[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4844-H4860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1445
                   CONSCIENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2016

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 822, I 
call up the bill (S. 304) to improve motor vehicle safety by 
encouraging the sharing of certain information, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Pursuant to House Resolution 822, 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of 
Rules Committee Print 114-61 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                 S. 304

       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 ``Conscience Protection Act of 
     2016''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Thomas Jefferson stated a conviction common to our 
     Nation's founders when he declared in 1809 that ``[n]o 
     provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than 
     that which protects the rights of conscience against the 
     enterprises of the civil authority''.
       (2) In 1973, the Supreme Court concluded that the 
     government must leave the abortion decision ``to the medical 
     judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician'', 
     recognizing that a physician may choose not to participate in 
     abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973). The Court 
     cited with approval a policy that ``neither physician, 
     hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform 
     any act violative of personally-held moral principles'', 410 
     U.S. at 143 n. 38, and cited State laws upholding this 
     principle. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 197-8 (1973).
       (3) Congress's enactments to protect this right of 
     conscience in health care include the Church amendment of 
     1973 (42 U.S.C. 300a-7), the Coats/Snowe amendment of 1996 
     (42 U.S.C. 238n), and the Weldon amendment approved by 
     Congresses and Presidents of both parties every year since 
     2004.
       (4) None of these laws explicitly provides a ``private 
     right of action'' so victims of discrimination can defend 
     their conscience rights in court, and administrative 
     enforcement by the Department of Health and Human Services 
     Office for Civil Rights has been lax, at times allowing cases 
     to languish for years without resolution.
       (5) Defying the Federal Weldon amendment, California's 
     Department of Managed Health Care has mandated coverage for 
     all elective abortions in all health plans under its 
     jurisdiction. Other States such as New York and Washington 
     have taken or considered similar action, and some States may 
     go farther to require all physicians and hospitals to provide 
     or facilitate abortions. On June 21, 2016, the Administration 
     concluded a nearly two-year investigation of this matter by 
     determining that California's decision to require insurance 
     plans under the California Department for Managed Health Care 
     authority to cover all legal abortion services did not 
     violate the Weldon amendment. This interpretation means that 
     individuals will have to choose between ignoring their 
     conscience or forgoing health care coverage.
       (6) The vast majority of medical professionals do not 
     perform abortions, with 86 percent of ob/gyns unwilling to 
     provide them in a recent study (Obstetrics & Gynecology, 
     Sept. 2011) and the great majority of hospitals choosing to 
     do so in rare cases or not at all.
       (7) A health care provider's decision not to participate in 
     an abortion, like Congress's decision not to fund most 
     abortions, erects no new barrier to those seeking to perform 
     or undergo abortions but leaves each party free to act as he 
     or she wishes.
       (8) Such protection poses no conflict with other Federal 
     laws, such as the law requiring emergency stabilizing 
     treatment for a pregnant woman and her unborn child when 
     either is in distress (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active 
     Labor Act). As the Obama administration has said, these areas 
     of law have operated side by side for many years and both 
     should be fully enforced (76 Federal Register 9968-77 (2011) 
     at 9973).
       (9) Reaffirming longstanding Federal policy on conscience 
     rights and providing a right of action in cases where it is 
     violated allows longstanding and widely supported Federal 
     laws to work as intended.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITING GOVERNMENTAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 
                   PROVIDERS OF HEALTH SERVICES THAT ARE NOT 
                   INVOLVED IN ABORTION.

       Title II of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 202 et 
     seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 245A. PROHIBITING GOVERNMENTAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 
                   PROVIDERS OF HEALTH SERVICES THAT ARE NOT 
                   INVOLVED IN ABORTION.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Federal Government, and any State or local government that 
     receives Federal financial assistance, may not penalize, 
     retaliate against, or otherwise discriminate against a health 
     care provider on the basis that the provider does not--
       ``(1) perform, refer for, pay for, or otherwise participate 
     in abortion;
       ``(2) provide or sponsor abortion coverage; or

[[Page H4845]]

       ``(3) facilitate or make arrangements for any of the 
     activities specified in this subsection.
       ``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed--
       ``(1) to prevent any health care provider from voluntarily 
     electing to participate in abortions or abortion referrals;
       ``(2) to prevent any health care provider from voluntarily 
     electing to provide or sponsor abortion coverage or health 
     benefits coverage that includes abortion;
       ``(3) to prevent an accrediting agency, the Federal 
     government, or a State or local government from establishing 
     standards of medical competency applicable only to those who 
     have knowingly, voluntarily, and specifically elected to 
     perform abortions, or from enforcing contractual obligations 
     applicable only to those who, as part of such contract, 
     knowingly, voluntarily, and specifically elect to provide 
     abortions;
       ``(4) to affect, or be affected by, section 1867 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395dd, commonly referred to 
     as the `Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act'); 
     or
       ``(5) to supersede any law enacted by any State for the 
     purpose of regulating insurance, except as specified in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Administration.--The Secretary shall designate the 
     Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services--
       ``(1) to receive complaints alleging a violation of this 
     section, section 245 of this Act, or any of subsections (b) 
     through (e) of section 401 of the Health Programs Extension 
     Act of 1973; and
       ``(2) to pursue the investigation of such complaints in 
     coordination with the Attorney General.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Federal financial assistance.--The term `Federal 
     financial assistance' means Federal payments to cover the 
     cost of health care services or benefits, or other Federal 
     payments, grants, or loans to promote or otherwise facilitate 
     health-related activities.
       ``(2) Health care provider.--The term `health care 
     provider' means--
       ``(A) an individual physician, nurse, or other health care 
     professional;
       ``(B) a hospital, health system, or other health care 
     facility or organization (including a party to a proposed 
     merger or other collaborative arrangement relating to health 
     services, and an entity resulting therefrom);
       ``(C) a provider-sponsored organization, an accountable 
     care organization, or a health maintenance organization;
       ``(D) a social services provider that provides or 
     authorizes referrals for health care services;
       ``(E) a program of training in the health professions or an 
     applicant to or participant in such a program;
       ``(F) an issuer of health insurance coverage; or
       ``(G) a group health plan or student health plan, or a 
     sponsor or administrator thereof.
       ``(3) State or local government that receives federal 
     financial assistance.--The term `State or local government 
     that receives Federal financial assistance' includes every 
     agency and other governmental unit and subdivision of a State 
     or local government, if such State or local government, or 
     any agency or governmental unit or subdivision thereof, 
     receives Federal financial assistance.

     ``SEC. 245B. CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--A qualified party may, in a civil 
     action, obtain appropriate relief with regard to a designated 
     violation.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Qualified party.--The term `qualified party' means--
       ``(A) the Attorney General of the United States; or
       ``(B) any person or entity adversely affected by the 
     designated violation.
       ``(2) Designated violation.--The term `designated 
     violation' means an actual or threatened violation of--
       ``(A) section 245 or 245A of this Act; or
       ``(B) any of subsections (b) through (e) of section 401 of 
     the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973 regarding an 
     objection to abortion.
       ``(c) Administrative Remedies Not Required.--An action 
     under this section may be commenced, and relief may be 
     granted, without regard to whether the party commencing the 
     action has sought or exhausted available administrative 
     remedies.
       ``(d) Defendants in Actions Under This Section May Include 
     Governmental Entities as Well as Others.--
       ``(1) In general.--An action under this section may be 
     maintained against, among others, a party that is a Federal 
     or State governmental entity. Relief in an action under this 
     section may include money damages even if the defendant is 
     such a governmental entity.
       ``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `State governmental entity' means a State, a local 
     government within a State, and any agency or other 
     governmental unit or subdivision of a State or of such a 
     local government.
       ``(e) Nature of Relief.--In an action under this section, 
     the court shall grant--
       ``(1) all necessary equitable and legal relief, including, 
     where appropriate, declaratory relief and compensatory 
     damages, to prevent the occurrence, continuance, or 
     repetition of the designated violation and to compensate for 
     losses resulting from the designated violation; and
       ``(2) to a prevailing plaintiff, reasonable attorneys' fees 
     and litigation expenses as part of the costs.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.


