[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6566-H6586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ABORTION NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2002
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 546 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 546
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4691) to prohibit certain abortion-related discrimination in
governmental activities. The bill shall be considered as read
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter)
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a closed rule for
the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002. H.R. 4691 strengthens
existing law by saying that health care entities should not be forced
by the government to provide abortions. It is a very small but very
important step in the right direction. It simply protects conscience
rights of those organizations who do not want to be involved in
abortion.
I urge Members to act promptly to enact the Abortion Non-
Discrimination Act, which will address the crisis of conscience rights
and begin to eliminate the intolerance, coercion and discrimination
against health care participants who do not believe in participating in
abortion procedures due to moral or religious beliefs.
In 1996 Congress passed a law that forbids government discrimination
against health care entities that refuse to undergo training in the
performance of induced abortions, to require or provide such training,
to perform such abortions or to provide referrals for such training for
such abortions.
However, due to recent judicial misrepresentation, H.R. 4691 is
needed to clarify that health care entities include all health care
organizations, including hospitals. It is a simple, commonsense and
technical change.
I am pleased that in my home State of North Carolina a physician or a
nurse does not have to perform abortion if it is against their
religious principles. The same applies for hospitals and health care
institutions. In fact, 44 other States have similar conscience clauses.
So this is not something new and different.
As a cosponsor of this legislation, I am very pleased to see it reach
the floor of the House.
I also believe that today a growing number of health care practices,
procedures and medications present serious moral concerns for many
health care providers. Recent medical and pharmacological developments
increasingly put health care entities at the vortex of some of
society's controversial moral dilemmas.
Increasingly, there is pressure upon health care providers, both
individuals and organizations, to put aside personal moral beliefs in
order to facilitate convenient access to new drugs, procedures and
technologies. In the ordinary course of professional life, without any
additional pressures, these dilemmas arise often enough to create
crisis for tens of thousands of health care entities.
However, in addition to these dilemmas, there are increasing
pressures upon health care participants to facilitate or provide
products or services which violate their own conscience. Advocates of
particular procedures and programs, particularly major promoters of
abortion, are systematically singling out health care providers and
entities to squeeze and compel them to abandon their moral values as
the price to pay to remain in the profession or in the market.
Mr. Speaker, health care providers want this bill in overwhelming
numbers, believing in their hearts that they too have a right to
choose, a right to choose not to be involved in destroying life. To
that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a mere 6 weeks since the leadership lobbed
on to the House floor a bill targeting women and their reproductive
health care. Be assured that the election season is upon us, and in the
face of a crumbling stock market and exploding deficits and uncertain
war on terrorism at home and calls for new war in Iraq, of this we can
be sure: Congress will use the floor of the House of Representatives to
push propaganda restricting a
[[Page H6567]]
woman's ability to make her own decisions rather than deal with the
overriding issues at hand.
{time} 1115
Mr. Speaker, Congress does not have the right or the expertise to
make these decisions for the American people. The last time Members
were facing a life-or-death decision, or their constituents were facing
a life-or-death situation, who would they want with them in the
emergency room? Did they want their physician, their spiritual adviser,
family members, or would that patient say wait until a Member of
Congress gets here because Congress will have the last word on this
issue? I am sure that the American public would give us a resounding
no. We are basically practicing medicine without a license.
Direct mail pieces distorting the issue are already being printed and
will hit the streets as soon as the vote is completed. This vote is
pure politics. This measure is cynical and unconstitutional. Moreover,
everyone in the Senate knows that the Senate will not touch it.
In the meantime, the real work of the Congress as mandated by the
Constitution goes undone. Our most fundamental duty of funding the
Nation's priority has ground to a halt. With the fiscal year ending in
less than a week, the President has yet to sign a single appropriations
bill. The press reports indicate that the majority leadership has under
consideration a plan to simply quit work and go home and come back and
try again next year, using a long-term continuing resolution to
disguise that fact that the people's House has ceased to perform
anything but election-year gimmicks at taxpayers' expense.
It is almost superfluous to note that this is a closed rule. For
those following the deliberations of this body on controversial
matters, it should come as no surprise. The majority has chosen to shut
out meaningful debate. Under this closed rule, no amendment will be
allowed. For a bill that impacts so fundamentally on the life of so
many, this is unconscionable.
For those school children who may be visiting this Chamber today, I
wanted to offer a quick history lesson. Silence was not always the case
here. Free-flowing debate used to be the norm. The Chamber used to team
with ideas and with voices of passion from all regions of the country.
Today these voices are shut out. My colleagues, the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), attempted to have an
amendment made in order in the Committee on Rules to prevent the most
egregious effects of the underlying bill taking effect. Their efforts
were struck down almost immediately along a party-line vote. It is my
hope that someday true debate will return to this Chamber and the
voices of our constituents will not be silenced.
But today, Mr. Speaker, instead of debate, we will have an up-and-
down vote on a bill that will radically expand existing law. This
legislation would essentially allow any health care entity, including
hospitals, health insurance companies, or HMOs, to exempt themselves
from current Federal, State and local laws that assure women have
access to reproductive services. I want to make the point here that
that says that the Hyde amendment, which was passed by Congress which
allows a person who has been a victim of rape or incest to have an
abortion, will be overridden by this bill. It says that any law or
regulation by a State or the Federal Government can be overridden.
Now, any law or regulation that covers any kind of coverage will be
considered discriminatory against a health care entity that does not
want to comply, for any reason at all, not merely religious, and could
not be enforced. Remember, the religious exemption has been in
legislation for years. That is not what we are doing today. The penalty
for any State or local government which discriminates is the loss of
all, all Federal financial assistance. At a time when hospitals and
local governments are hanging on by a thread, such a loss of Federal
funds would be devastating.
H.R. 4691 has been brought to the floor without any committee
consideration and over the strong objections of the moderate Members of
the majority party. Moreover, for a party that prides itself on
attention to States' rights, it is ironic that this legislation will
override the progress of States that have worked to ensure that women
not only have access to reproductive services, but also the right to
basic information.
This bill reinstates the gag rule. Many in this body may not realize
it, but the Federal Government does not pay for abortion services. As I
mentioned before, the Hyde amendment to the Medicaid program stipulates
that Medicaid patients must have access to these procedures only in
cases of rape, incest or when the pregnancy endangers a woman's life.
That would be gone. This bill before us overrides even that most narrow
of exceptions. Moreover, States like mine, who use their own Medicaid
funds to cover abortion services beyond those narrow circumstances if
they wish, and in fact, 21 States do so, this bill would preclude these
States from enforcing their own laws and constitutional decisions in
the area of reproductive services for low-income women.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not limited to reproductive services
themselves. Under the bill, States would be prohibited from requiring
health care entities participating in the Medicaid programs to provide
referrals for reproductive services. It would prohibit States from
ensuring that patients have all of the information they need to make an
informed choice about themselves, the gag rule again.
Moreover, this bill is a direct assault on the doctor-patient
relationship. Under this legislation, the administrative hospitals or
HMOs could gag the doctors who work under them from discussing basic
information about abortion services with their patients. We restrict no
other professionals from giving the best of their advice to people who
seek it.
This law provides no guidelines for why these administrators may be
gagging physicians from providing or even discussing reproductive
services. It will say simply to save the HMO more money. The
legislation is a gross expansion of the powers of the managed-care
entities to severely limit the options available to the patients that
they supposedly serve. The legislation would also undermine a State's
ability to set health care licensing and certification standards.
Imagine that, we would be setting certification standards and licensing
for them from here as well.
In deciding whether to approve a hospital merger, for example, a
State could not consider whether a newly merged hospital system would
diminish a community's access to full reproductive health services.
This would tie the hands of States like New Jersey that are trying to
ensure that entire communities are not completely without any qualified
abortion providers.
In fact, supporters of the bill have stated that this is their
intent. The measure is opposed by numerous groups, including the
National Council of Jewish Women, Catholics for Free Choice, the
American Association of University Women, the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Center for Reproductive Law and
Policy, National Organization of Women, the National Partnership for
Women and Families, People for the American Way, and the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America, and certainly me.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the rule
and the Abortion Nondiscrimination Act. The gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) strayed a bit from the subject, and I feel the
necessity to respond.
As far as the work of the House is concerned, the House is doing its
work. Under article 1 section 7, clause 2, the House has passed a
budget and many other important pieces of legislation. As required by
law, we have done our work. The Senate has not passed a budget.
More importantly, to say that protection of human life is not
significant
[[Page H6568]]
legislation is as sadly wrong as it possibly can be. H.R. 4691 is
simply a clarification of current law. This existing nondiscrimination
statute that Congress overwhelmingly approved and President Clinton
signed into law in 1996 protects health care entities from being forced
by the government to perform abortions. Because of judicial
misinterpretation, H.R. 4691 is needed to clarify that health care
entities include all health care organizations, including hospitals.
In recent years, there has been a growing nationwide effort to attack
the conscience rights of Catholic and other private health care
providers. Alaska courts have assumed they have the authority to force
private hospitals to provide abortions as a condition for receiving
Federal funds or for full participation in the health care system. It
is imperative that we clarify the protections contained in current law
to ensure that no hospital is forced to perform abortions against its
will. I support the rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help thinking that we are moving
back to the 16th century. This is the most far-reaching assault on
women that I have ever seen in this House. I want to put a human face
on this. In 1963, I was an intern at the Buffalo General Hospital. I
dealt with two poor women who had back-alley abortions. One had eight
children, one had six. They were done with coat hangers, and both those
women died. I still see their faces.
At the same time that was going on in Buffalo at the place I now
live, Seattle, women could go down to a travel agency, buy a ticket to
Japan, have a day's shopping and an abortion, and come home. Now, that
is the circumstance in 1961, 1962, 1963 in this country.
For us to be moving back in this direction, overriding Roe v. Wade,
and the Hyde amendment, is simply a step back into the dark ages and it
is absolutely wrong. This is not a women's issue; this is a human
issue. Those 14 children in Buffalo who grew up without their mothers
because their mothers could not have full reproductive services in a
decent hospital in a major city in the United States are what Members
are saying is all right for all of the children of this country.
Leave no children behind, my President has said. Well, this is
guaranteed to leave children behind if we step back this far into the
past. I urge Members to vote against this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, H.R.
4691. Today we have the opportunity to support freedom of conscience
for those in our health care system and who have invested their lives
in caring for their fellow Americans. Forty-six States protect
hospitals and health care professionals who choose not to participate
in abortions; and even though there is existing law, Federal law,
intended to protect individuals and entities from being forced to
participate in an abortion, clarification is still needed, and that is
what we are doing today.
Some hospitals and doctors are being forced to go against their
conscience and provide abortion services. In spite of existing law,
this coercion still exists. For example, the National Abortion and
Reproductive Rights Action League has a project in Maryland that aims
to require every Maryland hospital to provide abortion services.
H.R. 4691 will guarantee that hospitals, insurance companies, and
health care professionals will not be forced to take part in a
procedure that they deem morally wrong and disagree with.
Whether one supports a right to life or a right to abortion,
participating in or paying for abortion should not be forced upon
anyone. I urge Members to stand with me in supporting this rule and our
constituents' freedom of conscience.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
4691. It is a misguided measure that has dangerous implications for
women's reproductive health and for our health care system as a whole.
Of course, elections are near, so this debate might be advanced
because of a right wing, anti-choice agenda. We have heard and it has
been made quite clear that their political schemes are worth
sacrificing the health of American women. This bill robs women of their
right to get comprehensive information about their medical and legal
options, and this bill will leave health care providers at the whim of
the anti-choice movement.
{time} 1130
The current state of our health system is obviously weakening day by
day. Our constituents are experiencing increased premiums or they are
being dropped by their plans altogether, and now the right wing of this
Congress is prepared to tell our constituents that their right to make
an informed decision is being taken away.
Mr. Speaker, rather than putting patient access to care in further
jeopardy, why are we not working to improve access to quality health
care? This bill also is a slap in the face to State and local
governments that have implemented policies that put a woman's health
ahead of bad politics.
We cannot fall for the outrageous antics of the anti-choice
community. We cannot let them twist another health care issue into a
political issue. That is why I implore my colleagues, my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, vote against this extremely harmful measure
and vote against this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, for many individuals, opposition to abortion
is not just a matter of choice but it has been a matter of conscience
and faith. Many individuals so moved to oppose abortion are the health
care providers who at one time under Federal law found themselves in
the difficult position of objecting to the procedure but being forced
to perform it. Fortunately in 1996 Congress recognized that those who
choose to oppose abortions should not be forced to administer the
procedure and passed legislation protecting those, as they called them,
health care entities from being forced by the government to perform
those abortions.
Since the passage of that law, though, those who do not want to
respect the right of individuals to conscientiously object to
performing this procedure and want to ignore the will of Congress have
fought this provision nationwide. The attack has been successful in
cases such as in Alaska where courts have decided that they can force
private hospitals to provide abortions as a condition of fully
participating in their health care system. The ignorance of the faith
and conscientious objection of American health care professionals and
organizations is unacceptable.
That is why I support this legislation. It simply clarifies language
in the law so that all health care entities, including Catholic
hospitals and individual health care professionals other than
physicians, are covered and can freely object to performing abortions
on the basis of their conscientious decision.
Opponents of the bill have argued that this legislation will block
access to emergency care for poor women or that it will interfere with
a State's right to enforce abortion laws. None of this is true. The
bill simply protects the conscientious objection of health care
providers who oppose abortion.
