[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4254-S4255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FEDERAL REFUSAL CLAUSE

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Federal refusal clause. The 
Republican leadership was wrong to include such a broad refusal clause 
in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The clause was 
never voted on by the Senate Appropriations Committee; it was inserted 
into the bill behind closed doors.
  The clause would allow health care firms to refuse to comply with 
existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that pertain to 
abortion services, counseling, and referrals.
  Supporters of the clause claim it simply clarifies existing law. But 
far from clarifying it, sweeping new changes would be enacted that 
would be devastating to women's health.
  The reality is that no Federal law forces individuals to provide 
abortion care. The Church amendment, adopted in 1973, enacted a new 
refusal clause. It explicitly protects individuals who object to 
providing abortion because of their religious beliefs or moral 
convictions. Broader refusal clauses, such as

[[Page S4255]]

the Federal refusal clause, exempt a wide range of organizations, 
including health plans and hospitals, most of which not only have a 
secular purpose but also employ and serve individuals who do not share 
those organizations' religious beliefs.
  The Federal refusal clause also discourages States from enforcing its 
own policies, laws and regulations to protect access to abortion 
services and information. Republicans continually attack Democrats as 
proponents of big government who undermine State rights. Yet that is 
exactly what the Federal refusal clause does.
  Forty-six States, including Massachusetts, already have laws that 
permit certain medical personnel, health facilities, and institutions 
to refuse to participate in abortion because of their moral or 
religious beliefs.
  We don't need the Federal refusal clause to protect individuals and 
health care organizations that oppose abortion, we already have that. 
It exists in both Federal and State laws. Proponents want the Federal 
refusal clause for one reason--to deny access and information to as 
many women as possible.
  Health care corporations now have the right to gag their doctors and 
other health care providers. The clause defines ``discrimination'' as 
any requirement that a medical service provider inform a woman about 
her option to seek an abortion--or even refer her to another plan for 
that information. It's ridiculous to say that giving a woman full 
information about her medical options is discrimination.
  The Federal refusal clause also restricts low-income women's access 
to abortion services, including information about abortion. It could 
prohibit the Federal Government from enforcing the requirement that 
Title X funded family planning clinics provide a woman facing an 
unintended pregnancy with an abortion referral when she requests one. 
We will be taking a giant step backward if we don't repeal this refusal 
clause.
  In addition, under the ``Hyde Amendment,'' States are required to 
provide Medicaid coverage for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or 
where pregnancy endangers a women's life. The Federal refusal clause, 
however, could prevent states from requiring that Medicaid HMOs provide 
or pay for these abortions.
  Current law states that low-income women should not be denied 
critical medical care. Why do we want to change that? What kind of 
signal are we sending? Women who have suffered through the trauma of 
rape or incest deserve our help, not an extra burden.
  The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act guarantees that 
a woman who needs an emergency abortion procedure to save her life 
won't be turned away. Yet the Federal refusal clause could allow 
hospitals to turn away women in these dire circumstances. For a woman 
in a rural area, with only one hospital, her life itself may be in 
danger if the hospital refuses to admit her.
  It is wrong to deny women access to necessary and urgently needed 
medical procedures. The Federal refusal clause should never have been 
included in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and I 
commend Senator Boxer for speaking against this provision.

                          ____________________