        Permission to Postpone Proceedings on Motion to Recommit

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
question of adopting a motion to recommit on S. 304 may be subject to 
postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.


                             general leave

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on S. 304.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, Congress has a long history of providing strong, 
bipartisan conscience and freedom protections consistent with our 
founding principles and the Constitution. It is about fairness. It is a 
cornerstone of our Constitution, which is built upon individual rights 
and liberties.
  Look no further than the Clinton administration to find evidence of 
unity when it comes to conscience exemptions. President Clinton built 
conscience protections into managed care plans for Medicaid and 
Medicare regarding referrals. In 1977, as part of the Balanced Budget 
Act, almost identical conscience protections were applied to Medicare 
Choice Plans. The conference report that included these exemptions was 
widely supported by Democratic lawmakers like now-Vice President Biden, 
now-Secretary of State Kerry, and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, to 
name a few.
  In 1998 and again in 1999, the Clinton administration took the 
initiative to add two separate conscience protections to the Federal 
employees health benefit program. Many of these protections have been 
renewed annually by Presidents Clinton and Bush and, yes, by President 
Obama.
  One of these protections is the Weldon amendment, a longstanding 
conscience safeguard in appropriations law. This protection provides 
that States and localities receiving Federal funds may not discriminate 
against a healthcare entity on the basis that they do not ``provide, 
pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.''
  Troublingly, those encountering discrimination cannot even look to 
the Office for Civil Rights for help. The Office for Civil Rights 
within HHS recently reinterpreted existing law to find a California 
mandate directing all health insurers to remove coverage exclusions and 
limitations for elective abortions to be consistent with the Weldon 
amendment.
  Americans should not have to rely on the whim of attorneys at HHS to 
be protected from discrimination. This is why we are here today--to 
discuss fairness, to protect Americans' rights.
  Here is what the Conscience Protection Act does:
  First, the bill reaffirms the protections that are found in the 
Weldon amendment;
  Second, the bill gives discriminated individuals and entities their 
day in court through a private right of action; and
  Third, the bill clarifies that nothing--nothing--in the legislation 
prevents providers from voluntarily electing to participate in abortion 
or makes changes to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor 
Act.
  The simple intent of this bill is to stop the government from 
unfairly coercing individuals and entities to provide, pay for, provide 
coverage of, or refer for abortions.
  Consider the examples of churches in California--like Skyline Church 
in La Mesa and Faith Baptist Church in Santa Barbara--that are 
currently being forced by the State to cover all legal abortion in 
their healthcare plans.
  Or the case of a New York nurse, Cathy DeCarlo, who was forced to 
take part in a dismemberment of 22-week-

[[Page H4846]]

old unborn child. Cathy literally had to count the pieces of the unborn 
child, against her objection to abortion. Her lawsuit was dismissed 
because the conscience law lacks a private right of action.
  Madam Speaker, this is why we need the Conscience Protection Act: for 
Foothill Church in Glendora; for Alpine Christian Fellowship in El 
Cajon; for the 12 New Jersey nurses who stood up to their employer for 
requiring them to train for and participate in abortion; and for Cathy 
DeCarlo, who deserves her day in court. This is why we need this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to this bill, which is really nothing more than 
a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is being touted as just simply a 
conscience clause, but, in fact, it strips away patient protections; it 
gives employers and healthcare companies the right to override a 
woman's reproductive healthcare decision; it vastly expands already 
damaging existing laws that restrict women's abilities to get full 
insurance coverage; and, just to add, it would clog the courts because 
it would create private rights of action for healthcare entities to 
enforce the law.
  Now, existing so-called conscience provisions are bad enough, but 
what they apply to is existing healthcare entities. What this bill 
would do is something that has never been done before. It would allow 
employers and others to exercise this right; it would require OCR and 
DOJ to investigate claims of discrimination; and it would expand the 
definition of healthcare entities. All of this would just simply 
interfere with a woman's ability to get accurate information about 
treatment options and could lead to her being deprived of timely 
emergency care.
  There is already plenty of evidence that current conscience 
provisions jeopardize women's health and safety. They create confusion 
about whether healthcare providers are required to offer critical care 
in emergency situations.
  I have heard some heart-wrenching stories about what happened to the 
women. Let me just tell you one of them. Tamesha Means of Muskegon, 
Michigan, was only 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke. The nearest 
hospital, Mercy Health Partners, didn't pursue the normal course of 
treatment, inducing labor for a pregnancy that wasn't viable, in order 
to avoid risky complications. Instead, what they did is they gave her 
painkillers and they sent her home. Over the next 2 days, Tamesha 
returned to the hospital twice, bleeding and in severe pain, running a 
high fever, only to get more or less the same response. They were 
completing the papers to send her home a third time--a third time--when 
she started to deliver a very premature infant, dead within hours.
  Madam Speaker, we would likely see much more needless suffering and 
endangerment if the bill before us were to pass. It would let employers 
who sponsor health plans deny their female employees access to medical 
services to which the employer objects. It would reinforce existing 
provisions that let health providers opt out of providing such services 
or even informing people about them.
  With all of this in mind, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose 
this bad legislation. Every patient should be able to make meaningful, 
informed decisions about their health care. Congress needs to stop 
interfering in women's health decisions once and for all.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the Speaker of the House.
  (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree that 
in this country no one should be forced to perform an abortion.
  Look, I know we disagree about when life begins; I know we disagree 
about what government should do about it; and, however strongly I hold 
my beliefs, I also know my friends on the other side of the issue feel 
just as strongly. I respect those disagreements. But whoever you are, 
whatever you believe, I think this is one thing that we all should 
agree on: no one should be forced to violate their conscience, least of 
all by the Federal Government. That is all this bill says.
  The Federal Government, or anyone who receives taxpayer dollars, 
cannot discriminate against healthcare providers who do not perform 
abortions; and if they do discriminate, this bill says that the victims 
will have two avenues of relief: either file a complaint with the 
Department of Health and Human Services, or file a civil suit in court. 
That is it. That is what this bill does.
  Now, opponents say that this kind of thing just doesn't ever happen, 
nobody in their right mind would force someone against their will to 
help with an abortion. Well, tell that to Cathy DeCarlo. She was a 
nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. A few years ago, she 
was forced to help with an abortion.
  Madam Speaker, this is not an isolated incident. There have been 
cases of nurses being suspended or threatened with firing solely for 
the offense of following their conscience.
  And now the State of California requires all health insurance plans 
to cover abortion. So if you are a church or if you are a religious 
school, it doesn't matter, you must cover this procedure; and if it 
violates your conscience, too bad. This is a disturbing trend.
  What is more disturbing is that the Federal Government has not been 
protecting people's rights. There are already laws on the books to 
protect people's conscience rights. But after Cathy DeCarlo filed a 
complaint to HHS, she waited 3 years for a resolution; and when she 
filed a lawsuit, an appeals court said she didn't even have standing 
and threw out her case.
  That is why this bill makes it perfectly clear. People of faith have 
standing, and they deserve relief.
  This bill does not ban or restrict abortion in any way. This bill 
does not change any medical standards or contracts. It does not change 
any laws regarding emergency treatment. All it does is protect a 
person's conscience.
  Allowing this trend to continue, if we keep going down this path in 
this country, we will only erode our First Amendment rights further. It 
will continue to push people of faith into the sidelines of society. 
That is not the kind of country we want to live in, not any of us.
  There is nothing more fulfilling than living out your faith, and we 
want all people of all faiths to live freely in our country. But we can 
live out our faith only if our government respects our faith. That is 
why we need to pass this bill.
  I want to thank Congressman John Fleming and I want to thank 
Congresswoman Diane Black for their outstanding work on this. John and 
Diane have done the Lord's work on defending people's conscience 
rights. It is the First Amendment of the Constitution, and it is under 
assault. This is something that keeps us free. This is something that 
makes us uniquely American. This is something that says men and women 
of conscience have rights that must be protected. And when our own 
government tramples upon and throws under the bus those rights, we have 
to act. That is why we are here today. They have been out front on this 
issue constantly leading this charge, and I am thankful for these 
warriors.
  I have got to say to my colleagues, this is something that everyone 
should be in favor of, because if you believe in free speech, if you 
believe in freedom of religion, then you believe in freedom of 
conscience, then you believe in all of the First Amendment. That is why 
I ask each and every one of my colleagues to support this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, let's talk about conscience and whose 
conscience should prevail in a decision about what a woman does with 
her body and who makes that decision.
  Is it the conscience of an insurance company?
  That is already in the law.
  Is it the conscience of her boss who makes the decision?
  Clearly, it is not the consciences of American women in this piece of 
legislation. The bottom line is it sounds to

