care providers who respect fundamentally the right to life and basic human rights for the unborn. | The amendment is intended to prevent coercion of objecting health care providers, not to prevent abortion. | |
|
US Protection of Conscience Laws |
The Campaign To Force Hospitals to Provide Abortion Forty-five States and the Federal Government protect the right of health care providers to decline involvement in abortion. Pro-abortion groups seek to abolish these legal protections: |
|
| Abortion Access Project: Operating in 24 States, the project's goal is "increasing access to abortion services by expanding . . . the number of hospitals offering abortion services." The project admits that its tactics include "pressuring hospitals" and it does so through both political and legal pressure. The "Hospital Access Collaborative" division reports on the State projects' legal and regulatory interventions challenging mergers. See www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/campaigns/hospital/hospital.htm (accessed 09/07/03). | ||
|
There Are No Secular Unbelievers |
American civil liberties union--reproductive freedom project: `Religious refusals and reproductive rights.' The ACLU has published a report and advocacy kit aimed at requiring all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to provide abortions. The report argues: "When . . . religiously affiliated organizations move into secular pursuits--such as providing medical care or social services to the public or running a business--they should no longer be insulated from secular laws. In the public world, they should play by public rules." ACLU, "Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights," January 2002, page 11, www.aclu.org/Reproductive Rights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10516&c=30 (accessed 09/10/03). |
Coercion is the essence of ACLU policy. Religious believers are part of the public world, whether the ACLU likes it or not. There is no reason, apart from anti-religious bigotry, to exclude religious believers from the making of public rules, nor to suppress the expression of their beliefs merely because they are religious. |
|
ACLU's Misrepresentations about the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act |
George Gund Foundation, Pro-choice Resource Center and ACLU Reproductive
Freedom Project National Meeting "Much of the debate focused on strategy,
with participants wonder whether it was better to work toward improving and
narrowing conscience clauses or to fight to eliminate them altogether . . .
Although reproductive rights activists should still work to improve
conscientious exemptions, [ACLU executive director Ira Glaser] said, their
ultimate goal should be getting rid of them.'' See "Conscientious Exemptions and
Reproductive Rights," Executive Summary, page 10,
www.prochoiceresource.org/about/CERR_Body.pdf (accessed 09/07/03). In
one session at the national meeting, the group analyzed a same conscience
protection which "allowed hospitals, their staffs, or `any other person' to opt
out of providing abortions, sterilizations, and contraception if they objected
to such services." The participants decided "the measure couldn't be fixed and
should be opposed at all costs.'' Id. at page 11. |
"To improve conscientious exemptions" in the cited
context actually means to minimize them. The ultimate goal of the ACLU and its allies is to eliminate freedom of conscience in health care. In other words, "freedom of choice," but only for those willing to choose what the ACLU thinks appropriate. |
|
Maryland NARAL Hospital Provider Project: "The goal of the Hospital
Provider Project is to increase access to abortion services by requiring
Maryland hospitals to provide abortion . . .'' www.mdnaral.org/initiatives.htm
(accessed 04/05/2002). |
Why is coercion so important to NARAL? If providing abortion is clearly a good thing, it should not be difficult to convince people to do so voluntarily. | |
|
Freedom of Conscience and the Needs of the Patient |
Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "While everyone has the right to their [sic] opinions about reproductive health care, including . . . abortion, it is important to remember that the conscience that matters most belongs to the patient . . .Health care providers who object to providing certain services still have an obligation to respect the rights of their patients and to enable them to access the health care they need." www.plannedparenthood.org/articles/exemptions.html (accessed 09/12/03). | In the case of a woman considering abortion, her conscience is the one that matters most, but only with respect to her own conduct, not that of a health care worker. Similarly, in the case of a health care worker considering whether or not to facilitate an abortion, his conscience is the one that matters most, but only with respect to his own co-operation or refusal. The woman cannot decide for him whether he should co-operate or refuse, and he cannot decide for her whether or not she should have an abortion. |
|
Compulsory Choice |
Pro-choice Resource Center "Through its Spotlight Campaign, PCRC [Pro-Choice Resource Center] organizes regional meetings to build a network of opposition to `conscience' or patient abandonment clauses that allow doctors, pharmacists and entire hospital systems to deny women access to services like abortion . . .'' See www.prochoiceresource.org/programs/rg_meet.html (accessed 09/05/03). "Right now, so-called 'conscience' clause laws are in place in 45 or 50 States, allowing doctors, pharmacists, clinics, hospitals, managed care plans and even employers to refuse to provide, or to pay for, abortion . . . The MergerWatch program is taking action to expose and overturn these 'conscience' clauses.'' See. www.prochoiceresource.org/programs/spot.html (accessed 09/05/03). |
Clearly, the Pro-Choice Resource Center believes that freedom of choice for all is a bad thing. |
|
Current threats Unfortunately, gaps in the protections of existing laws have been exploited by pro-abortion organizations, which have undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care providers to participate in abortion. |
||
| That campaign has met with some success. Novel legal and administrative strategies have resulted in: | ||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
| Back | Next |