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple and very direct bill. It does not
expand or change any rights of women. What it does is it allows for the
free exercise of a conscientious objection of a health care provider.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
the previous speaker. It does indeed change women's rights. It puts a
gag rule on women, and the religious exemption that she talks about
clarifying is already in legislation. What this does is drive women
back to back alleys.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4691 and in
opposition to the rule that we are considering
[[Page H6569]]
right now because we should not be considering this legislation at all.
Despite the wishes of the bill's promoters, our United States
Constitution does in fact guarantee American women the right to choose
an abortion. And while this bill does not directly overturn Roe v.
Wade, it might as well for many women do that since it will make access
to abortion impossible for them. To talk about this as a technical
change is simply cynical. This is one of the most dangerous attempts to
restrict a woman's right to choose, including her right to information
and services regarding her reproductive health.
H.R. 4691 would allow an HMO or a health insurance company to decide
for any reason whatsoever that it will no longer pay for, provide
information or even make referrals for abortion services even if the
woman's life is endangered or she is a victim of rape or incest. Under
this bill, it would be impossible for a State to ensure that women who
are victims of rape or incest or whose life is threatened would have
access to abortions. In this world today, there are decreasing options
for everyone in choosing health insurance companies or HMOs.
So are we going to leave it, then, to an employer to decide whether
or not a woman would have a right to choose in essence because that HMO
would deny them access to the abortion? And in rural areas where there
may be only one option for a woman to go, she is denied that
opportunity to have her full health services available to her.
What this bill really does is allow any health care entity to ignore
all Federal, State and local laws pertaining to abortion services,
information and referrals. It is not a conscience clause as some would
like to call it, as if HMOs have a conscience. In fact, there are no
Federal laws that currently exist that require any individuals or
hospitals to provide abortions. But this bill would restrict a doctor's
rights; that is, his right if he believes in his medical judgment or in
his conscience that it is his responsibility to provide those services,
he could not do that. So this does limit the right of doctors not to be
forced to perform it but to be forced not to perform abortions.
Women in this country need to be able to trust that when they go to a
doctor with a problem or a condition that they will be given all
information necessary to make informed decisions. But this bill would
gag doctors. Informed consent as a minimum is a valued and expected
component of our health care system. So why do we think that when it
comes to women's health it is okay to throw even this concept out the
window?
This is unacceptable. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I think those of us that have served in public
office at all know that when you come to the abortion question, there
are two very highly charged and two different views on this subject.
Some people think that abortion should be legal and that it is a matter
of a human right and somebody's choice. Other people think that
abortion is wrong and it is a form of murder. There are people in our
country and in each of our districts that hold both of these views with
a great deal of tenacity.
But the question before us today is really not the question of
abortion. We are not going to address this underlying issue. What we
are talking about instead, the question is as to whether we protect
various health care organizations or individuals, whether we want to
protect their right to have a choice, to even have an opinion on the
subject.
What is going on here is that the abortion agenda is not really
content with choice. The only choice that they are content with is that
everybody has to agree with them and that we are going to compel
someone else to that choice. It is always understood, I think, by most
reasonable people that one person's rights stop where another person's
rights start. But that is not the case here. Instead, the right of some
health care organization to have an opinion on this subject is going to
be hammered by the big fist of government. That is not reasonable.
All we are saying is that the person that has to provide the service
needs to have a choice as well. One person's right stops where
another's right starts.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I want to say, there is already conscience exemptions and
everybody knows that. That is not why we are here today. We are really
here today to turn back the clock. Without any doubt, a woman who has
the opportunity even to understand what her rights are and what her
options are, this is an appalling thing that we are doing. This is not
an ordinary law we are talking about here. This is life and death. A
woman who has come into a hospital raped, scared to death, does not
know what to do, needs somebody to talk to, may have the unlucky option
of coming across a doctor who says his conscience forbids him from
discussing it with her, comforting her or giving her any idea that she
has options.
But since this House is all politics all the time in this Chamber, I
want to give you some statistics that I think might be interesting on a
political issue. The vast majority of Americans oppose allowing
institutional health care providers to deny service on the basis of
moral or religious objections. Seventy-six percent of the public
opposes giving hospitals an exemption allowing them to refuse to
provide medical services to which they object on religious grounds.
Eighty-nine percent of the public opposes allowing insurance companies
to refuse to pay for medical services to which the insurance company
objects on religious grounds. Seventy-nine percent of the public finds
convincing the statement that religiously affiliated hospitals should
not be allowed to force their religious beliefs on other people. And
frankly, I expect that nigh 100 percent of the people in the United
States do not believe that Congress should impose its religious beliefs
on them.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:
American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington National Office,
Washington, DC, September 24, 2002.
Dear Representative: The ACLU urges you to vote against
H.R. 4961, the so-called ``Abortion Non-Discrimination Act''
when it is considered on the House floor tomorrow. Drafted by
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and sponsored by
Representatives Dick Armey (R-TX), Joseph Pitts (R-PA), and
Michael Bilirakis (R-FL), H.R. 4691 would allow a broad range
of health care entities to refuse to comply with a wide array
of federal, state, and local requirements to provide abortion
services or information about those services.
Refusal clauses such as H.R. 4691 permit a person or entity
to refuse to provide reproductive health services. The ACLU
believes that such clauses should be tested against two
factors: (1) the extent to which the clause protects
religious refusals that place burdens on people who do not
share the beliefs that motivate the refusal (by ``burdens,''
we mean obstacles to health care and other critical personal
interests, but not the mere exposure of third parties to
religious practices or the tax or other financial burdens
that may result from permitting certain exemptions); and (2)
the extent to which the clause protects institutions engaged
primarily in religious worship or instruction, or instead
exempts institutions engaged in a secular pursuit in the
public sphere. Although this test is not compelled by an
legal ruling, the ACLU believes that it strikes the
appropriate balance between reproductive rights and religious
freedom. H.R. 4691 fails this test because its burdens would
fall primarily on those who do not share the beliefs that
motivate the refusal and because it protects institutions
engaged in the public and secular provision of health care.
Because H.R. 4691 amounts to a broad noncompliance permit for
religious entities that employ and serve people of all
faiths, that perform a variety of public functions, and that
accept public financial support, the ACLU strongly opposes
this bill.
H.R. 4691 radically alters existing law by providing broad
license for all manner of health care entities--from
hospitals to insurance companies to HOMs--to avoid basic
legal requirements imposed by all levels of government. The
bill prohibits a governmental entity from
``discriminating''--that is, treating a health care entity
differently--on the basis of the entity's refusal to perform,
refer, train, cover, or pay for abortions. But merely
enforcing federal, state, and local laws designed to ensure
access to abortion services, or to information about those
services, could constitute ``discrimination'' against
entities that object to those laws. This bill could thus deny
women access to critical information about their health care
options, interfere with the delivery of abortion services to
poor women in medical emergencies, and impede states' ability
to enforce their own laws on abortion.
H.R. 4961:
[[Page H6570]]
Would compromise the ability of Title X clients to obtain
information critical to their health. Title X, which provides
federal funds for contraceptive services for low-income
individuals, requires that grantees provide a referral to a
qualified abortion provider upon request as part of non-
directive options counseling. H.R. 4691 would prohibit the
federal government from enforcing this regulation because it
could be deemed ``discriminatory'' to deny Title X grants to
providers that refuse to make abortion referrals. The bill
could thus undermine federal standards and compromise the
health of low-income pregnant women by denying them critical
information;
Would interfere with the delivery of abortion services to
poor women in dire emergencies. H.R. 4691 would impede
compliance with the Hyde Amendment, which mandates Medicaid
coverage of abortions in cases of rape, incest, or where the
pregnancy endangers a woman's life. Requiring Medicaid
managed care organizations to provide such coverage, or to
provide information concerning such coverage, could
constitute ``discrimination'' against those entities that
refuse to provide or refer patients elsewhere for these
services;
Would interfere with states' ability to enforce their own
laws on abortion. H.R. 4691 could prevent those states that
cover medically necessary abortions beyond those mandated by
the Hyde Amendment (whether as a result of state
constitutional rulings or by virtue of state laws) from
effectuating that coverage by contracting only with Medicaid
managed care organizations that agree to provide or refer
patients elsewhere for abortion services. (More than fifteen
states require such coverage.) The provision would interfere
with these states' ability to enforce their own laws and to
manage and ensure delivery of mandated services within their
own Medicaid programs;
Would disrupt the enforcement of state health care
regulations. H.R. 4691 would thwart the enforcement of state
and local laws that require entities certified or licensed by
the state to address the full range of health care needs in
the communities they serve. A state might be prevented, for
example, from denying a ``certificate of need'' (a state-
issued document that is similar to a permit) to a newly
merged hospital that refused to provide even lifesaving
abortions and thus left pregnant women in the community
without help in medical emergencies. (Mergers between
religiously affiliated hosiptals and secular hospitals often
raise this issue because some religious hospitals insist that
the newly merged entity apply religious doctrine in the
provision of health services.);
Could violate basic principles of federalism. H.R. 4691
might interfere with the enforcement of rulings by those
state courts that have concluded that their state
constitutions require broader protection for reproductive
freedom than the federal Constitution provides. For example,
proponents claim that the bill would overrule Valley Hospital
v. Mat-su Coalition for Choice, 948 P.2d 963 (Alaska 1997),
in which the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the Alaska
Constitution requires that quasi-public hospitals provide
abortion services. If interpreted as its proponents urge,
this bill would abrogate this state constitutional decision
because it would prohibit ``discrimination'' against quasi-
public entities for their refusal to provide or refer for
abortions. It would thus strip states of autonomy and
violate basic principles of federalism;
Could interfere with the enforcement of certain state trust
laws. Some state laws prevent health facilities established
as charitable trusts from making significant changes in their
charitable purposes. For example, charitable trust laws may
prohibit a hospital founded specifically to serve a broad
segment of the community from eliminating the provision of
reproductive health services. At least one state has enforced
its charitable trust law against a hospital that sought to
convert from a community facility to a religiously controlled
facility that provided more limited reproductive health
services. Proponents of H.R. 4691 argue that such a state
would be deemed to have impermissibly ``discriminated''
against the hospital under the bill; and
Could immunize a health care entity's refusal to provide
emergency contraception, even to victims of rape. Because it
does not define the term ``abortion,'' H.R. 4691 could permit
health care entities to refuse to provide emergency
contraception (``EC''), even to victims of rape. Although EC
is merely a high dose of ordinary birth control pills and
does not interrupt an established pregnancy, some religiously
affiliated providers define EC as an ``abortifacient.'' They
could use this bill to attempt to shield themselves from
repercussions for refusing to comply with state laws that
require hospitals to provide EC (or referrals for EC) to rape
survivors in their emergency rooms.
Where the Public Stands: The vast majority of Americans
oppose allowing institutional health care providers to deny
services on the basis of moral or religious objections:
76% of the public opposes giving hospitals an exemption
allowing them to refuse to provide medical services to which
they object on religious grounds.
89% of the public opposes allowing insurance companies to
refuse to pay for medical services to which the insurance
company objects on religious grounds.
79% of the public finds convincing the statement that
``[r]eligiously affiliated hospitals should not be allowed to
force their religious beliefs on other people.''
For all of these reasons, the ACLU urges you to oppose H.R.
4691.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy,
Director.
Gregory T. Nojeim,
Associate Director and Chief Legislative Counsel.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I know this is a difficult
issue for everybody and I regret to have to rise in strong opposition
to this rule and to encourage the Republicans and Democrats, pro-life
and pro-choice, to oppose this rule.
I do not know how many of you know women in America who use
prescription contraceptives to plan their families, to manage their
reproductive capability, but in my experience of the women who are of
childbearing age, 99 percent, 95 percent, a very large percent of women
in America use prescription contraceptives and many States require that
any health plan offering prescription drugs include prescription
contraceptives in order to be a nondiscriminatory prescription drug
plan.
This bill for the first time explicitly says that any HMO CEO, who
personally defines prescription contraceptives as an abortifacient, can
alter their plan to deny women the right to coverage under their
prescription drug plan of prescription contraceptives.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is wrong. Never have we given, and here it
is right in the bill, a provider sponsored organization, (that is a
PSO), a health maintenance organization, (that is an HMO), a health
insurance plan the power to deny legal benefits. Health insurance plans
and the standards they must abide by are set by State law. This is a
massive override of State law that regulates health insurance plans and
benefits.
I have personally stood on this floor and voted against some very
popular health mandates that have frankly come back to haunt me
politically because the Federal Government should not be mandating
health benefits on States and State plans. This is doing exactly that
and it is giving this power arbitrarily to an individual HMO CEO to
override State law. We have never done that. We have never stood on
this House floor and allowed individuals to say in conscience, when it
might well be not in conscience but in cost, the right to make such
decisions in opposition to State law! Are we going to allow the
conscience clause now to be polluted as an economic instrument?
The protection in conscience is clear. Forty-five States have laws
protecting doctors, nurses, all health care professionals, so they do
not have to provide sterilization, abortion, or any procedure that in
conscience they do not agree with. Furthermore, Catholic hospitals do
not have to provide facilities. No institution that in conscience does
not agree has to provide services or facilities. They not only do not
have to do it if there are doctors or nurses that do not agree, but the
institution is protected. All this does is say CEOs are protected as
well.
Did you vote for a patients' bill of rights? I do not care whether it
was the Democrat's Patients' Bill of Rights or the Republican's
Patients' Bill of Rights, the whole goal of that was to allow patients
and doctors to make decisions about health plans and not HMO CEOs.