[[Page H4847]]

me like it is the conscience of Republican politicians who want to tell 
the women of America what they can do with their bodies.
  Let's be very clear. Right now, current law says that hospitals, 
insurers, and doctors may refuse to perform an abortion or to provide 
coverage for abortion, which already greatly limits women's access to 
legal procedures. This bill would further extend the dangerous law by 
allowing health plan sponsors--that means employers--to deny female 
employees access to legal medical services because the boss has a moral 
objection to it, not the woman who is making the most personal of 
decisions here.
  Women and their doctors, not their bosses, should be making medical 
decisions, and no outsider should be able to decide something as 
important as the size or the timing of having a family; and a woman's 
access to reproductive health should not be dependent on where she 
works or on where she goes to school.
  Even more importantly, when a woman's health is in danger, providers 
would not be required to act to protect the health of that mother. This 
bill would allow them--and this is in the new language--to refuse to 
facilitate or to make arrangements for an abortion if they have a moral 
objection to it. For example, a Catholic hospital could force a doctor 
to withhold information about a patient's medical condition or options 
if that information might facilitate a woman's obtaining an abortion. 
It could also refuse to provide transportation to another hospital for 
a woman who is in distress if that hospital provides abortions.
  This takes away a woman's right of conscience, and we should be 
voting ``no.''
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the House.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank Congressman John 
Fleming, and I want to thank Congresswoman Diane Black.
  Before we come here as Members of Congress, we have occupations. John 
Fleming happens to be a doctor. Diane Black started out as a nurse and 
is still a nurse. Her decades of experience, especially on this issue, 
are what have driven her in her work to make it here today.
  Madam Speaker, I want to be explicitly clear so as to remove any 
confusion about what this legislation is and why we are voting on it 
today. This bill is not about abortion. Now, I am profoundly pro-life, 
and I don't hide it, but this bill isn't about that. It is about 
respecting people with different opinions and letting them live their 
lives without having the fear of punishment.
  I am not asking people to change their closely held beliefs today. 
After all, every law on the books that has governed abortion before 
this bill will remain exactly the same after this bill is passed. The 
message is more fundamental: don't force those who are deeply and 
morally opposed to something to fund it, support it, or perform it.
  We all know America is unlike any other place. In America, we have 
Amish farmers, modern artists, stock market analysts, teachers, oil rig 
workers. We have the left and the right--Republican and Democrat--and 
every single one is just as American as the other. It is not easy to 
make this crazy experiment called ``America'' work, but we do because 
we respect that people may live in ways by which we don't approve and 
have opinions that we can't stand, and they are still our neighbors. 
This mutual respect is the lifeblood of a free society.
  There are millions of people in this country--a majority, in fact--
who are pro-life. That belief is intimately tied to our love of others 
and to our respect for human dignity; but many pro-life Americans face 
a choice no person should face.
  Do they violate their consciences or violate the law? Do they do 
something they think is wrong, or do they lose their jobs?
  A nurse in New York was told she had to participate in an abortion 
even though she objected. Her supervisor told her, if she didn't, she 
could be fired and could even lose her nursing license.
  In my home State of California, a mandate forces pro-life individuals 
and churches to pay for insurance plans that cover the procedure even 
if doing so violates their deeply held beliefs. That mandate flies 
directly in the face of the Weldon amendment, which protects conscience 
rights--something of which this Congress has approved time and again 
for decades.
  This mandate was challenged at the Department of Health and Human 
Services. It rejected the complaint. So I met with Secretary Burwell 
and with many of our colleagues to ask how this could happen.
  How could a State force people to violate their beliefs?
  I will tell you that I and the Members who were there still don't 
have an answer to our question.
  But, Madam Speaker, why is this even a debate? Why would this 
administration want to force someone to violate his conscience?
  As President Obama, himself, said early on in his Presidency, ``Let's 
honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.'' I agree 
wholeheartedly with that statement.
  Voting for this bill isn't voting against abortion. It is voting 
against compulsion. It is voting to reaffirm that mutual respect is 
necessary for a free society, and only with that respect can America 
live in the liberty we have so long enjoyed.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, when will the Republicans' war on women 
end?
  First, Republicans passed a bill to allow a woman's boss to decide 
whether she has access to contraceptives. Next, Republicans passed 
legislation to prevent a woman from choosing the medical provider that 
best meets her needs. Today, Republicans are bringing another bill to 
the House floor to limit a woman's right to make the best decision for 
herself and her family.
  This bill is not about protecting the conscience rights of healthcare 
entities to not provide or to participate in abortions. Providers 
already have those protections under current law. Instead, this bill 
expands and makes permanent policies that attempt to limit a woman's 
access to her constitutionally protected right to safe and legal 
abortions. This bill allows the moral beliefs of an employer's to limit 
a woman's access to healthcare services. A woman, not her 
employer, should make decisions about her health. Her healthcare 
choices are none of her boss's business.

  I urge my colleagues to stand up for women's health by opposing this 
harmful legislation.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), one of the authors of this legislation and 
the primary sponsor. I thank her for the excellent job that she does on 
all of the pro-life issues that affect not only our State, but our 
country.
  Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee, my colleague and 
my friend.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bill, S. 304, the 
Conscience Protection Act of 2016.
  This legislation would prevent governments from penalizing or in any 
way discriminating against a healthcare provider for its refusing to 
participate in an abortion. In doing so, it would codify an act, known 
as the Weldon amendment, which has been attached to the annual spending 
bill since 2004 with bipartisan support. Importantly, the bill would 
also take the law a step further in allowing for a civil right of 
action so that the victims of abortion discrimination would have their 
day in court.
  Today, if you believe you have been discriminated against on the 
basis of refusing to be involved in an abortion, you appeal to the 
Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services.
  In the case of Cathy DeCarlo, a pro-life nurse from New York who was 
forced by her employer to assist in the abortion of a 22-week pre-born 
baby, it took HHS 3 years to close its investigation into her case.
  In California, where the Department of Managed Health Care required 
all insurance plans in the State to offer the coverage of elective 
abortion, the HHS

