|
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. |
|
Since 1973, and I think many Members know this, various conscience protections,
many of which deal specifically with abortion, have been enacted into
law.
|
|
|
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
|
|
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?
|
|
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.
A national battle over
healthcare
ethics
|
|
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.
|
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: |
US Protection of Conscience
Laws
|
|
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.
(accessed 09/07/03).
|
|
|
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,
(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.
|
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, (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.
|
|
"The goal of the Hospital
Provider Project is to increase access to abortion services by requiring
Maryland hospitals to provide abortion . . .'' (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.
|
|
"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."
(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.
|
|
"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 (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.'' (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:
● Forcing a private community hospital to open its doors for late-term
abortions,
● Denying a certificate of need to an outpatient surgical center that
declined involvement in abortion, after an abortion rights coalition
intervened in the proceedings,
● Forcing a private non-sectarian hospital to leave a cost-saving
consortium, because the consortium abided by a pro-life policy in its member
hospitals,
● Dismantling a hospital merger, after abortion advocates approached a State
attorney general to challenge the merger,
● Pressuring a hospital to place $2 million in trust for abortions and
sterilizations before allowing the hospital to consolidate,
● Attempting to require a Catholic hospital to build an abortion clinic and
pay for abortions,
●
Threatening a Catholic-operated HMO with loss of State contracts because
it declines to provide abortions,
●
Prohibiting hospitals from ensuring that the property they sell is not
used for abortions.
|
|