I urge you to vote down this rule. We need a much greater discussion
than to bring this up in the waning days of a session that has not
passed its appropriation bills.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her very thoughtful
remarks. One point she made that I think is terribly important is that
we are turning religious exemption, moral thoughts and moral attitudes
into an economic issue by saying we simply will not do this. But,
moreover, let me make the point that we made earlier when we talked,
that any hospital that flies in the face of this legislation will be
restricted of all Federal aid, all of it.
[[Page H6571]]
{time} 1145
And if the Members' hospitals are like mine, and I see no reason why
they would not be, this would be devastating to them and hospitals
would have to close all over the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate some of the points that
have been made but most importantly the fact that we should defeat this
rule. This rule is a closed rule. It did not allow a very simple
amendment which would have essentially said that doctors will not be
gagged from telling their patients what is the best medical information
for those patients. Why on earth with an issue like this that was never
even taken through committee, and I know that because I sit on the
committee of jurisdiction, would we then bring a closed rule to the
floor with a bill as outrageous and sweeping as this bill? I urge a
``no'' vote on the rule. And when we look at the consequences of
passing the bill, even if the rule did pass, even if the doctors would
be gagged, this bill is such an expansion of law that we cannot pass
legislation that will hurt patients so badly.
This legislation is the biggest gag rule we have ever seen. It will
not protect Catholic hospitals from providing abortions or even
referrals to most people. They are already exempt under current law.
The bill would allow any hospital, any health insurance, any clinic,
any HMO to deny services, coverage, or even referrals for abortions for
any reason whatsoever. Proponents of this bill will say the purpose is
to ensure that hospitals with religious affiliations do not provide
services that conflict with their values. This is simply not true.
First of all, they do not have to right now. Secondly, there is nothing
in this bill about opting out of services or information due to
religious values. In fact, there is nothing in this bill about religion
at all. Anti-choice lawmakers are trying once again to back-door a bill
that restricts women's reproductive choices, and this time they are
hiding behind the Vatican to do it.
Let me say it again. Catholic hospitals do not have to provide
abortion services under current law, and individual providers at any
health care facility can opt out of providing abortions by invoking a
conscience clause. This is current law.
Let me tell my colleagues what most health care entities do have to
do. They have to give women information about their options. A law
preventing them from doing so is a gag rule, plain and simple. And the
majority of people in this country want their full medical options and
are fiercely opposed to gag rules.
Let me tell my colleagues what current laws that this bill would
override. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed
in 1986 requires that if a pregnant woman who comes to an emergency
room is dying, is dying, due to the complications of the pregnancy,
they have to try to save her life. If an abortion is deemed an
immediate lifesaving measure, then they do have to provide one. This
bill would overturn that.
So if you think it is acceptable for pregnant women to bleed to death
in emergency rooms because some hospitals have a policy of no abortion
even under the circumstances of the life of the mother or rape or
incest, vote for this bill.
Today if a Medicaid patient comes to an emergency room after being
raped and is found to be pregnant as a result of the rape, that
hospital is at least obligated to give her a referral if she asks for
one. This bill would overturn that. This bill would let a hospital say,
I am sorry, you were raped, you want an abortion, but we cannot give
you any information about that.
So if you want victims of rape or incest to be ignorant of their
options, vote for this bill. If you want HMOs to have more power over
what reproductive services they will pay for, vote for this bill. If
you want to tell every city, State, and locality that we know better
than they do how to provide reproductive health for their citizens,
vote for this bill. But if you do not believe in gag rules, if you
believe women deserve access to information, if you believe in States'
rights, if you believe the women of this country have the right to make
their own decisions about their health care, vote against this bill
and, importantly, vote against the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it has been fascinating to listen
to the debate on the other side on this bill. This issue began in 1996
when some of the residency training programs were moving in a direction
to require that to be certified and eligible to obtain one's license
and specialty, such as OB/GYN, one could be forced to receive training
in performing abortions. The Congress has a long-established track
record of supporting the rights of conscience on this very, very
controversial issue. There are many, many Americans, including many
physicians, who feel as I do that abortion is morally wrong, that it is
killing the unborn, and that nobody should be forced to learn how to do
an abortion if they do not want to do it, and, importantly, no health
care entity should be forced to perform abortions.
The original statute that was enacted over the signature of Bill
Clinton was language that was actually put forward in the Senate by
Senators Coates and Snow. I will point out that she is pro-choice, and
she stated at the time that she wanted to protect the rights of
conscience, that people who feel strongly that abortion is killing
should not be forced to have to do it. Now, that statute had some
language in it that I thought was sufficiently broad. It says health
care entities, and I thought a hospital was a health care entity. But
the people on the left who are trying to advance the abortion agenda
have managed to get courts to interpret that hospitals are not health
care entities and that being that they receive Federal dollars and
other State dollars, they could, and in the State of Alaska they have
done this, be interpreted to be required to perform abortions.
If my colleagues do not think the left is trying to advance their
agenda, I have this here in my hand. They have since taken this off
their Web site. This is Maryland NARAL. It says: ``For these reasons
Maryland NARAL is launching the Hospital Provider Project. The goal of
the Hospital Provider Project is to increase access to abortion
services by requiring Maryland hospitals to provide abortion and other
reproductive health care.'' So that is really what this debate is
about. They have found a loophole in the Federal law and they are
trying to drive a truck through it. Eighty-five percent of hospitals in
America today avoid this issue by not providing abortion services and a
pro-abortion crowd of the court wants to drag them into court and
interpret a statute which we thought protected the right of conscience
in such a way that it would force them to have to provide this.
I want to touch on two things that people keep bringing up. Number
one, this is going to interfere with all the Federal dollars. I do not
know what else to say, other than that is a total misinterpretation of
the statute. The interpretation that we have received is that, and
these are decisions that have come out of the administration, that it
will not interfere.
The other thing I want to comment on is this business about
contraception. Contraception is not defined by the FDA as abortion. The
morning-after pill is not defined by the FDA as abortion. It is defined
as contraception. It is something different. So to interpret this
statute to claim that it is going to prohibit access is to take
essentially a religious entity's doctrine and put that into the
statute, and it is just not there. It is not in the language.
So I know people can disagree on interpretations of law. When I look
at this law and the legal scholars that I have had analyze it, they
assert that that is a falsehood.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Members are reminded to refrain
from improper references to the other body, including characterizations
of positions of the Senate or individual Senators.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
[[Page H6572]]
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, as we heard earlier, this is an issue that
deeply divides our country and us individually. I am passionately pro-
life, and I believe it is a shame on America to watch these young kids
get killed. But that is not what this bill is about.
This bill is about whether people who share my view about abortion
have the right to practice their conscience in America and what are we
doing to trample religious rights in America, of people who voluntarily
join a health plan that shares their moral and religious beliefs.
Religious institutions, particularly the Catholic Church in this
country, founded hospitals to care for the poor and to practice the
saving of life. To be able in this country to force them to fund,
provide abortion counseling or other things are anathema to their
religious beliefs and is wrong.
The bill that my former employer, former Senator Coats, passed in the
Senate, intended to address this conscience clause.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman suspend.
The Chair would remind Members to refrain from improper references to
the other body, including characterizations of Senate actions.
Mr. SOUDER. As a former staff member, I think I have some flexibility
for him.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that we
do have rules in the House, and the Chair would ask Members to abide by
the rules.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the question in Alaska overruled what was,
in my opinion, at least, what my former employer intended to say, that
the Alaska Supreme Court struck down the conscience clauses applied to
the hospital, holding that there was no compelling State interest in
the conscience rights of the hospital.
Now, if compelling State interests overrules a Federal law that is
based on religious freedoms based on our Constitution and laws that are
passed, we are in deep trouble.
You can see by the intent that my friend, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Weldon), just referred to of the Maryland national abortion rights
group, their goal is to force those of us who deeply feel that abortion
is murder to be able to not have our own plans for healthcare, to not
fund our own hospital systems, to not have any alternative but to fund
what we view as one of the fundamental evils in the United States.
We can continue to fight abortion in this House and we will continue
to fight about it, but those of us who deeply hold that this is a
fundamental life should not be forced to fund in any way or participate
in plans that require us to lay out dollars that require those of us
who share that faith to practice what we believe is murder.
Furthermore, I was deeply offended by the line that said we are
trying to hide behind the Vatican. The Council of Catholic Bishops,
their pro-life activities have spoken out on this, and there should not
be cheap shots at the Catholic Church or those of us who share many
deeply held religious views based on those views.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the previous speaker who brought up
the Alaska decision, because the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that
the Alaska State Constitution requires that quasi-public hospitals
provide abortion services.
Anti-choice forces use this decision to claim that private religious
hospitals will be forced to perform abortions against their will. In
fact, Valley Hospital is a non-religious institution with deep ties to
the State and local government. It was built on land donated by the
city using $10.7 million in State funds.
Perhaps most importantly, the hospital had been granted a monopoly by
the State to operate in the Ma-Su Valley, effectively insulating it
from competition in a wide geographic area.
Based on the significant ties to the State, the Alaska courts ruled
the hospital was effectively public and that the Alaska State
Constitution therefore prohibited the hospital from banning abortions.
This bill, if passed, would violate those basic principles of
Federalism by abrogating this State court ruling.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in
support of the rule on H.R. 4691. This legislation does not give new
rights, nor does it take away any. Rather, it is just a clarification
of the current law.
As we previously heard from other speakers, in 1996, Congress
overwhelmingly, and I repeat, overwhelmingly, approved the existing
nondiscrimination statute that protects healthcare entities from being
forced by the government to perform abortions. Only because of judicial
misinterpretation are we here today to clarify that healthcare entities
include all healthcare organizations, including hospitals.
I would like to note what is at stake here, and that is the freedom
to abstain from performing an act that one considers to be morally and
ethically wrong.
{time} 1200
Catholic hospitals, which are particular targets, have had a long
history of locating themselves in impoverished areas where not many
others are willing to go. They do this as part of their ministry and
yet, there is a movement to shut down these hospitals because they
refuse to perform abortions. This is not only ridiculous, but it is
callous to all of the people who will suffer without the services that
these hospitals provide.
Mr. Speaker, we must stop infringing upon the rights of hospitals,
hospital workers, and the patients that they serve. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and to vote ``yes'' on the final
passage of H.R. 4691.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Anybody who votes for this rule because they think that they are
preserving religious exemptions is exactly wrong. Religious exemptions
are already in law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, to their everlasting credit, 86
percent of hospitals in America do not do abortions. Why? Because they
are all about saving life, nurturing, and healing. Pregnancy is not a
disease; the unborn child is not a wart or tumor to be killed. Chemical
poisoning, literal dismemberment, abortions, are violence against
children.
This is all about protecting the right of conscience. NARAL let the
cat out of the bag on one their web sites. They said, Maryland NARAL is
launching this hospital provider project to increase access to abortion
services by requiring Maryland hospitals to provide abortion. They want
to compel hospitals of conscience to do abortions--it's that simple.
Not all of the hospitals are religious. There are people who are not
religious who have deep, moral convictions, and they believe that
abortion takes the life of a baby. We ought to be nurturing. We should
not compel our places of healing to become killing fields.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The time of the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
In one of those 85 percent of the hospitals that perform no
abortions, if a woman should walk in bleeding, dying from a botched
abortion, what would they do?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield,
they would do everything to help that woman survive and, in the process
of trying to heal her and to attend to her botched abortion, they would
probably remove the baby who is probably already dead.
We are talking about doing everything to save both lives. That is
what the hospitals and the emergency rooms
[[Page H6573]]
throughout this country are about. That is not what this issue is all
about.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another minute, and then
the gentleman may respond if he would like to.
Before Roe v. Wade was passed, women had no option in the world
except to go to a back alley, turning themselves over to unspeakable
people with filthy hands and dirty equipment, and oftentimes they had
to go to doctors and hospitals to try to be saved. Does the gentleman
from New Jersey know that many of those hospitals were afraid to take
them? Is the gentleman aware that women died? Is the gentleman not
aware that if this bill were to pass, that hospitals might again be
afraid in a circumstance like that to save a woman, lest they violate
this legislation?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this just says to opt out of
the killing of unborn babies.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to
address their remarks to the Chair and to properly yield time back and
forth, not to enter into a conversation.
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) controls the time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. The Speaker is perfectly right, Mr. Speaker, and I
apologize. I simply want to make the case that if 85 percent of the
hospitals refuse to give reproductive services in the United States,
women will die.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, since Roe v. Wade, there have
been in excess of 42 million unborn children killed by the
abortionists, through chemical poisoning, through dismemberment, and
most of those are for socioeconomic reasons: Abortion on demand. The
baby was unwanted therefore he or she was expendible.
What the abortion lobby is attempting to do is to expand the number
of places where those children can be destroyed.
Our hope is that Members will vote for this rule. There will be a
motion to recommit, there will be an up-or-down vote on a motion that
is from the pro-abortion side. I would hope that Members would vote
``no'' on that motion to recommit and then vote ``yes'' on the
Bilirakis bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on certainly a matter of public policy and
a matter of law, but I rise more passionately in support of this rule
on a matter of conscience. I am a pro-life Member of this institution
and I do not apologize for that. But today's debate I would offer
humbly is not really about the debate over life and choice in America;
today's debate is actually about the freedom to choose, which is a
central tenet of the American experience.