[[Page H4848]]

took 2 years to determine that no violation of the law had occurred; 
this despite the fact that the churches and the Christian universities 
are now required to subsidize abortion through their insurance plans.
  Congress must step in to clarify and to strengthen our laws so that 
the conscience rights of every American are protected, because, Madam 
Speaker, if we lose the right to live according to our own convictions, 
particularly on the matter as deeply affecting as abortion, we don't 
have much left, do we?
  After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who reminded us: ``No provision in 
our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the 
rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority.''
  President Obama, himself, echoed this statement in 2009, saying, 
``Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.''
  If my colleagues won't listen to the pleas of the pro-life Americans 
who are asking for the protection of these most basic rights, maybe 
they will listen to the words of their own President.
  With this bill, I am not seeking to change anyone's mind on abortion; 
though I hope that one day I can. I am not asking my colleagues to rule 
anyone's abortion to be illegal; though every act of abortion 
absolutely breaks my heart. I am not asking my colleagues to withhold a 
dime from a single abortion provider; although I will continue to fight 
to stop the spending of my constituents' dollars to the industries that 
take human life.
  Today I simply ask the Members of this body to allow the millions of 
Americans who believe as I do--in the sanctity of every human life--to 
abide by those beliefs without having them trampled upon by their own 
government. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this very compassionate, 
reasonable, and modest bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called 
Conscience Protection Act.
  Despite its name, this bill actually does the opposite. It would 
infringe upon the beliefs and values of women across this country, 
putting their bosses' wishes over their own. This is wrong. It is yet 
another attempt to play politics with women's health. A woman's ability 
to control when, how, or whether to have children is central to her 
conscience, to her health, to her well-being, to her economic 
stability; but this bill would consider a woman's wish to be secondary 
to that of her employer's.
  Let me be personal for just a moment. I am the daughter of a 
minister. I grew up in a parsonage, and my father was a member of the 
clergy. I understand the importance of religion to the lives of so 
many, including to me. My faith was always a large part of what 
motivated me as a nurse, as a public health person, and what motivates 
me now as a Member of Congress. Perhaps it is because of this that I 
cannot stand on the sidelines when some are trying to use religion as a 
justification for discrimination or to take away the decisionmaking 
powers and responsibilities of another.

                              {time}  1515

  Health care and the personal decisions a woman makes are not her 
boss' business. It is far past time to get employers out of the exam 
room.
  We need to trust and value women and let them make their own personal 
health decisions with their healthcare providers, with their family, 
with their faith, not politicians.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), the author of this legislation and the primary 
cosponsor.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the testimony 
from Honorable Dr. Dave Weldon, author of the Weldon amendment, on this 
very bill and a few letters I received from obstetricians and 
gynecologists from across the country.

          Statement by the Hon. Dave Weldon, MD, Retired FL-15


         Congressional Forum on Conscience Rights, July 8, 2016

       Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important 
     issue. The stories shared today by the people around this 
     table underscore the very reason I authored the Weldon 
     amendment.
       You can imagine my outrage to learn that this 
     administration has gutted my amendment and is allowing 
     ongoing discrimination in California.
       Over a decade ago, I became aware of the Maryland NARAL 
     Hospital Provider Project. This disturbing initiative was 
     designed to force abortion into every hospital in Maryland.
       In response to this and similar threats, I drafted my 
     appropriations amendment. It is intended to bring a stop to 
     the abortion industry crusade to force this gruesome 
     procedure into every aspect of society.
       Recognizing that the abortion lobby's relentless campaign 
     knows no limits, we drafted the amendment to cover a wide 
     universe of entities. Nurses, doctors, hospitals, even health 
     plans themselves are covered entities under my amendment.
       Covering individual health plans ensures that insurance 
     companies that are ambivalent about abortion can still offer 
     plans that exclude abortion to meet the needs of purchasers.
       We never limited the protection to those with religious, 
     moral or conscience objections. In fact, in my experience as 
     a physician the majority of health professionals who claim to 
     support Roe v Wade always say to me that they would never 
     want to be affiliated with doing an abortion. They too would 
     be protected if the administration would do their duty to 
     enforce the law.
       I authored this amendment to protect FREEDOM for people to 
     provide health care free from abortion and FREEDOM for people 
     to access health care and coverage free from the scourge of 
     abortion.
       FREEDOM for people like the pastors here today to purchase 
     insurance plans that exclude abortion--a freedom the existed 
     just two years ago before California took the draconian step 
     of mandating abortion in ALL plans under the authority of the 
     California Department of Managed Health Care.
       The origins of the directive are as insidious as the 
     directive itself. When the abortion lobby found out that 
     Catholic Universities in California did not cover abortion in 
     their insurance plans, they sprang to action, initiating a 
     meeting with the Department of Managed Health Care.
       Less than a year later, the Department did the bidding of 
     Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. They unilaterally inserted 
     abortion into each and every insurance plan under their 
     authority--even plans purchased by CHURCHES and Catholic 
     Universities.
       My amendment anticipated this very scenario by defining a 
     health insurance plan as a protected health care entity. This 
     allows an insurance company to offer multiple insurance 
     plans--some with abortion coverage and some without to meet 
     the conscience needs of their clients.
       After the Department of Managed Health Care issued their 
     directive, the plans excluding abortion were changed to 
     include abortion. This is clear discrimination against the 
     plan that excluded abortion, since such plan was no longer 
     permitted to exist
       As I explained in my floor statement in 2004, ``This is a 
     continuation of the Hyde policy of conscience protection . . 
     . The right of conscience is fundamental to our American 
     freedoms. We should guarantee this freedom by protecting all 
     health care providers from being forced to perform, refer or 
     pay for elective abortions.'' Unfortunately, the current 
     administration has even twisted this statement to suit their 
     political agenda.
       They take this reference to conscience protection and argue 
     that it must mean that I meant to include a religious or 
     moral test in my amendment. This is far from the truth.
       There is no reasonable way to read my statement as an 
     excuse to airdrop a religious or moral test into my 
     amendment. The Hyde amendment stops ALL federal funding for 
     elective abortion. Similarly, my amendment stops ALL 
     discrimination against entities that do not provide, pay for, 
     provide coverage of, or refer for abortion.
       Both amendments protect conscience broadly by protecting 
     the freedom of Americans to offer and access health care that 
     does not include abortion. Neither limits its protections to 
     cases where someone raises a religious or moral objection.
       In the June 21, 2016 letter announcing their gutting of the 
     Weldon amendment, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) also 
     feebly attempted to twist several more of my comments in 
     their effort to ignore the plain reading of the text.
       One begins to wonder, what's next. How far will the 
     abortion lobby and their allies in the administration go to 
     force abortion into our health care system?
       I am deeply concerned that this administration added words 
     to my amendment where they do not exist and ignored other 
     words clearly articulated in the text.
       We simply can no longer rely on the administration to 
     enforce the law and must offer a private right of action that 
     allows the Weldon protections to be enforced by the Courts.
                                  ____

                                                   Robert C. Byrd,


                                       Health Sciences Center,

                                       Charleston, WV, 12 July 16.
     Representative John Fleming and Representative Vicky 
       Hartzler,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Fleming and Hartzler: I am writing in 
     support of the

[[Page H4849]]