In the same way that no one should be forced to honor a creed that
they do not protest or honor a faith that they do not hold, no one and
no institution, Mr. Speaker, should be forced to perform abortions
against their will, their charter, their faith, their conscience. They
should be able to choose, Mr. Speaker.
Now, we are debating here whether or not this institution will take
measures to enforce the express will of this institution. Legislation
that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 made the law which we seek
to defend today the law of the land, Mr. Speaker, but through judicial
activism from the bench in Alaska and elsewhere in America, our courts
are abrogating the will of the American people as expressed in the laws
passed in this institution. We rise today simply to clarify current
law.
I say with great respect to my passionate colleagues on the other
side of this issue, Mr. Speaker, that there is no hidden agenda here.
This is not about denying funding to hospitals, or prescription drugs,
or that women will die. The agenda here is very, very public. It is
whether or not in America today, in America's health care institutions,
there is the freedom to choose; whether there is a freedom of
conscience, a freedom of religion, or whether the modern orthodoxy of
abortion will be enforced on hospitals as the law of the land.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, sponsors of the bill do claim that this is just a simple
clarification of existing law, but that is absolutely not the case.
This is an enormous change in Federal law and would represent an
unprecedented intrusion by Congress onto State and local rights. We
need to think about that.
Mr. Speaker, all of us believe in life. Some of us simply believe
that women should have the right to choose to live as well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the other side says this is about choice and,
yet, when health care professionals, hospitals across the United States
make a choice not to perform abortions, like 86 percent of them do
today, abortion proponents have teamed up to force them to perform
abortions anyway, regardless of religious objections, regardless of
moral objections, regardless of conscientious objections. We have a
conscience clause law passed in 1996 that talks about health care
entities, but because of court opinions like the one by the Supreme
Court in Alaska, we have to clarify that these entities do include
hospitals.
Now, look at what the other side has said. They want to increase
access to abortion services by requiring hospitals; it does not say
suggest, it does not say urge, it does not say pressure, it says
require every hospital in the State of Maryland to perform abortions.
That means every Catholic hospital, every Lutheran hospital, every
government hospital. That is what they want.
In New Jersey, the pro-abortion lobby sued Our Lady of Lourdes Health
Care Services, that is a Catholic agency, and tried to force them to
provide abortion. We have heard about Alaska where the pro-abortion
lobby went after the Valley Hospital, from whom we heard testimony on
the committee, who did not want to provide abortions in the small town
of Palmer, and they actually succeeded in the court case that went up
to the Supreme Court that ruled that they had to perform abortions.
What happened to the right to choose? What happened to the right of
conscience? I guess the right of choice only applies if you agree with
the pro-abortion lobby's agenda.
Mr. Speaker, no one should be forced to have an abortion; no one
should be forced to perform an abortion.
The other side is talking here on the floor about a vast right-wing
conspiracy. Well, if there is a conspiracy in America, maybe it is the
vast left-wing conspiracy to shove abortion down everyone's throat.
Support the rule, support the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to say to the gentleman who just spoke that hospitals have
been protected since the 1970s, and there is no question about that,
and that we are very keen on our side on life and health.
I want to remind everybody of a little bit of history. I am sure all
of my colleagues remember the great bill on community health centers
which we have not been able to reauthorize for a year. At the end of
last year it came up for reauthorization on the suspension calendar
and, at the last minute, they attempted to add this piece of
legislation to it, but there was such an outcry that they were forced
to pull it off. So this year we are going back the other way around.
This bill has to be dealt with before all of the community health
centers in the United States can get their due from the Congress. That,
sir, is a tragedy.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page H6574]]
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 194, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No 410]
YEAS--229
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Callahan
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
McKinney
Mink
Roukema
Stump
Thurman
Towns
{time} 1237
Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Ms. HARMAN, Mrs. BIGGERT and Mr. LANGEVIN changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 546, I call
up the bill (H.R. 4691) to prohibit certain abortion-related
discrimination in governmental activities, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 4691 is as follows:
H.R. 4691
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Abortion Non-Discrimination
Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. ABORTION NON-DISCRIMINATION.
Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
238n) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``regarding
training and licensing of physicians'' and inserting
``regarding training, licensing, and practice of physicians
and other health care entities'';
(2) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``to perform such
abortions'' and inserting ``to perform, provide coverage of,
or pay for induced abortions''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(2)--
(A) by inserting ``or other health professional,'' after
``an individual physician'';
(B) by striking ``and a participant'' and inserting ``a
participant''; and
(C) by inserting before the period the following: ``, a
hospital, a provider sponsored organization, a health
maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any
other kind of health care facility, organization or plan''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House
Resolution 546, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this important legislation is before
us today. We introduced H.R. 4691, the Abortion Nondiscrimination Act,
to provide clarity, and I want to emphasize that, to provide clarity to
an existing law, I emphasize that, to an existing law, that protects
health care entities from being forced to perform abortions against
their consciences. The bottom line purpose of this bill is that.
In 1996, the Congress passed and former President Clinton signed the
current statute into law which is known as conscience protection. This
law was intended to ensure that no health care entity would be
discriminated against on the basis that they did not perform abortions.
However, court interpretations have called into question whether these
sections of law apply to hospitals that object to offering abortions.
That is why we must act quickly to clarify existing law to ensure that
these protections are afforded to all types of health care entities.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify two points in debate on this
bill. Some have charged that this legislation is a massive expansion of
current protections; and, Mr. Speaker, that is just false. The original
law was intended, whatever happened to legislative intent for crying
out loud, the original law was intended to apply to the broadest
definition of health care entities. Transcripts from the debates in
1996 and in extensions of remarks in 1998
[[Page H6575]]
show that the original authors of the conscience protection intended a
broad definition, a broad definition of health care entity. The other
contention is that somehow this bill would allow facilities to not
provide life saving care. Again, this is false. In fact, in all cases,
facilities are regulated, as we know, by laws that require the
provision of life saving care and all hospitals are prepared to provide
appropriate life saving care.
What this bill does do is protect facilities from being mandated to
offer abortions. We must ask ourselves if we want to force people to
provide elective procedures that are fundamentally in opposition to
their consciences. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) said it very
well during the debate on the rule. ``I would add that neither the
American Medical Association, nor the American Hospital Association
believe that anyone, anyone, should be forced to provide elective care
against their conscience,'' and again I emphasize elective care,
against their conscience.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a very simple technical correction.
It is not a massive expansion or a policy to limit access to health
care for women. On the contrary, this bill ensures that all facilities
will continue to be free to provide the types of services that they
find appropriate, and it will not force facilities to close because of
fundamental objections to elective medical procedures.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and I urge all of my colleagues to
support H.R. 4691.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are spending a few hours today debating the abortion
non-discrimination bill. Despite this bill's troubling implications for
women and despite the strong concerns many of my colleagues and I have
about the bill, Republican leadership bypassed the committee and
brought it straight to the floor.
While we debate this bill today, a number of issues continue to
languish. When my colleagues and I have asked Republican leadership to
hold a hearing on legislation that promotes greater competition in the
prescription drug marketplace and brings down the cost of prescription
drugs, they did nothing. When we asked them to bring the competition
bill to the floor, they did nothing.
The Senate has passed similar legislation. If we were to debate it on
the floor today, we would pass it, and we would be one step closer to
bringing down the cost of prescription drugs. Yet, this Republican
leadership is going to send us home before our work is done without
passing a bill to cover prescription drugs, without passing a bill to
try to get the price of prescription drugs down.
Now, today's House Republicans are proposing legislation that
curtails health care information and curtails services available to
women, again, before they bring something as important as prescription
drug pricing to the floor. The public has every right to question the
priorities of Republican leadership. While the partisan proponents of
this bill, H.R. 4691, while the partisan proponents of this bill say it
is a simple clarification of existing law, experts agree it is a broad,
sweeping change to existing law.
{time} 1245
Federal law now allows doctors and hospitals to refuse to perform
abortion services because of their religious beliefs. That is Federal
law. That is the way it should be. That is what we all agree on.
This bill, however, allows insurance plans and HMOs, not religious
organizations, insurance plans and HMOs to refuse to provide or to make
a referral for abortion services regardless of religious background,
regardless of a woman's medical needs. Under this bill, insurance
companies could deny coverage of family planning services just because
the time spent with the patient doing nondirective counseling just
might eat away at the HMO's bottom line.
Under this bill, Medicaid patients would no longer be guaranteed
access to abortion counseling, to abortion counseling in cases of rape
and incest, or where the pregnancy endangers the woman's life. Under
this bill, State law expanding health insurance requirements to include
coverage of nondirective family planning counseling would become
irrelevant.
The current conscience clause allows doctors and hospitals to refuse
to provide services they are opposed to for religious reasons. That is
the way it should be. This bill, however, gags doctors, gags hospitals,
regardless of their religious belief. It denies women access to
medically necessary services, again regardless of religious beliefs.
Existing law protects a woman's right to medically accurate
information. It protects a State's right to govern by its constitution
and its laws, and my friends on the other side of the aisle always talk
about States rights, unless they do not like the State law. It protects
the medical institution's right to refuse to provide services they are
religiously opposed to.
Mr. Speaker, we should have passed the prescription drug bill. We are
obviously not doing that today. We should be promoting women's health.
We are sure not doing that today. What we are doing is compromising
women's health.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this expansive, broad-ranging
infringement on women's rights and infringement on women's health. It
is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman easily forgets that we passed a prescription drug bill
last June, and it is the other body which has sat on it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts), a member of the committee.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in America we believe in rights. We believe
in the right of free speech. We believe in the right to choose our
religion, right to peaceably assemble, other rights that are enshrined
in our Declaration of Independence and every American's right to act
according to the dictates of his conscience.
Historically, this right to conscience has applied to individuals and
to private organizations as well. In 1996, Congress enacted a law to
protect the right of a health care entity to decline to participate in
abortion and if they had a conscience against killing unborn children,
to decline to participate in this. However, some have read the 1996 law
very narrowly to say that it protects only residents and residency
programs and only in a training context, and we have had court
decisions saying that this health care entity language does not include
the full range of participants in providing health care, such as
hospitals and health plans and professionals of the facilities.
So this bill, ANDA, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, would
clarify existing law, strengthen existing law by providing that health
care entities should not be forced by the government to pay for
abortions or be penalized or discriminated against by government
agencies for choosing not to provide or to perform abortions which 86
percent of our hospitals presently choose. It is needed to respond to
this national effort that was referred to earlier on the floor by
certain groups to force all health care providers to participate in
abortions; and we have cited examples in New Jersey, in Alaska, others
in Connecticut, in New Hampshire, various places.
So the opponents raise issues like gag rule. Protection from being
forced to do abortion referral is part of the 1996 law now. This bill
does not create it. Exemption from informed consent or counseling
requirements is not found in the 1996 law or in this bill. There is no
gag rule here. The bill's protections apply to those who do not want to
perform or to make arrangements for or to subsidize abortions against
their will.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a radical law. This is reasonable. Pro-
choicers and pro-lifers have sponsored this bill that we have before us
today. We should not force Catholic hospitals to refer for abortion or
provide for abortion or other hospitals who have a conscience against
it. I urge support of the bill.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would add that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) mentioned
this House passed a drug bill in June, one written by the drug
companies and advertised by the drug companies and does not serve
consumers.
[[Page H6576]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), who had an amendment he wanted to offer to this bill that the
partisan majority would not allow him to offer yesterday in the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is an enormous change in
current policy about reproductive health, about patients' rights and
about federalism. It is not a simple clarification as some have termed
it. That may well be the reason we have this process of getting to the
floor without markups in committee or subcommittee, without any chance
on the floor to offer an amendment.
Let me explain why I say this is a very, very radical bill.
Under current law, beginning since the time of Roe v. Wade, there
have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses and hospitals to
refuse to perform abortion services because of their religious beliefs,
and they still can get Federal funds for other services. Catholic
doctors do not have to perform abortions. Catholic hospitals do not
have to support abortion clinics. This permission for people to refuse
because of their religious or moral objection is established already in
the law and it is working smoothly, but this bill goes far beyond that.
This bill first and most obvious is not a bill about religion or
conscience. While current law says that doctors and hospitals can
exercise their religious or moral objections, this bill is not defined
in that way. This bill would allow insurance companies and HMOs to
ignore laws about patients' information and gag rules because they want
to cut costs, because they want to reduce benefits or for no reason at
all. Any HMO could gag its doctor, not because HMOs have a conscience,
but because they would rather cut time with the patient from 9 minutes
to 8. Any public hospital could decide that it would be easier if they
did not have a protester out front. Further, this bill would allow the
gag rule to govern for title X family planning grantees and this would
reverse long-standing policy of providing nondirective information on
all options.
Secondly, this bill is not just about doctors or even hospitals
refusing to provide services. Those people are given permission to
refuse under current law. This bill lets hospitals, insurance plans,
HMOs and other corporate entities to gag their doctors and nurses from
giving medically appropriate information to their patients. In other
words, it would allow them to engage in what is medical malpractice,
not giving the information their patients are entitled to receive.
We have tried to get a Patients' Bill of Rights enacted. We have had
differences on the ability to sue to enforce those rights, but this
bill instead provides a legal protection for a gag. It takes away
patients' rights. This is a patients' bill of nonrights and having
totally failed to enact the bill to protect patients' rights from the
abuse of managed care, the majority is now moving to undo the efforts
to those States who have enacted their own patient protection law.