     Conscience Protection Act, HR. 4828, that provides federal 
     legal protection of conscience regarding abortion for those 
     who care for pregnant women. My clinical experiences spans 25 
     plus years of clinical care, research, publication, and 
     instruction as a Board certified Obstetrician & Gynecologist 
     and Maternal-Fetal Medicine specialist. I daily provide care 
     for women and babies who have medically complicated, life-
     threatening, and uncommon/rare pregnancy complications. 
     Further, as the originator of ``perinatal hospice'', I have 
     cared for (and still do) dozens of women with babies who have 
     terminal prenatal diagnoses who will die at, or shortly 
     after, birth.
       No one in my entire 25 plus years of clinical experience 
     has ever been denied appropriate care because of the exercise 
     of the rights of conscience in the provision of abortion. 
     Women and babies may die in spite of our best medical 
     efforts, but this unrelated to abortion availability or 
     provision.
       In my understanding of this new federal statute, conscience 
     will now be formally and legally protected. There is no need 
     for additional exceptions, or amendments, to this law as it 
     is presently written.
       I am more than happy to discuss this issue with either of 
     you or with one of your colleagues.
           Sincerely,
     Byron C. Calhoun, MD, FACOG, FACS, FASAM, MBA,
       Professor & Vice-Chair, Department of Obstetrics and 
     Gynecology, West Virginia University-Charleston, Charleston, 
     WV.
                                  ____

         University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus, School of 
           Public Health,
                                                     July 6, 2016.
     Representatives John Fleming, MD and Vicky Hartzler,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Representatives Fleming and Hartzler: I am a board 
     certified specialist in Obstetrics/Gynecology and Maternal/
     Fetal Medicine with 36 years of experience in practice, 
     teaching and research. During that time I have cared for 
     hundreds of women and babies with life-threatening, 
     complicated, and rare pregnancy conditions. In some of those 
     situations mothers and babies have lost their lives despite 
     undergoing the best available treatment including induced 
     delivery at the margins of viability. I care deeply about the 
     effects that public policy and legislation can have on the 
     care of mothers and babies.
       During my years of practice I have worked under informal 
     and formal conscience rights protections that permit me to 
     provide the best pregnancy care without being forced to 
     perform abortions. I have read the Conscience Protection Act, 
     H.R. 4828, and I agree with the federal formalization of 
     these protections. In my years of practice I have never seen 
     a woman denied appropriate care because of the exercise of 
     rights of conscience in this regard. There is no need for 
     additional exceptions or amendments to this law as it is 
     written.
       I am happy to discuss this with you or with your 
     colleagues.
       Sincerely,
     Steve Calvin, MD
       Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and 
     Women's Health, Co-chair Program in Human Rights and Health,  
     University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
                                  ____



                                  Anthony P. Levatino, MD, JD,

                                     Las Cruces, NM, July 7, 2016.
       Dear Reps. Fleming and Hartzler: I understand you are 
     seeking congressional approval of the Conscience Protection 
     Act (H.R. 4828), to prevent government discrimination against 
     health care providers who do not practice abortion. I am 
     writing in support of your efforts. I am a board-certified 
     obstetrician gynecologist. I received my medical degree from 
     Albany Medical College in 1976 and completed my OB-GYN 
     residency training at Albany Medical Center in 1980. In my 
     36-year career, I have been privileged to practice obstetrics 
     and gynecology in both private and university settings, 
     serving as associate professor of OB-GYN at Albany Medical 
     College, medical student director, and residency program 
     director. I currently serve as Clinical Professor and Chair 
     of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the Burrell College of 
     Osteopathic Medicine. I have also dedicated many years to 
     private practice and currently operate a solo gynecology 
     practice in Las Cruces, NM. I would like to comment on the 
     claim that government must require involvement in abortion in 
     order to save women's lives, because of life threatening 
     conditions that can and do arise in pregnancy. I can speak to 
     this issue from experience. I no longer perform abortions, 
     but during my first five years of private practice I 
     performed approximately 1,200 abortions including over 100 
     second trimester Suction D&E procedures up to 24 weeks 
     gestation.
       At Albany Medical Center in the 1990s, I personally treated 
     hundreds of women with life threatening conditions that can 
     arise or worsen during the second and third trimester of 
     pregnancy. In all of those cases, ``terminating'' the 
     pregnancy--that is, delivering the child--can be life saving. 
     In all such cases I treated, abortion was never a viable 
     treatment option. By their nature, late-term abortion 
     procedures require days of preparation of the cervix in order 
     to be successful. Any attempt to perform an abortion in such 
     cases--that is, to take the extra steps needed to ensure that 
     the unborn child does not survive--entails undue and 
     dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving 
     care for women.
       As an illustration, a patient arrived at Albany Medical 
     Center one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-
     eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 
     220/160 and was so dangerously high that she was likely 
     minutes or hours away from a major stroke. This case was 
     managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient's 
     blood pressure, then ``terminating'' her pregnancy by 
     Cesarean section. She and her baby did well. This is a 
     typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. During my 
     time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such 
     cases by ``terminating'' pregnancies to save mother's lives. 
     In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children 
     that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
       Attempting to treat women with truly life-threatening 
     conditions in the late 2nd and 3rd trimester with an abortion 
     entails serious delay of care that is not appropriate in the 
     vast majority of cases. I welcome your efforts to ensure that 
     health professionals can provide optimal medical care for 
     pregnant women, without having to fear outside legal pressure 
     to perform abortions instead.
           Very truly yours,


     Anthony Levatino, MD, JD.
                                  ____


         The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School 
           of Medicine,
                                   Chapel Hill, NC, July 13, 2016.
     Rep. John Fleming,
     Rep. Vicky Hartzler,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Fleming and Hartzler: I am a board 
     certified specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology with a sub-
     specialty certification in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. I have 
     over thirty-two years of experience in practice, teaching and 
     research at a major academic health center. During my career 
     I have cared for numerous women and babies with complications 
     that increase the risk of maternal death. In some of these 
     situations, both a mother and her baby have lost their lives. 
     I care deeply about the effects that public policy and 
     legislation can have on both those of us who provide 
     perinatal care and on our patients.
       My personal conscience directs me to provide the best of 
     care to pregnant women and their unborn children and I am 
     able to do so without performing abortions, as are several of 
     my colleagues and a proportion of the residents we train each 
     year. I have not seen a situation where an emergent or even 
     urgent abortion was needed to prevent a maternal death. I am 
     aware of, and have read, the Conscience Protection Act, and I 
     am writing to provide my opinion that I support the 
     formalization of these protections. No woman at UNC hospitals 
     has ever been denied care due to her conscience or beliefs; 
     nor does any physician ever feel obliged to direct or change 
     the standard of care for any woman due to race, ethnicity, 
     religion, or conscience. I see no need for any exceptions or 
     amendments to the law as written.
       I am available for question or comment or for further 
     discussion on this matter.
           Sincerely,
     John Thorp, MD,
       Hugh McAllister Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and 
     Gynecology, Professor, Maternal & Child Health, School of 
     Public Health, Director, Women's Primary Healthcare.

  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness, those words are inscribed in the Declaration of Independence 
among our inalienable rights, but the most important is life itself.
  As a physician who has delivered hundreds of babies, a father of four 
and a grandfather of three, I think I know something about preborn life 
and about the beginning of life itself.
  This is much more important than just our day-to-day work that we do 
here. So a decision in order for a healthcare worker or nonhealthcare 
worker to participate with an abortion, whether paying for it or 
actually performing it, is an immensely important debate that we should 
have here.
  It is not just religious grounds, as what is suggested on the other 
side, but also moral grounds. You see, even an atheist can find it 
against his or her conscience to participate in any way with an 
abortion.

[[Page H4850]]

  Now, the Conscience Protection Act, what is it, and why do we need 
it? Well, I would say, first of all, that it gives a private right of 
action to any American who disagrees with being required to pay 
insurance that would cover elective abortions. Certainly, a healthcare 
provider that may have to participate in any way--a physician, a nurse, 
anyone--should not be required to do that against his or her will. And 
it protects for that. It gives a private right of action.
  Now, why do we need a private right of action? Because in the recent 
example, in California, Secretary Burwell has failed, has deliberately 
avoided enforcing the very law itself, the Weldon amendment, that has 
been in law for 12 years. She has failed to enforce that law. And, 
therefore, the people of California, millions of people, do not have an 
access to court. They can't complain. They can't do anything and get 
relief.
  What this bill does is allow them to open that courtroom door and to 
get that relief and not be required any longer to participate with 
abortions, spending or otherwise.
  Now, the other side might say: What is the need for this? Is anyone 
being harmed?
  Of course, they are. You have heard of the DeCarlo case, where the 
nurse had to participate with putting dismembered body parts back 
together of a 22-week-old fetus. We have the nurses of Nassau 
University Medical Center. In 2010, nine of them were suspended for 
refusing to assist in abortions. And we have many, many other cases.
  I would just say to you, in conclusion today, this is the land of the 
free. This is, again, life and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, it 
is important that what we do here today, in passing this bill, that we 
protect the conscience rights--not just the religious rights but the 
moral rights--of our fellow citizens of America. We do the right thing, 
and we go on, and we work from there.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 304 
because this Republican bill discriminates against women. In fact, it 
promotes discrimination by sanctioning interference with a woman's 
ability to make her own personal health decisions.
  This bill, which was brought to the floor without any hearing in the 
Congress, is being done as the Republicans rush for the exits for 
summer recess tomorrow. It highlights the unfortunate inability of the 
Republican majority to focus on the issues that are affecting American 
families, like things to keep us safe, like keeping military-style 
weapons out of the hands of terrorists or dangerous people. They won't 
allow a debate or vote on that. Addressing the Flint, Michigan, water 
crisis, we haven't had a vote, a debate, or help for those families.
  The emerging public health crisis of Zika. In my home State of 
Florida, we now are approaching 300 cases of Zika, including 43 
pregnant women. What we know is birth defects and microcephaly are 
directly tied to the Zika virus. I hope that will weigh on everyone's 
conscience as the Republicans move toward adjournment without taking 
any action on the Zika virus.
  There was a report yesterday:

       Infectious-disease experts are shocked that Congress is 
     about to leave town for the summer without doing anything to 
     combat the Zika virus.
       ``In the almost 40 years I've been in this business, I've 
     never seen anything like what's happening with Zika,'' said 
     an adviser to four administrations.
       Some infectious-disease experts said they're stunned by 
     what's happened with Zika--months of waiting while the virus' 
     reach, and its potential to cause widespread birth defects, 
     in the U.S. has grown.

  So, colleagues, I urge you to defeat this discriminatory bill and get 
back to the business of the American people, keeping them safe, like 
addressing the Zika virus, not attacking the constitutional rights of 
women and their ability to make their own healthcare decisions.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler). I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership on life issues in this body.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in firm support of the 
Conscience Protection Act. The validity and timeliness of this 
legislation could not be more important in light of recent events in 
California in which religious employers are being forced to violate 
their beliefs by purchasing health coverage for their employees that 
includes elective abortion. And as stories surface, such as those you 
have heard about today of nurses being forced to participate in 
abortion procedures or else risk losing their job, the time to correct 
this injustice is now.
  It is unthinkable that the government could and would force a person 
to act against their personally held beliefs, yet that is what is 
happening. In a speech in Notre Dame, in 2009, President Obama said: 
``Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.'' But 
those words have rung hollow as his administration has sided with those 
who violate the First Amendment. It doesn't have to be like this.
  The Conscience Protection Act addresses this discrimination. It gives 
legal protection to those who choose not to participate in abortions 
and upholds our most fundamental rights. There is no more noble goal.
  The government should not be picking and choosing our beliefs. Those 
who have had this happen to them deserve their day in court. This bill 
will give them that day.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Conscience Protection 
Act and against coerced complicity in abortion.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for 
being such a strong voice on women's rights in this country.
  Colleagues, yesterday, this body considered a bill that would codify 
discrimination against our Nation's LGBT community under the guise of 
religious freedom. Today, we are debating legislation that would 
similarly distort this country's sacred promise of religious liberty 
and use it as a vehicle to deny women access to health care.

  Make no mistake, the ability to freely and fully practice your faith 
is a fundamental bedrock American liberty. But to ensure that liberty 
for all of us, our Constitution establishes a simple boundary. One 
person's sincerely held beliefs cannot trump another's. My freedoms and 
rights cannot be used to limit yours.
  And in this country, access to abortion is a right, as our Justices 
have ruled time and again.
  So let's be clear. This bill is not about protecting religious 
freedom of an employer or insurer. It is about imposing the religious 
views of a few on the healthcare choices of the many.
  And this bill is not about protecting women's health. Instead, it 
will create dangerous, discriminatory barriers to access to care for 
women and their families.
  Those who oppose abortion are free to exercise that belief fully in 
their personal lives. That is the promise that our country makes to 
each of us. But nowhere does this country promise that your government 
will be the vehicle through which your beliefs are imposed on someone 
else--your neighbor, your coworker, your employer, or your friend. 
Nowhere do we say that my faith is more legitimate than yours or that 
your religious principles outweigh my access to basic civil rights.
  In fact, the Constitution expressly prohibits that sort of system in 
the very first words of the very First Amendment. Since those words 
were written, the ever-changing, often elusive balance between 
religious freedom and civil rights in this country has been fought for 
every single day throughout our history.
  Passing this bill is an affront to those honest efforts and to the 
vast majority of Americans who value both their faith and their 
freedoms.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, we have all used this expression: ``I 
can't do that in good conscience.'' But we really don't think deeply 
about what it means. So let me take a moment from the debate here and 
explore that question deeper.
  Conscience is the sacred space of human dignity. Conscience is the 
place where, one, a person using the faculty of reason exercises their 
deeply held sincere beliefs to make a judgment in a

[[Page H4851]]

particular circumstance about what is right or wrong, what they ought 
to do or not to do.
  When the government comes along and robs us of our right to exercise 
our conscience, the government contradicts the very principle of its 
existence, of its purpose. The government imposes a dictate and 
violates that sacred space, the good of the human person, and the good 
of community. That is unjust. That is not America. That is an exercise 
in power. That is an imposition of the few with power on the many who 
deserve protection from their government.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the so-
called Conscience Protection Act. I proudly represent the 11th District 
of Illinois. And as someone who supports a woman's right to choose, I 
find it deeply disturbing that so many lawmakers today want to make 
healthcare access more difficult for women.
  This legislation will be detrimental to women's health because it 
gives individuals and corporations a license to discriminate against 
women's reproductive choices.
  I am also the only Ph.D. scientist in Congress. And as a scientist, I 
find it outrageous that this bill will give healthcare companies the 
right to deny accurate medical information to patients. This kind of 
legislation deliberately undercuts a woman's relationship to her doctor 
and has no place in the laws of our country.
  It is designed to confuse and to muddle the responsibilities of the 
medical community, who have been trained to make the best possible 
decisions for the patients in their trust. It, therefore, prioritizes 
ideology above science and reason to the detriment of women throughout 
the country.
  Every woman has the legal and constitutional right to make the 
healthcare decisions that are right for her and to receive 
scientifically correct advice from her healthcare providers.
  So I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary and 
dangerous legislation.