That is the last point I want to make. It overrides State laws. It
overrides the constitution in the State of Alaska where it says that a
public hospital who is the only provider of services in the entire
region must be available for legal abortion services. We should not
overturn lightly the constitution of the State of Alaska. We are not
here to regulate health insurance at the Federal level. That is what
most of my Republican colleagues would object to, and yet they allow
this to happen.
This is not a bill about religion. It is not about equal protection.
It is the exact opposite, of guaranteeing constitutional rights to safe
and legal abortions, family planning and medical privacy; and there is
no Federal legitimate purpose here.
I would urge Members to oppose this bill and support the motion to
recommit which will make this do what the authors say they want to do.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, H.R. 4691. The bill before us is, in
fact, a much-needed clarification of current law that was meant to
provide full conscience protection to health entities, health providers
who because of any moral convictions choose not to have anything to do
with abortion; but unfortunately today, we will hear a lot of overblown
rhetoric from the other side that the sky is falling, that this simple
bill is something much more, when it is not, and arguments from people
interestingly who say they are pro-choice, yet apparently when a
hospital or a clinic or a provider, a doctor makes a choice, the right
choice in my opinion, and chooses life, the other side is up in arms.
We have statements and they are documented from proabortion groups
that they are actively engaged in a project to force all hospitals,
often against their will or moral convictions, to provide abortions;
and we know that the ACLU files lawsuits to force providers to perform
abortions in States across the country, and sadly, sometimes activist
courts find in their favor.
This really exposes the choice side for what they really believe in,
which is not choice at all; and it flies in the face of all of their
superficial choice rhetoric. It exposes the real proabortion agenda.
Furthermore, it makes this commonsense legislation a necessary response
from Congress whose intent in the original legislation was clearly to
provide full conscience protection, and that intent clearly has been
maligned in significant cases.
I want to thank and commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin), the Committee on Energy and Commerce chairman, as well as the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the subcommittee chairman, for
their tremendous efforts in guiding this valuable legislation to the
floor, and I urge adoption.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the committee.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as an elected representative but
also as a public health nurse and as the former director of the Santa
Barbara School District Teenage Parenting and Pregnancy Project.
I have firsthand experience with the struggles of many young women
around the difficult subject of sex. I have dealt with teenagers trying
to cope with the ramifications of bad decisions, and I have seen the
terrible results when we turn our back and deny them help.
I am deeply troubled by this bill. I consider myself a religious
person, and I hold in high respect the deep-seated values and feelings
of Americans on the subject of productive health, but no one should
have the authority to force his or her personal views upon others.
The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act does just that by overruling a
State's rights to enforce laws and to design its own Medicaid program.
This legislation is harmful to women. It would allow health care
entities to refuse to comply with Federal, State and local laws
pertaining to abortion services and referrals.
Under this measure, recipients of title X funds could defy current
requirements that enable a woman to receive information upon request
about all legal reproductive options.
{time} 1300
Not only does this legislation deny women access to vital medical
care, it is also unnecessary. Current law already protects the rights
of individuals with religious or conscientious objection who may opt
out of providing abortion-related services if they so choose; but
institutions do not have the same rights as individuals, nor should
they. Health care facilities exist to provide services. It should be
rare when such a facility denies access to care to anyone. And all a
health facility is required to do is to give a woman a referral upon
request and to provide an abortion only if they choose in cases of rape
or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that existing law gives sufficient deference
to moral objections. Enacting broader conscience or refusal clauses for
health entities only leaves women without medical services that they
have a constitutional right to.
For decades women have fought to gain access to the reproductive
health
[[Page H6577]]
services that they need. Last year alone, title X services enabled
women to avoid 1 million unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which
would have ended in abortion.
This bill would reverse these proven success rates. In fact, this
bill is so confusing, it does not even define what an abortion is. And
so I respectfully ask the honorable gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Bilirakis) to explain. Is emergency contraception an abortion? How
about oral contraceptives? How about condoms or even advice on where to
get this information?
Before we vote, I respectfully ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Bilirakis) to define what constitutes an abortion.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such additional time as I
might require.
I guess I have to continue to respond to statements made by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my good friend and the ranking member
of my subcommittee, when he talks about prescription drugs. The bill
was not written by the drug companies. If the drug companies had
anything to do with the bill, I certainly did not know about it; and I
played a large part in that.
I am talking about a prescription drug bill for seniors now. The bill
as it was written was not perfect, but it consisted of $50 billion more
than the minority had placed in their budget and intended to write a
bill in the previous Congress. So it is more expensive than the bill
that they came up with previously. The bill would help the poor to a
very large extent. It would help the very sick to a tremendous extent,
and it would help an awful lot of people in between; and it is
unfortunate that politics is being played with a piece of legislation
which is far from perfect, which is not something that we all would
like to see ultimately take place but something that would help people
at this point in time.
I would go on, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to read from additional
views of Senators Coats, Gregg, Frist, DeWine, McConnell, and
Hutchinson in 1998 during the debate.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, is that permissible for me to read?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Does the gentleman state a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I guess I am. I noticed the Parliamentarian stood up.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inquire is it related to
proceedings regarding the legislative history on the bill the House is
considering?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. It is definitely related to it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. In any case, this took place during the Health
Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998, and the additional
views said Congress explained that the term ``health care entity''
includes an individual physician, a post-graduate physician training
program, and a participant in a program of training in the health
professions, 42 U.S.C. 238n(c)(2)(1996).
They went on to say, and I read verbatim, and this is significant,
Mr. Speaker, because of claims made by the other side that this is an
expansion of what was intended at that point in time: ``We believe that
the term `health care entity' in 42 U.S.C. 238n was intended to be read
in the straightforward manner of `including' not only the specific
entities mentioned but also those which are routinely seen as health
care entities in common usage and other Federal laws, such as a
hospital, provider sponsored entity, health maintenance organization,
health plan, or any other type of health . . . entities generally seen
as `health care entities' under Federal law. We intend to explore other
means of definitively resolving this question of legislative intent.''
And that was signed by the Senators that I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), my friend, said that the
drug companies did not write the drug bill that this House in a
partisan vote passed. I guess we are all mistaken, but I would like to
recount for a moment how this drug legislation passed this House of
Representatives.
Back in June we worked on a markup on a bill that the drug companies
were totally in support of. There was a fundraiser that had been
scheduled for one evening. We stopped the markup so that Republicans
could troop off to the fundraiser with the President and the Vice
President which raised $30 million, $3 million of it from drug
companies. The sponsor of the fundraiser, the chairman of it, was the
CEO of a British drug company, GlaxoSmithKline, which gave $300,000 to
the Republican campaign coffers.
The next day we came back, passed a bill, defeated every amendment on
a partisan vote that was a proconsumer, prosenior amendment. The bill
then passed in a partisan vote. It passed the House in a partisan vote.
And then in the most cynical move I have seen in 10 years in
Congress, the drug companies spent literally millions of dollars
advertising on television, thanking the Republicans for passing their
drug bill. The only thing was, Mr. Speaker, they did not say ``paid for
by'' Pfizer or Merck or Eli Lilly or Pharmacia or Glaxo. They said paid
for by United Seniors Association or paid for by 60 Plus. So the drug
companies spent millions of dollars thanking the Republicans, but they
used a front group to make it look like it was a senior organization or
actually two senior organizations thanking the Republicans.
If the public only knew that all those ads were paid for by the drug
industry, then Republican Members of Congress would not be getting
calls thanking them for voting for it. They would be getting calls
saying go back to Washington and pass a drug bill that actually helps
seniors, that actually helps consumers, that does not help the drug
industry continue to be the most profitable industry in America,
continue to be in a situation where they pay the lowest tax rate of any
industry in America. And I think people in this country have had enough
and we are going to find a little more about that come November.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time
and for his leadership on this issue and so many issues important to
the health of all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong opposition to this
politically motivated anti-woman bill. How could we as representatives
of the people lawfully permit health care providers to really ignore
the Constitution and the Supreme Court?
Let us be clear. H.R. 4691 radically alters current law and could gag
health care providers from giving women, who may face an unintended
pregnancy, including rape and incest, all of her legal medical options.
This is really a domestic version of the global gag rule which really
should be repealed. This bill would muzzle health care providers who
participate in the title X program by eliminating providers' options
which enable women to receive information upon request, just upon
request, about all of their available medical options.
In the absence of a referral requirement, health care providers may
be able to effectively gag health care practitioners from giving such
referrals to women who request them. This bill is really outrageous. It
is simply another in the long parade of bad bills the majority
continues to schedule in order to promote their political ideology and
their political message while avoiding and refusing to schedule the
real work of the House.
Mr. Speaker, where is the Labor-HHS appropriations bill? Why are we
not working on that today instead of considering legislation that
amounts to nothing more than a dangerous assault on women's
reproductive rights? We should be funding the important health programs
in the Labor-HHS bill. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the motion to
recommit and ``no'' on this very bad bill.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I request from the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Bilirakis) a definition of the term ``abortion.'' As we
prepare to vote on this very important legislation, could the gentleman
help us
[[Page H6578]]
frame what we are voting about? Are we voting about a surgical
procedure? Are we voting about emergency contraception? Does an
abortion constitute oral contraception or condoms?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentlewoman, this is
not about abortion. This is about freedom. This is what has been said
before, and said over again. That is why I read the statement I just
read, basically giving people the moral rights to make their decisions.
That is what it is all about.
I am not going to give the gentlewoman a definition for abortion or
anything of that nature. It is not pertinent to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague on the other side said
existing laws protects only religiously affiliated health care
providers from forced involvement in abortion and that this bill
expands that. That is absolutely false. H.R. 4691 does not expand the
law at all on this point. Existing law protects secular as well as
religious providers.
H.R. 4691 clarifies the definition of health care entity in this law
so it clearly covers nurses as well as physicians, hospitals, as well
as training programs in hospitals. This charge of expanding the law
beyond religious to secular entities I think is a red herring.
About title X, compromising the ability of title X clients to obtain
information critical to their health, I think that is false. Nothing in
H.R. 4691 limits Federal or State agency's abilities to require the
provision of accurate information about abortion or abortion providers.
Under H.R. 4691, government may not penalize a private health care
entity for declining to provide or make arrangements for abortions.
States should not be able to force people or hospitals to be involved
in an abortion, especially when they try to base the right to coerce on
the fact that medical institutions receive Federal funding.
Conscience protection is a civil right. The Federal Government has
the right and the duty to protect conscience by making sure that any
entity that receives Federal funding does not discriminate against any
person or organization just because they do not want to be involved in
an abortion. I might say that 46 States in our country presently have
conscience protection laws.
I might quote from the American Medical Association. They say:
``Neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required
to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles.''
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The other side of the aisle has repeatedly quoted the American
Medical Association. Members need to understand they have taken no
position on this bill. They are not in support of it. They have not
taken a position either way.
However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have
asked for a ``no'' vote on this bill because they really understand
this issue better than anyone. They know this bill is not a minor
change in Federal law, but a broad-reaching change that denies
information and access to women, even women whose health is in jeopardy
or women who have been raped or are victims of incest.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in the prior exchange, the failure of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) to indicate what an abortion is
was an important concession because in effect it says an abortion is
anything that a provider says it is. It makes this legislation
completely untenable.
What we are witnessing is the umpteenth attempt of the Republicans to
invade Roe v. Wade. I have to give the majority credit, though; the
majority is determined to deny a woman the right to control her own
body by any means necessary. That is why they keep coming to the floor
with these provisions.
{time} 1315
Yes, this bill is about discrimination, discrimination against women
and discrimination against the States. They wrap themselves in a
conscience clause cloak. We could never have gotten this far if we did
not have ironclad conscience clause protection in our law.
I have got two great Catholic universities in my district, Georgetown
University, with which I am personally associated as a tenured law
professor, and Catholic University. Georgetown University Provident
Hospital does not have the slightest doubt that they and their health
care services already are strenuously covered by the existing
conscience clause.
This is not a conscience clause. This is a cop-out clause. What it
does essentially is to open the floodgates. The first to take advantage
of this clause are going to be the health care plans and the HMOs.
These are the guys who are already saying to physicians, we're timing
you on how much time you can spend with patients urgently in need of
health care. Do you think they are going to continue to give informed
consent by providing the kind of counseling that Federal law provides?
They know a loophole when they see one.
We have already closed every Federal door to a woman's right to
choose with a Hyde amendment and with a plethora of other provisions.
Now we have gone to the next level. We are invading States rights and
the rights of the States to provide health care by changing Federal law
to invade State territory. Ever since Roe, we have said not with
Federal dollars. Now we are telling the States what to do with their
dollars and what to do with their laws.
Let the States' rights Republicans take a page out of their own
prayer book. Stand down. Let the States run their own State health care
systems.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to read from the American Medical Association Code of Ethics, H-5.995,
on abortion. It goes on to say, ``Neither physician, hospital, nor
hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of
personally held moral principles. In these circumstances, good medical
practice requires only that the physician or other professional
withdraw from the case, so long as the withdrawal is consistent with
good medical practice.''
That is the gist of this piece of legislation, intending to clarify
what was intended back in 1996. I have not looked up who voted for that
bill or who voted against it, but the fact of the matter is that is the
bottom line of what we are trying to accomplish today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding time. I
want to compliment him on his leadership as well as his courage in
offering this bill today.
Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia talked about this being the umpteenth time that we have dealt
with the abortion issue. Frankly, I am very proud of the fact that
prolifers have refused to roll over, those of us who have a moral and a
conscientious objection to the killing of unborn children and the
injuring of their mothers, do whatever we can, whenever we can to
preserve at least some of the lives who otherwise would be destroyed by
the violence of abortion.