                              {time}  1530

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee for yielding and for her leadership not only on this bill, 
but especially for her work as chair of the Select Investigative Panel 
on Infant Lives.
  When we talk about this legislation, the Conscience Protection Act, I 
do want to also thank the author of the bill, Diane Black, as well as 
Dr. John Fleming, who helped lead this effort to draft it, Chairman Joe 
Pitts, and Chris Smith as well.
  Madam Speaker, it is so important that we pass the Conscience 
Protection Act. If you look at our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, 
and the framework that gives people all across this country true 
religious freedom, we recognize now that religious freedom is under 
attack. You don't need to look any further than the State of California 
which passed a law that really was the genesis for bringing this bill 
forward, because under the California law, it literally started forcing 
people to perform abortions against their own faith.
  We have heard about the story of Cathy DeCarlo, a nurse who was 
forced to participate in an abortion of a baby who was 22 weeks old at 
delivery. This should not happen in the United States of America. 
People should not be forced to violate their religious freedom, yet it 
is going on because this administration has not been enforcing the law. 
The Weldon amendment, which has been on the books since 2004, gives 
that very religious freedom protection that is now in jeopardy.
  Madam Speaker, what we are doing with this bill is restoring the law, 
but we are doing two specific things:
  First, we are making it very clear that this annual appropriations 
language becomes permanent. We shouldn't have to rely every year on 
reestablishing the law. Let's make this law permanent giving that 
religious freedom protection.
  Second, we are no longer depending on HHS alone, which is not doing 
its job to enforce the law. We actually give people the ability to 
enforce the law themselves and let government work for them in 
protecting their religious freedoms.
  It is critically important that we pass the Conscience Protection 
Act. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership on this bill and in so many other areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Conscience 
Protection Act. It is, in fact, a bill that offends the conscience and 
threatens the health and security of women. This vindictive bill is yet 
another tactic to throw roadblocks between women and their 
constitutional right to choose their own form of reproductive health 
care.
  Neither an employer nor an insurance company has the right to dictate 
a woman's healthcare choices. That is right. This bill permits 
insurance companies to deny certain coverage based on religious or 
moral grounds. This is merely another deliberate attempt to cut women 
off from safe, legal, comprehensive healthcare services. It could even 
restrict medical communication between a patient and her doctor or 
prevent women from getting critical emergency care.
  There are already sufficient laws in place so that religious 
institutions and providers cannot be compelled to perform abortions if 
they are morally opposed. So who are we protecting?
  This bill is not about conscience. It is an attack. It is an attack 
on women. It is an attack on their health care. It is a vehicle of 
discrimination against women, and women only. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this unnecessary and destructive bill.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). He is the chairman of our 
Health Subcommittee and one of the life leaders, chairman of the Values 
Action Team here in Congress. He is retiring this year, and we are 
going to miss his leadership on all the life issues.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill before 
us today. It is an urgent and necessary legislative fix. The Conscience 
Protection Act would simply make the protections of the Weldon 
conscience amendment more effective and permanent. The Weldon amendment 
has been the law of the land and approved by Congress as part of the 
appropriations process every year since 2004.
  Sadly, just 3 weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services Office for Civil Rights ruled that the California Department 
of Managed Health Care did not violate the Weldon amendment when it 
unilaterally required abortion in all health insurance plans. Due to 
this governmental discrimination against plans that previously excluded 
abortion, conscientious objectors are being forced to cover abortion 
through their health plans against the dictates of their conscience.
  This bill protects those who do not wish to participate in, provide 
for, or pay for abortions by opting out. It is this right to decline 
involvement in abortion that requires these protections, and the 
protections simply allow an aggrieved party to seek judicial review 
through a civil right of action.
  I urge support of the bill.

 Energy and Commerce Conscience Protection Act Forum Testimonies Part 
 II, Statement by the Hon. Dave Weldon MD Retired Fl-15, Congressional 
                Forum on Conscience Rights July 8, 2016

       Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important 
     issue. The stories shared today by the people around this 
     table underscore the very reason I authored the Weldon 
     amendment.
       You can imagine my outrage to learn that this 
     administration has gutted my amendment and is allowing 
     ongoing discrimination in California.
       Over a decade ago, I became aware of the Maryland NARAL 
     Hospital Provider Project. This disturbing initiative was 
     designed to force abortion into every hospital in Maryland.
       In response to this and similar threats, I drafted my 
     appropriations amendment. It is intended to bring a stop to 
     the abortion industry crusade to force this gruesome 
     procedure into every aspect of society.
       Recognizing that the abortion lobby's relentless campaign 
     knows no limits, we drafted the amendment to cover a wide 
     universe

[[Page H4852]]

     of entities. Nurses, doctors, hospitals, even health plans 
     themselves are covered entities under my amendment. Covering 
     individual health plans ensures that insurance companies that 
     are ambivalent about abortion can still offer plans that 
     exclude abortion to meet the needs of purchasers.
       We never limited the protection to those with religious, 
     moral or conscience objections. In fact, in my experience as 
     a physician the majority of health professionals who claim to 
     support Roe v Wade always say to me that they would never 
     want to be affiliated with doing an abortion. They too would 
     be protected if the administration would do their duty to 
     enforce the law.
       I authored this amendment to protect FREEDOM for people to 
     provide health care free from abortion and FREEDOM for people 
     to access health care and coverage free from the scourge of 
     abortion.
       FREEDOM for people like the pastors here today to purchase 
     insurance plans that exclude abortion--a freedom the existed 
     just two years ago before California took the draconian step 
     of mandating abortion in ALL plans under the authority of the 
     California Department of Managed Health Care.
       The origins of the directive are as insidious as the 
     directive itself. When the abortion lobby found out that 
     Catholic Universities in California did not cover abortion in 
     their insurance plans, they sprang to action, initiating a 
     meeting with the Department of Managed Health Care.
       Less than a year later, the Department did the bidding of 
     Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. They unilaterally inserted 
     abortion into each and every insurance plan under their 
     authority--even plans purchased by CHURCHES and Catholic 
     Universities.
       My amendment anticipated this very scenario by defining a 
     health insurance plan as a protected health care entity. This 
     allows an insurance company to offer multiple insurance 
     plans--some with abortion coverage and some without to meet 
     the conscience needs of their clients.
       After the Department of Managed Health Care issued their 
     directive, the plans excluding abortion were changed to 
     include abortion. This is clear discrimination against the 
     plan that excluded abortion, since such plan was no longer 
     permitted to exist.
       As I explained in my floor statement in 2004, ``This is a 
     continuation of the Hyde policy of conscience protection. . . 
     . The right of conscience is fundamental to our American 
     freedoms. We should guarantee this freedom by protecting all 
     health care providers from being forced to perform, refer or 
     pay for elective abortions.'' Unfortunately, the current 
     administration has even twisted this statement to suit their 
     political agenda.
       They take this reference to conscience protection and argue 
     that it must mean that I meant to include a religious or 
     moral test in my amendment. This is far from the truth.
       There is no reasonable way to read my statement as an 
     excuse to airdrop a religious or moral test into my 
     amendment. The Hyde amendment stops ALL federal funding for 
     elective abortion. Similarly, my amendment stops ALL 
     discrimination against entities that do not provide, pay for, 
     provide coverage of, or refer for abortion.
       Both amendments protect conscience broadly by protecting 
     the freedom of Americans to offer and access health care that 
     does not include abortion. Neither limits it's protections to 
     cases where someone raises a religious or moral objection.
       In the June 21, 2016 letter announcing their gutting of the 
     Weldon amendment, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) also 
     feebly attempted to twist several more of my comments in 
     their effort to ignore the plain reading of the text.
       One begins to wonder, what's next. How far will the 
     abortion lobby and their allies in the administration go to 
     force abortion into our health care system?
       I am deeply concerned that this administration added words 
     to my amendment where they do not exist and ignored other 
     words clearly articulated in the text.
       We simply can no longer rely on the administration to 
     enforce the law and must offer a private right of action that 
     allows the Weldon protections to be enforced by the Courts.
                                  ____