Let us not forget what we are talking about. Abortion either
dismembers unborn children or it chemically poisons unborn children and
it does it in a horrific way. It is a painful, violent death imposed
upon children and it also is injurious to mothers, especially in a
psychological way and in long-lasting physical ways. What we are
dealing with today, Mr. Speaker, is conscience protection for hospitals
and those institutions that protect and preserve and nurture life so
that they will not be coerced into performing abortions or referring
for abortions.
I would remind my colleagues that Olympia Snowe, who is not a pro-
lifer, said when this was up in 1996 that an institution or an
individual who does not want to perform an abortion should not be
compelled to do so in a way that is contrary to their beliefs.
Unfortunately, while the intent of the legislation signed by the
President in 1996 was clear, the language apparently was not, or at
least in the eyes of some, and
[[Page H6579]]
some courts and some attorneys general have been trying to compel
health organizations, hospitals, to be involved in abortions.
Some courts and pro-abortion groups are so extreme that they want to
force hospitals to do abortions against their will. The whole board of
directors, the hospital staff could say we will not participate in this
anti-life child battering enterprise but they could be compelled by a
State or by some court to do so absent the enactment of this
legislation.
In my own home State of New Jersey, Elizabeth General Medical Center
agreed to consolidate with St. Elizabeth's Hospital and no longer
perform abortions. Subsequently a New Jersey Superior Court judge
reviewing the consolidation issued an outrageous judgment that brought
the pro-abortion organizations into the equation and approved a
settlement to place $2 million in a trust for the performance of
abortions and abortion referrals. In other words, they got money from
the pro-lifers to enable the killing of unborn children.
This debate is all about human rights, I say to my friends, about
child violence. We can mask it, we can sanitize it and we do. We do it
quite well. We are Members of Congress. We are politicians. But the
fact of the matter is that killing unborn children is violence against
children, and dismemberment and chemical poisoning in no way can be
construed to be a benign act. It kills babies. Look at the ultrasounds
and the great progress that has been made in refining ultrasounds.
Today you can see a baby in great detail before birth. The abortionist
looks at that same reality--that same baby and kills that baby. I think
it is to their credit that 86 percent of all the hospitals in America
are all about lifesaving and nurturing and healing--they refuse to do
abortions. They are not about killing babies. They are not about
putting poisons into their amniotic sacs in order to procure a baby's
death. They are not about dismembering the arms and the legs and the
torso and the head--decapitation is commonplace in the abortion mills
all over America, with 42 to 43 million dead babies and counting a
horrific loss of life.
Now we see the abortion lobby, and NARAL makes it very clear, they
have a plan when there are consolidations to make sure that these
hospitals who are now pro-life, whether they are religiously affiliated
or not, to provide abortions. NARAL says it very clearly on one of
their websites and we know that this is part of an aggresive strategy,
to expand abortions where they are absolutely not wanted. Babies are
precious. Their mothers are precious. Let us promote lifesaving,
nonviolent alternatives to abortion, not the enabling and the killing
of babies.
Someday every Member who has been voting for abortion will rue the
day. They will wake up in the middle of the night and say, how could I?
Just like looking back in antiquity we look back and say how could
people like Washington and Jefferson and others have had slaves? There
was a blind spot then. There is a blind spot today. Abortion is
violence against children. Brown enables it and expands it. Vote for
the Bilirakis bill and against the Brown motion to recommit.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Of course we are not telling hospitals and doctors to provide
abortions. We have already settled that issue. No doctor, no hospital
should be forced to do that. We are just saying that a woman who has
been raped or a woman who has been a victim of incest, whose life
because of the pregnancy might be in danger, who comes to a hospital,
comes to any hospital, should be given access to information, should be
referred, should be told where she might be able to get counseling or
might be able to get help. That is all that we are saying, that we know
this legislation takes that right away.
Again, think about that. Imagine, a woman who has been raped, a woman
who has been a victim of incest, who is pregnant, whose life may be in
danger from that pregnancy gets turned away from a hospital under this
legislation, gets turned away from a hospital, nobody will talk to her
because this rigid, far-right agenda of the Republican Party says we
are against abortion and we make no exceptions for rape, we make no
exceptions for incest, we make no exceptions for the health of the
mother.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Millender-McDonald).
(Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio
in his efforts to try to bring some sanity to this bill.
I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), it
seems to me that it is a moral obligation to ensure that information
regarding the reproductive rights of women be given to her. And is it
not true that institutions cannot restrict providers from offering
medically appropriate information and services? Can you answer that for
me?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. The only answer I will give the gentlewoman is that
this is not intended to be an expansion on what is already law. We are
trying to clarify as a result of court action that has taken place
regarding the legislation that now exists.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. So this bill then has an opt-out of
performing any abortion services, including counseling or referral?
Does this bill do that? It opts out performing any abortion services,
counseling or referral?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. It is not intended to do that, nor does the bill say
that.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All Members will suspend.
The Chair would remind all Members to direct their remarks to the
Chair and if they seek to yield time, to formally yield time to other
Members and then that time can be yielded back.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I thank the Speaker very much for that.
I again just cannot believe that we are here today to speak about yet
another assault on women's fundamental rights to be informed regarding
all of her reproductive rights. Just over 2 months ago, we were here
again advocating against the passage of legislation banning another
aspect of a woman's reproductive choice. Today we stand again to defend
a woman's basic rights to be informed of her options with regards to
her reproductive health when she is most vulnerable. As we have
mentioned and stated, it is not our mission to dictate the most
personal choice any woman can ever make regarding her health. We are
here to pass fair, effective legislation that will guarantee all women
the opportunity to make the best possible decisions about her health.
Besides, infringing on a woman's right to decide what is best for her
health as in the case of H.R. 4691 will undermine States' rights to
enforce their own constitutional protections. This sets a dangerous
precedent, Mr. Speaker, if we begin to violate the principles of
Federal law by essentially overruling State constitutions. We should
not attempt to block Federal title X guidelines that allow women full
access to information with regard to their reproductive health choices.
If this piece of legislation passes, H.R. 4691, we would prevent the
Federal Government from enforcing its own requirement with reference to
title X-funded clinics that refer patients to abortion providers upon
request. Further, passage of H.R. 4691 would prevent States from
following the Hyde amendment which mandates that Medicaid patients be
informed about legal abortion services in the event of rape, incest or
a pregnancy that threatens a woman's life.
I say, let us defeat this bill that does not give women their
reproductive choices.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I want to rise in strong support of this bill
and reiterate some of the points that I made in my comments in the
debate on the rule. This bill has been characterized by its opponents
as an assault on their side of the issue, the pro-abortion or pro-
choice side. I would argue very, very strongly that that is very much
not the case. The law as I interpret it is very, very clear. It seeks
to clarify the conscience clause that was enacted by this body
[[Page H6580]]
and signed into law by the President of the United States, William
Jefferson Clinton, in 1996. This dispute arose over a disagreement
surrounding a requirement that physicians in training, residents, be
forced to learn how to do abortions to get their accreditation and get
their license to practice obstetrics and gynecology when in fact they
were personally opposed to doing abortions. For most Members of the
House, that was a no-brainer. If you are pro-life, why should we the
government have laws and regulations that would force a physician in
training to have to learn to do a procedure that they find morally and
ethically repugnant?
Under the provisions of the law, and I have a copy of the law right
here, we encompassed it to include health care entities. I interpreted
that at the time, I was here, I voted for it, that it would also
include some obvious health care entities like hospitals and HMOs.
{time} 1330
But under the aggressive attempt on the part of the pro-choice
community to expand the availability of abortion procedures in America,
they have used the courts, which has always been their traditional tool
to advance their agenda, to expand or redefine the law such that a
hospital or an HMO is not a health care entity.
What we seek to do in this statute is to just clarify that act. To
define us as engaging in this great assault on Row v. Wade, when really
what we are trying to do is protect freedom of conscience or freedom of
choice, to me, is just not an accurate interpretation of it.
As far as some of these claims and assertions that we will prevent
people from being counseled, if you look at the language, it is very,
very clear. If any health care entity voluntarily elects not only to
train people to do abortions, but as well to perform them, or refer for
an abortion, that is not infringed by this act.
I want to clarify another very, very important thing, I know this is
a very sensitive issue for a lot of Members in the body, and this is
this debate about contraception.
There have been people who have come to this floor today and tried to
assert that the language in this bill would bar the provision of
contraception services in many institutions that are already providing
it. Please show me in the statute where you find that interpretation. I
think it could be described as a tremendous misinterpretation or a
tremendous stretch of the imagination.
The provision of contraceptive services has never been defined as
abortion in Federal statute, nor has emergency contraception, what has
commonly been interpreted as the morning-after pill. Now, some
religious groups may interpret that as abortion, but we make no
reference in this statute to religious groups or their definitions; and
under the current FDA policy that is considered contraception, and it
is not affected at all by this statute.
This law, in my opinion, represents a very clear attempt to prevent
what I consider to be the extreme agenda of the pro-abortion community
to try to advance what they want to do.
We have had many people come down to the floor quoting from a NARAL
Web site about their agenda, which is to force many institutions, and
85 percent of hospitals in America today do not provide abortion
services, to force them to do that, using current Federal laws and
statutes.
Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation, I think, is very clear. It is
not ambiguous. Its intent is to protect the freedom of these
institutions to not engage in this procedure.
I ask Members to support this bill.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I think a
dose of reality may be helpful in this debate.
The extremist pro-abortion, pro-choice forces want women to have
their constitutional rights. The people who have gotten 85 percent of
the hospitals in this country not to be willing to provide an abortion
to a woman who requests it want to deny, to make it impossible, for
women to exercise what the Supreme Court says is their constitutional
right. That is the crux of the debate.
Let us have a dose of reality.
Fact one: this bill has never been considered by any committee of
this House, not in hearings, not in markup, not ever. A cynical person
might view it as a crass attempt to pander to an extremist constituency
on the eve of an election, especially since we know it is dead on
arrival in the Senate. But you do not have to be cynical to know that
this bill needs to be looked at more carefully, at the very least.
Every Member should make up for the negligence of the committees of
jurisdiction in not considering this bill by reading the fine print and
not listening only to the rhetoric.
Fact two: this bill, despite its lofty title, is not about
discrimination. It would cancel out every State law protecting a
woman's right to choice and the right of every American to demand
health care coverage that meets her medical needs. This Congress has
failed to act on prescription drug coverage. This Congress has killed
any hope of universal health care coverage. Now the Republican
leadership of the House wants to help the for-profit health care
industry rob our constituents of medical services to which they have a
constitutional right.
Fact three: this bill is not about religious liberty or conscience.
Read the bill. Copies of it are sitting on the table just outside the
Chamber. The bill covers any hospital, any HMO, any insurer, any
facility, any organization, any plan, even if they are for-profit, even
if they do not have religious or moral objections to an abortion. I am
not aware that HMOs or insurance companies have religious consciences,
even if they just want to save a little money at the expense of our
constituents.
Fact four: nearly every State protects the right of any individual
who objects on moral or religious grounds to performing abortions. So
that issue is a red herring. It does not need further discussion. The
States protect that right already.
Fact five: There is a domestic terrorist movement that uses violence,
murder, bombings and harassment to undermine the ability of women to go
to the doctor and receive constitutionally protected health care
services. Many medical facilities have knuckled under to this wave of
domestic terrorism and simply stopped providing those services. This
bill rewards those terrorists.
Fact six: This bill is not limited to the actual performance of
abortions. It would also apply to laws that require health care
providers to supply women with basic information so that they can make
informed decisions about their health care options, exercising their
consciences. The consciences that are being violated by this bill are
the consciences of women who may want to choose to avail themselves of
their constitutional right to choose to have an abortion. This bill
would also apply to some forms of birth control.
Let us be clear, this bill is not about religious freedom or
protecting the right of conscience. That is already protected by law.
This bill is simply an attempt to make it harder for women to obtain an
abortion, to vital health care services. If this Congress is unable
expand access to health care, the least Members can do is vote not to
restrict it further.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, at least the pro-abortion forces are being
very clear about what their position is. They now want to force people
who disagree with their position to perform abortions, to counsel for
abortions, to pay for abortion through insurance laws.
We have things in the United States called voluntary associations,
and if voluntary associations want to form an insurance company that
may or may not cover different things, apparently they can cover about
anything, unless it is a moral view. In fact, my friend, the gentleman
from New York, should know that the Catholic hospitals of the City of
New York have in fact formed an HMO. There are many religious
institutions in this country and many religious people who have bonded
together to form health insurance of all different types.
We should have a right, those of us, regardless of what the Court
says,
[[Page H6581]]
those of us who have a moral view that abortion is murder, should not
be forced to counsel, pay for or fund that murder.
It is one thing to say we are going to deprive someone else of their
human right to what I believe is to take another human life, and I
believe the right to life is preeminent and I believe the Court
decision was wrong, but even if you agree with that Court decision, why
would you force me, who believes that the taking of these innocent
little babies is an abominable sin, why would you force me to say I
cannot have insurance coverage that does not pay for that?
I cannot fund a hospital or participate in caring for the poor and
caring for people who need health care unless I will also fund what I
find to be as abominable as the killing of innocent little babies? Why
deprive me of my rights? Why deprive me of my rights of association?
Why deprive those people who are not necessarily a majority, we are
evenly divided in this country, but why deprive the people who believe
it is morally wrong of their right to not fund it, to not counsel it?
There are alternatives. If there are all these people who favor
abortion, if there are all these people who support abortion and all
these abortions, there are plenty of options for them. Why make me and
the people who find this abominable have to pay for this?
The reason this law is needed is in fact the courts in several States
have challenged the HMO laws, the hospital laws; and we need this
legislation.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I have seen one Republican man after another
Republican man after another Republican man come down to the House
floor and insist that we are forcing physicians and hospitals to
perform abortions that in good conscience they do not want to perform.
That is not part of the issue. That issue is solved. No one will have
to perform abortions. We do not think people should have to perform
abortions, doctors or hospitals, if they do not choose to. That issue
is settled.
For them to continue to put up that straw man, for them to continue
to use that red herring, is intellectually dishonest, and their far
right, no exceptions for rape and incest, far right agenda, they know
that; and they should just be a little more honest with the American
public.
Now, what is wrong with this whole debate today? First of all, what
is first wrong with the debate is we are talking again about a health
issue that we really should not be talking about, and we are not acting
on prescription drug legislation. We are doing nothing in this Congress
to try to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
The second thing that is wrong with this debate is this bill is on
the House floor today having bypassed the committee structure. With all
the disagreements on what people think about this bill and all the
interpretations, it should have been in committee. My friends on the
other side of the aisle know that we should have discussed it in
committees, we should have had a markup, we should have been able to
figure out all these questions.
Third, my friends on the other side of the aisle always talk about
States' rights, we should respect what the States do. This legislation
overrides States' rights. They are for States' rights, unless they do
not like what the States do, then we are going to override States'
rights.
Four, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) said, as an
example, a for-profit health maintenance organization having nothing to
do with religion, a for-profit health maintenance organization can
simply refuse counseling services to a woman who has been a victim of
rape or incest, for example, can refuse it just to save money.
Now, insurance companies, will they do that? These are the same
insurance companies that cover Viagra in many, many cases, in most
insurance companies; but they do not cover contraceptives for women,
which is one of the biggest expenses that women of child-bearing age
face.
So, sure, some HMOs are going to do that. To save money, they are
going to refuse counseling to a woman that might be a victim of rape or
incest whose health might be in jeopardy.
Again, Mr. Speaker, there is no allowance in this legislation for
rape, there is no allowance for incest, there is no allowance for
protecting the life and the health of the woman. I know that fits the
far right Republican agenda. They want no abortions in this country,
they want no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest, no
exceptions for the life and health of the woman. That is why this
legislation is on the floor today, in order to fulfill that agenda and
play to that far right base of the Republican Party.
But, frankly, where I come from, Mr. Speaker, there are differences
of opinion on abortion. Some say we should allow them; some say we
should not. But almost everybody I know thinks that when a woman has
been a victim of rape or incest, and particularly if her life is in
danger, almost everybody I know thinks that woman should be entitled to
make that choice if she chooses.
That is why this legislation is a bad idea, Mr. Speaker. That is why
this Congress should oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the ranking member knows that we have had a hearing on
this issue in committee; and as far as the consistency regarding
States' rights, I dare say that both parties over the years have been
far from consistent on that particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella).
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding, particularly
because I am rising in opposition to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, claims that this bill is a clarification of existing law
is just incorrect. The act would be a sweeping new Federal exemption
from current laws and regulations that assure women access to health
services.
I think it is very important to acknowledge that no Federal law
requires any health care entity to provide abortion services.
Furthermore, there is no requirement that any individual participate in
the provision of reproductive health services.
Currently, title X, Family Planning Programs require that clinic
staff give their clients the information and referrals for all their
legal options upon their request, adoption, carrying to term, abortion;
and this legislation would override that existing Federal law, and it
would deny pregnant women all the information that they should have
about their options.
Also the opt-out for Medicaid coverage, currently the Hyde amendment
to the Medicaid program stipulation that Medicaid clients must have
access to those services in case of rape, incest or where the pregnancy
endangers a woman's life.
Just remember, this is not a mirror of current law; this is
absolutely aborting the State and Federal laws.
{time} 1345
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to introduce for
point of clarification, there have been statements made about how this
is not an issue that should apply to health care plans or insurance
companies, and I just want to state the case of Fidelis Health Care of
New York. This is a Catholic archdiocese of New York cooperative
managed health care plan. Immediately after it was started, Family
Planning Advocates of New York, FPA they are called; they are an
affiliate of Planned Parenthood International, pursued aggressive
action against this HMO. They have called upon the State Health
Department to ``increase its monitoring of Fidelis informational and
referral processes concerning reproductive health care,'' and they are
supporting legislation in the New York legislature to force them to
provide abortion counseling.
So what we are talking about is we have a Catholic doctor in a
Catholic hospital with a Catholic nurse, all of them are pro-life, and
these people are wanting to go in there and use the force of government
to say you have to do this.
[[Page H6582]]
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Just to finish up, I have already quoted from the ethics portion of
the American Medical Association. The American Hospital Association has
stated that ``A health care institution should, based on its assessment
of its mission, be able to choose whether or not to perform
abortions.''
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons says, ``The
Federal Government should not discriminate against medical
professionals or medical institutions that follow the dictates of
conscience or medical judgment.''
The American Nurses Association: ``Where nurses are placed in
situations of compromise that exceed acceptable moral limits or involve
violations of the moral standards of the profession, whether in direct
patient care or any other form of nursing practice, they may express
their conscientious objection to participation.''
All this legislation is trying to do is be consistent with all of
that, and we are giving the choice and the freedom to those who have a
problem with performing these types of procedures.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural community that prides
itself in its values and the ability to express those values. Our local
health care providers work tirelessly to improve the quality of life
and care for the small towns and communities they serve.
It is important to note that many of our rural states and rural
health providers have no choice than to rely on public aid for
supplying care. We must not limit their ability to serve their
communities. We should give them the decision making power that will
enable them to better serve their areas while protecting them from
discrimination in the law.
Because I believe that it is our local communities that better
understand the needs of the people, I strongly support the passage of
H.R. 4691, the ``Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002.''
This bill will provide the necessary protection to health care
professionals as they strive to provide quality care to the people they
serve.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4691, the
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. This legislation simply clarifies
current law. In 1996, Congress passed and then President Clinton signed
into law the existing nondiscrimination statute which protects ``health
care entities'' from being forced by the government to perform
abortions. The purpose of the legislation before us today is to clarify
that ``health care entities'' includes all health care organizations,
including hospitals.
This bill, despite all the rhetoric we hear from the other side, will
not prevent women from obtaining abortions. What this bill does do is
say to our hospitals and healthcare personnel that the government will
not force them to perform a procedure that is in conflict with their
personal moral beliefs. I think it is important to note that most
hospitals in this Nation will not even get involved in abortion. That
is largely due to the fact the basic function of a hospital is to
preserve life not to take it.
I, like many across this Nation, believe that abortion is wrong. Life
is a sacred gift from our Creator which should be protected. This,
however, is not an abortion debate. This is a debate about allowing
individuals to exercise their moral conscience. I cannot believe that
there is a single person in this body who would say that we should
force someone to perform a procedure that goes against every fiber of
their moral and ethical being. It is in this vein, Mr. Chairman, that I
urge passage of H.R. 4691.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to voice my opposition to H.R. 4691, The Abortion Non-
Discrimination Act, which would radically broaden the ability of any
health-care entity to refuse to comply with federal, state, or local
law that pertains to abortion. These health-care entities include
hospitals, insurance companies, HMO's, and any other similar company;
all of which would suddenly have the power to decide at will to
override the existing federal provisions in Title X and Medicaid that
ensure that all women have access to health information and services.
These entities would have free reign to refuse to provide or pay for
abortion services, counseling regarding abortion, and referrals to
other providers. In addition, hospitals would have the right to turn
away women who are in need of emergency abortions as a life-saving
procedure.
The State of California has worked hard to establish laws that
protect the right of women to make fully informed medical choices, but
H.R. 4691 would threaten these valuable laws that protect a woman's
right to choose. These changes would create confusion and chaos
regarding what services are available, therefore threatening the
women's ability to seek and obtain health care.
The provisions encompassed in H.R. 4691 dramatically endanger women's
right to quality, non-judgmental health care, and stand in direct
contrast to California's efforts to protect access to information and
reproductive services. I urge my fellow members to vote against this
dangerous legislation.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
4691, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. This deceptively-titled bill
is not aimed at ending discrimination but rather at denying critical
reproductive services to women across the nation.
This provision would allow health care entities to exempt themselves
from existing state and federal laws that ensure access to a number of
reproductive services vital to women's health. Supporters claim that
the bill is intended to protect the religious and moral beliefs of
doctors and health care providers. However, given the broadness of the
bill, I must conclude that the underlying intent is to deprive patients
of abortion services, coverage, and information regarding their
reproductive rights.
Mr. Speaker, with this legislation, Congress risks trampling on
state's rights to formulate their own Medicaid policies or use their
own funding to ensure a woman's ability to make an informed decision
regarding her own health. Under current law, health care providers are
only required to supply abortion services to Medicaid patients in cases
of rape, incest, or jeopardy of the mother's health. H.R. 4691 would
undermine this narrow provision by allowing health care providers to
determine what they will and will not do with federal government
dollars.
Furthermore, under H.R. 4691, individual states could no longer
require that a woman be referred or even advised of her options with
regard to abortion and reproductive choices. If this law is passed,
Title X funded entities can refuse to simply talk about abortion with
patients because requiring them to do so is considered
``discrimination.'' The fact of the matter is that this law
discriminates against women everywhere by denying them adequate
information and the opportunity to make their own choices.
Supporters of this legislation say they want to preserve freedom of
conscience, but they seek to strip from female patients their freedom
of choice articulated in Roe v. Wade and the freedom of states to enact
policies that ensure all women receive comprehensive information on
their options.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against depriving women of
crucial reproductive information; against limiting state's rights to
build their own Medicaid framework; against this unacceptable
legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the misnamed
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. It should really be entitled the First
Step Toward Outlawing Abortion Act. At a time when my own state of
California is leading the nation in enacting the most progressive laws
protecting a woman's right to choose, Republicans in Congress continue
to lead their ill-conceived, extremist crusade to stamp out this
fundamental freedom.
The Republicans claim that their bill is simply a clarification of
existing law. They are wrong. Passage of this legislation would
undermine the sensible requirement that pregnant women be given a full
explanation of their medical options regarding their pregnancy.
Supporters of H.R. 4961 are not trying to clarify the law today, they
are trying to inch us closer and closer--through every legislative
vehicle they can find--toward a time when abortions are outlawed.
If this bill becomes law, pregnant women that go to a doctor,
hospital, clinic, or other health care provider opposed to abortion may
well leave without a full understanding of their medical options. Not
only is it wrong to deny patients a full disclosure of their medical
options, it is unethical and fundamentally un-American.
If this bill becomes law, the federal government will directly
interfere with every state's right to structure their Medicaid programs
in the way they deem most appropriate. Current law already prohibits
Medicaid programs from performing abortions except in strictly limited
circumstances. This bill would go even further by overriding the
ability of states to ensure that women treated by Medicaid providers
are at least told of their full medical options, even if they can't get
financial assistance to access those services.
If this bill becomes law, family planning clinics across the country
that are funded through the Title X program would no longer be required
to give a pregnant woman information about all her medical options. In
fact, they could withhold such information even in cases of rape or
incest where the option of an abortion may be most appropriate for the
woman involved.
Existing law contains a conscience clause protection that assures
that providers opposed to abortion do not have to provide them.
Therefore, there is no need for this legislation.
[[Page H6583]]
This bill goes so far as to grant providers who are opposed to abortion
the leeway to deny informing their patients of what may be a needed
medical option. It's not sensible medicine, nor is it appropriate
public health policy. There is absolutely no valid reason that this
bill should be enacted.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in opposition to H.R. 4961 and
to stand firm in our commitment that women must be provided all of the
medical options so that they can make informed, personal decisions
about their pregnancies.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 4691 and urge my
colleagues who care about women's health, states' rights and the
legislative process to vote against this measure. Not only is the
underlying bill objectionable, but the House Republican Leadership has
forced this bill to the floor without any committee consideration or
the possibility for amendments.
This bill puts the health and well-being of American families at risk
by permitting any hospitals, health-insurance corporation or HMO to
exempt itself from any federal, state, or local law that guarantees
women access to abortion services. The language of this bill not only
applies to the provision of legal abortion services, but also to the
important responsibilities of counseling, payment and referral to other
providers. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and women, regardless
of whether their hospital or HMO provides actual abortion services,
have a right to information about their medical options.
My anti-choice colleagues will make many false claims today on the
floor, but the reality is that the federal government is not forcing
hospitals or doctors to perform abortions against their will, the
American public does not support this type of legislation and this bill
is not a mere ``clarification'' of current law.
The bottom line is that health-care organizations should not be
allowed to gag medical providers; women should not be denied necessary
and appropriate medical information or services; and Congress should
not supersede a state's right to create and enforce its own laws.
I will support the motion to recommit so that we can send this bill
back to committee and better address its major flaws.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R.
4691, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. This is a bill that should
be strongly supported by pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. For it
simply clarifies current law to ensure that no health care provider is
forced to perform abortions against its will. This body overwhelmingly
supported this view in 1996 and President Clinton even signed it into
law because we all agreed that those opposed to abortion on religious
or moral grounds should not be forced by the government to compromise
their beliefs.
This debate is not just about abortion, however, it is about health
care and access to health care. If states or the federal government are
allowed to discriminate against Catholic hospitals or community health
centers that do not wish to provide abortion services, it will have
drastic effects. Catholic hospitals and community health centers are
the backbone of our health care system and serve those most in need.
They already struggle financially for they treat every patient
regardless of ability to pay. To withhold much needed funds just
because they refuse to perform a service that they are fundamentally
opposed to is abominable and will only hurt low-income Americans.
One of the fundamental principles of our nation is that the
government cannot impose religious or philosophical beliefs upon its
citizens. We have a rich society of different cultures and beliefs. It
is un-American and unconscionable to force health care providers to
perform abortions that they believe are morally wrong. Join me in
voting in favor of this important legislation to ensure that no
American is forced to performed abortions against their will.
Mr. TERRY, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4691,
the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act.
In 1996, Congress enacted a law prohibiting discrimination against
health care professionals, organizations, and facilities that decline
to provide abortions on moral and religious grounds. This was done to
prevent health care providers from being forced to act against their
conscience by performing, training in, or giving referrals for
abortion.
Unfortunately, several courts have misinterpreted this law by
applying its protections only to individual physicians and training
programs. Many hospitals and other health care facilities have been
left without sufficient legal protection. For example, in 1997 the
Alaska Supreme Court ordered a private hospital to provide abortion
even though it went against the ethical standards set by its operating
board.
H.R. 4691 would uphold the intent of Congress by clarifying the right
of all health care providers to follow their conscience. It would also
strengthen current law by ensuring providers cannot be forced to pay
for abortion services. Forty-six states, including my home state of
Nebraska, have similar conscience protection laws. I urge my colleagues
to join me in supporting H.R. 4691 to ensure health care providers do
not have to perform or pay for abortions they believe are morally
wrong.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 4691, the
inappropriately named Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which would
radically alter current law by allowing health care entities to exempt
themselves from any federal, state or local law that assures women have
access to abortion services, including basic information. This sort of
preemption contradicts local policies espoused by this Congress.
This legislation flies in the face of a woman's right to choose as
well as her basic right to be informed about her reproductive options.
Moreover, H.R. 4691 has the potential to pose a severe threat to
efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thus leading to more, not
less, abortions. The sweeping nature of this supposedly narrow
legislation is staggering.
Family planning programs have been instrumental in helping millions
of American women obtain reproductive health care for three decades.
H.R. 4691 could essentially ``gag'' clinic staff from giving pregnant
women information and referrals for all their legal options, including
adoption, carrying the pregnancy to term and abortion.
There is currently no federal requirement that a health care entity
provide abortion services against its will. Furthermore, there is no
federal statutory requirement that any individual participate in the
provision of reproductive health services if he or she objects. This
legislation is therefore not only without merit but completely
unnecessary.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4691.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 4691. This legislation, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of
2002, would essentially allow any health care entity, including
hospitals, health insurance companies, HMOS, etc. to exempt themselves
from current federal, state and local laws, that assure women have
access to abortion services.
If passed, H.R. 4691 would provide a sweeping new exemption from
current laws and regulations that gives the women of this country
information about, and access to, reproductive health services.
This bill is specifically designed to override state constitutions,
laws and local regulations that anti-choice activists have tried to
overturn for years. This legislation will override the progress of
states' that have worked to assure that women not only have access to
reproductive services, but also the right to basic information.
By and large, the federal government does not pay for abortion
services. The Hyde amendment to the Medicaid program stipulates that
Medicaid clients must have access to abortion services in cases of
rape, incest, or when the pregnancy endangers a woman's life. However,
states may use their own Medicaid funds to cover abortion services
beyond those narrow circumstances if they wish, and in fact, 21 states
do so. This bill would preclude these states from enforcing their own
laws and constitutional decisions in the area of abortion services for
low-income women.
This bill is not limited to abortion services themselves. Under the
bill, states would be prohibited from requiring that health-care
entities participating in their Medicaid programs provide referrals for
abortion services. It would therefore prohibit state from ensuring that
patients have all the information they need to make an informed choice
about their health care.
In deciding whether to approve a hospital merger, for example, a
state could not even consider whether the newly merged hospital system
would diminish the community's access to full reproductive health
services. This would tie the hands of states trying to ensure that
entire communities are not completely without any qualified abortion
providers. In fact, supporters of the bill have states that this is
exactly their intent.
Current law essentially requires that patients are entitled to full
information about their medical options. The anti-choice movement has
long sought to deny pregnant women information about their full range
of options. H.R. 4691 bill accomplishes this goal by newly categorizing
the Title X referral requirement as ``discrimination.''
Title X has a long-standing referral requirement that while Title X
funds cannot be used to pay for abortion services, it must provide
women information about the full range of medical care and reproductive
options, including abortion. H.R. 4691 would override this, which will
have the effect of instituting a gag on health care providers across
the country.
Current law already allows individual health care providers to
refrain from providing any reproductive services if they object, and
that there is no federal statutory requirement that a health-care
entity provide abortion services. While proponents tout this as a
religious-
[[Page H6584]]
based ``conscience clause'' there is no actual requirement in the bill
that a health-care entity demonstrate a religious objection. So in
actuality, under this bill any health plan, hospital or HMO could opt
out of current standards that provide women information about, and
access to, abortion services for any conceivable reason.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Colleagues to oppose this legislation. This
bill would disrupt the balance between federal, state and local
authority and severely jeopardize reproductive health care and women's
health.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). All time for
debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 546, the bill is considered read for
amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Brown of Ohio moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4691, to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
Page 2, line 5, strike ``Section'' and insert ``(a) In
General.--Section''.
Page 2, after line 24, add the following subsection:
(b) Effects on Patients and Employees; State Law.--The
amendments made by subsection (a) shall not be construed as--
(1) authorizing any institution to withhold medically
appropriate information or services from a patient;
(2) authorizing any institution to prohibit its employees,
contractors, or grantees from discussing or providing all
medically appropriate information or services; or
(3) preempting or abrogating a State's right to enforce its
constitution, laws, policies, or regulations.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This is a motion to recommit in the purest sense of the word and in
the most deserving sense of the term, and that is, Mr. Speaker, that
this bill was never discussed in the Committee on Commerce to begin
with. Normally, on motions to recommit after a bill goes through the
process, it comes out of committee, goes to the floor, and people want
to make a change or oppose it and they say, let us send it back to
committee, let us recommit it so we can make some changes. But since
this legislation was never there, it is even more deserving of a
recommital, an affirmative vote on a recommittal motion.
The legislation we are considering today goes far beyond a so-called
clarification of existing law, which permits hospitals and doctors to
deny women abortion services based on that provider's religious belief.
We believe that, too. Current law allows doctors and hospitals to
refuse to provide services they are religiously opposed to, as they
should, as the law should. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, goes much
further than that. It is not about the religious beliefs of providers,
it is about denying health care information and services to women,
including counseling services. This bill gags doctors, it gags
hospitals from referring women to family planning clinics, even those
women who have been raped, even those women who are the victims of
incest, and even those women whose lives and health are in danger.
Under H.R. 4691, the legislation we are discussing, insurance
companies could deny coverage of family planning services, even when
medically necessary, regardless of their religious beliefs. It has
nothing to do with religion; it has a lot to do with an HMO's bottom
line. Relevant State laws would be trumped, even though these laws are
designed to protect women. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the State of
California, the State of Ohio, the State of Nebraska, the State of
Florida might have passed legislation to protect women; this
legislation overrides what those State laws wanted to do to provide
these counseling services, or to provide these referral services at the
hospital or by a physician.
This bill gags doctors, it gags hospitals, regardless of religious
belief. It denies women access to medically necessary services
regardless of their religious beliefs. Bottom line: it compromises
women's health. That is why this bill should not have been on the floor
and that is why we should support the motion to recommit.
I am offering the motion to recommit to safeguard against these
efforts. The motion provides that H.R. 4691 not authorize any
institution to prevent its providers from providing medically
appropriate information or services. It does not authorize any
institution to withhold medically appropriate information or services
from its patients; it does not preempt State laws from enforcing that
State's Constitution or that State's laws. This motion makes no change
to current law that allows doctors, nurses, and hospitals to refuse to
provide abortion services if those services conflict with the doctor's
or the hospital's religious beliefs. It does not affect current
prohibition against providing abortion services with Federal funds, it
simply limits the harm that H.R. 4691 will do.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, as we discussed before, a woman has been raped
or a woman has been a victim of incest. Her life might be in danger,
she comes into a hospital. Under this legislation, that hospital simply
may not provide her any information, no counseling, no referral; there
is a gag on that hospital's ability to do that. Where I come from,
reasonable people have differences, honest differences between when
abortion should be legal. Should it be legal, should it not be legal,
and in what cases should it be legal. But it is only the extreme far
right, the leadership of the Republican Party that wants to pass
legislation like this where there are no exceptions for rape, for
incest, for the life of the woman. The great, great majority of people
in this country think a woman who has been raped, who has been a victim
of incest, whose life might be in danger comes into a hospital, she
should be given information; she should be given counseling if she so
chooses; she should be given a referral if she so chooses. This bill,
this very rigid bill, inflexible bill, does not allow that. The motion
to recommit is important to protect women like that. This motion to
recommit is important to preserve the medical standard that guarantees
women access to necessary health care.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the motion, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Members should reject the motion to recommit, because it
does nothing but gut the intent of the underlying bill. The bill before
us, as I said earlier, is simple. No one under any circumstances should
be forced to perform an abortion against their will. It would be
unconscionable for us to force them to do so, but some courts are doing
just that, and that is why this clarification must be made.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the Brown motion states that this bill shall not be
construed as authorizing any institution to withhold medically
appropriate services from a patient. What are those ``services?'' They
are abortion services, Mr. Speaker.
The problem with the Brown motion is it does not define medically
appropriate, it leaves it up to further definition. Perhaps some
Attorney General or health commissioner in a government that happens to
be pro-abortion
[[Page H6585]]
would say that is what medically appropriate means, or NARAL might say
that is what appropriate means, and we are talking about abortion. That
is what is on the table here, and I hope all Members understand that.
This killer motion, will enable the killing of babies. It absolutely
reverses the intent of conscience protection and undermines the very
law that was passed a few years ago, and takes us further back than we
are already right now. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this gutting
motion.
I want to remind Members that 86 percent of the hospitals in America
do not perform abortions. Thank God for that. They protect and preserve
and cherish the lives of babies and their mothers--all their patients.
They would be compelled under the Brown motion, forced, coerced, or
empower others the ability to force them to perform abortions.
This debate is all about conscience. The Bilirakis bill is a great
bill, it is an important bill, it is a human rights bill that says
conscience means something. We ought to take this step. Vote for it.
Vote down this gutting motion.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Let me just start out by saying, one of the things my father taught
me when I was a kid growing up is when people call you names, often the
case is they have a problem themselves with the name they are calling
you, and we have been called extreme and radical for doing this. I
really take offense at that. I believe very strongly all we are trying
to do in this bill is to just clarify the intent of the Congress 6
years ago when it originally passed this conscience clause language,
and it is the left, it is the pro-abortion left that is trying to do an
end run through the courts around this.
Now, this motion to recommit is a classic gutting motion to recommit.
It invalidates the entire intent of the bill. It has language that says
the statute shall not be construed as authorizing any institution to
withhold medically appropriate information or services from a patient.
So in other words, we are back to square one. The original intent of
the law was it covered hospitals because it referred to them as health
care entities, and now we have the courts arguing that hospitals are
somehow not health care entities, and they should have to provide these
services or referrals.
What they are arguing for here is we have a Catholic hospital, pro-
life, they hire a doctor, and the doctor gets in there and he decides
he wants to start referring his patients for an abortion. If it is the
position of the hospital that that violates their position, they do not
want that policy in place, they can enforce it under the conscience
clause that we are trying to enact under this law. They have a gutting
amendment here that essentially would make it impossible for those
institutions, many of which are run by the church, many of which are
not run by the church; I want to just underscore this. There are a lot
of hospitals that are secular and they do not want to do abortions, and
yet what this amendment would effectively do is make it possible for
anybody to do abortion counseling, abortion referral, even abortion
procedures in hospitals that do not want to do it.
Furthermore, it goes on to say that this law will not abrogate any
States rights. So essentially, if the State wants to act very
aggressively, statutes that would allow abortion procedures in all
hospitals in the State, that this would not be prohibited. This clearly
violates the intent of many people in this body, people on both sides
of this issue. We had a lot of people who are pro-life and a lot of
people who are pro-choice who supported this provision.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise all Members that the
telephone system is not working and the cloakrooms are unable to page
Members. The bell systems and the whip systems will notify Members of
the vote. The Chair will monitor the progress of the vote. Members are
reminded that the paging system is currently not operating.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191,
nays 230, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 411]
YEAS--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--230
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
[[Page H6586]]
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bachus
Callahan
Ganske
Hilliard
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Mink
Roukema
Stump
Thurman
Towns
{time} 1425
Messrs. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, LANGEVIN, SCHAFFER, EHLERS, CHAMBLISS,
KINGSTON and SWEENEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mrs. CAPPS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Mr.
PASCRELL changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The question is
on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 189, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 412]
AYES--229
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boozman
Borski
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Kaptur
Kucinich
NOT VOTING--12
Bachus
Callahan
Cubin
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Mink
Olver
Roukema
Sherwood
Stump
Thurman
Towns
{time} 1437
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________