 Testimony of Michael Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending 
    Freedom, Congressional Forum on Conscience Rights--July 8, 2016

       My name is Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel for Alliance 
     Defending Freedom. As you have heard from those who preceded 
     me, all of whom ADF has been privileged to represent now or 
     in the recent past, rights of conscience in the medical 
     professions are under attack. Regrettably, some would make 
     conscience a partisan issue. But historically it has not been 
     so.
       In Roe itself the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance 
     of protecting conscience even as it created an abortion 
     right, noting that the AMA recognized that medical 
     professionals should never be ``required to perform any act 
     violative of personally held moral principles.'' Few 
     disagreed.
       When the House considered the Church Amendments just weeks 
     after Roe, which were intended in part to stop the ACLU's 
     lawsuits to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or 
     stop serving Medicaid patients, the bill passed 372-1 in the 
     House and 92-1 in the Senate. I challenge any of you to 
     imagine such a vote on anything today. Senator Ted Kennedy 
     defended the bill's ``full protection to the religious 
     freedom of physicians and others.''
       As other issues arose, this bipartisan agreement to protect 
     conscience remained, resulting in additional laws like the 
     Coats-Snowe Amendment and later, the Weldon Amendment. As 
     recently as 1992, when testifying in support of the Religious 
     Freedom Restoration Act, ACLU President Nadine Strossen 
     explained the law would safeguard ``such familiar practices 
     as . . . permitting religiously sponsored hospitals to 
     decline to provide abortion or contraception services.''
       Sadly, conscience is no longer a consensus. When virtually 
     everyone agreed that we were all better off with doctors, 
     nurses, pharmacists, and religious hospitals serving the 
     public while maintaining their moral principles, existing 
     healthcare conscience laws may have been sufficient.
       But today . . .
       The ACLU has relaunched its decades-old assault on Catholic 
     hospitals and aid agencies with a new campaign to force them 
     to perform abortions or withdraw from serving the poor.
       Individual medical professionals face increasing pressures 
     and orders to perform abortions or lose their jobs.
       Washington state enacted a law at Planned Parenthood's 
     request designed to punish pharmacists who refused to violate 
     their consciences.
       After years of failed attempts to enact abortion mandates 
     through favorable legislatures, the abortion lobby has now 
     found unelected allies to impose these mandates 
     bureaucratically--with even churches forced to cover 
     abortions from the offering plate.
       And as the Administration refuses to enforce the existing 
     conscience laws, medical students must decide whether to 
     pursue careers in women's health knowing that they may no 
     longer be able to depend on these bipartisan laws to protect 
     them when they need it.
       Whatever one's abortion views, Americans should be able to 
     agree--as even the most ardent abortion supporters in 
     Congress and culture historically have--that the ``choice'' 
     should not involve government compulsion.
       In light of the Administration's failure to act, it is 
     clear that we need a right of action to make these 
     protections meaningful again. We need the Conscience 
     Protection Act.
                                  ____


Richard M. Doerflinger, Remarks at a Forum on the Conscience Protection 
    Act (HR 4828), House Energy and Commerce Committee July 8, 2016

       It is clear why conscience rights on abortion should be 
     important to Congress. Our Declaration of Independence, which 
     we celebrate this week, cites the unalienable rights that 
     governments must respect because they are bestowed by our 
     Creator. Those rights begin with life and liberty. If 
     government can take away our liberty to respect life, there 
     is no right it cannot take away. Congress and the states have 
     passed laws to protect conscience rights since the Supreme 
     Court legalized abortion in 1973. And until very recently, in 
     this Administration, support for such laws has been strong 
     and thoroughly bipartisan.
       The first such federal law is the Church amendment of 
     1973--named for its prime sponsor, Democratic Senator Frank 
     Church of Idaho. It was needed for two reasons. First, after 
     Roe v. Wade, abortion supporters claimed that medical 
     students, health professionals and hospitals legally must 
     perform abortions; second, a federal court had ruled that 
     even a Catholic hospital must do sterilizations if it 
     receives federal funds. The Church amendment protected moral 
     and religious objections to these procedures, and in some 
     circumstances to any procedure. In 1996 Congress acted again, 
     because a national accrediting body was trying to force all 
     ob/gyn residency programs to provide abortion training. The 
     Coats/Snowe amendment said the government would not 
     discriminate against residents and residency programs that do 
     not perform abortions as regards accreditation and federal 
     aid. It passed the Senate 63-37, supported by Democrats such 
     as Patrick Leahy and Joseph Biden, and remains law today (42 
     USC 238n). It is not limited to objections based on morality 
     or religion, for reasons I would be happy to discuss. In 2002 
     the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act sought to ensure that 
     this policy would apply in non-training contexts. It passed 
     the House 229-189, supported by 37 Democrats, but was not 
     taken up by the Senate. Its policy was finally written into 
     law in 2004 through the Labor/HHS appropriations rider known 
     as the Weldon amendment.
       We now know these laws have a serious deficiency: None of 
     them includes a private right of action, allowing victims of 
     discrimination to go to court. All enforcement has been by 
     the HHS Office for Civil Rights. This deficiency is now 
     fatal, since this Administration refuses to enforce the law 
     as written and is itself a perpetrator of discrimination, as 
     in the domestic program for victims of human trafficking.
       Pro-abortion forces are now exploiting what they claim are 
     additional ambiguities in the Weldon amendment. They even 
     think they can have it declared unconstitutional because of 
     its enforcement mechanism, and the Obama administration now 
     gives credence to that claim. To defend pro-life Americans' 
     fundamental rights we need a clear definition of who is 
     protected, and a method of enforcement that is legally secure 
     and workable. This would be provided by the Conscience 
     Protection Act, HR 4828.

[[Page H4853]]

     
                                  ____
                          Jim Garlow Testimony

       My name is Jim Garlow. I am the pastor of Skyline church in 
     San Diego. I want to tell you a story.
       Lynda grew up in the Midwest. As a 14 year old high school 
     freshman, she was flattered that two high school seniors 
     wanted to take her to a movie. However, instead of going to a 
     movie, they drove the truck into a field in the darkness of 
     night and there they raped her.
       She became pregnant. Several months along, her pregnancy 
     was confirmed by a doctor and the decision was made to place 
     the baby for adoption.
       Lynda's pregnancy was problematic. The closest hospital 
     that could assist such a complicated pregnancy was 60 miles 
     away. Her mother--holding down a job and raising other 
     children, including two infants--could not come to see her. 
     For several months, the 14 years old lay flat on her back. By 
     herself. In a large city a long way from her small town.
       Finally the baby was born--a girl. A couple adopted her. My 
     (late) wife and I were that couple. We named that baby girl 
     Janie.
       Thirty six years later, my wife Carol died of cancer. 
     Shortly thereafter my daughter Janie happened to make 
     connection with her birthmother. It was then we found out 
     that Janie was not merely the product of rape--but of a gang 
     rape.
       This birthmother--who is now in her 50's--is a hero to me. 
     Why? Because we believe that while there might be unwanted 
     pregnancies, the results of those pregnancies are always 
     wanted babies.
       I have not only adopted four babies, but I have worked to 
     help couples adopt babies. And two of my daughters have 
     adopted babies--including our daughter Janie.
       The thought of a baby being killed in the womb is a 
     detestable and despicable act.
       In the last two years I have remarried. I married Rosemary 
     Schindler, who by her first marriage is distantly related to 
     Oskar Schindler of Schindler's List fame. My wife--following 
     in the gifting of Oskar Schindler--has given her life to work 
     with holocaust survivors--including 57 trips to Israel.
       And . . . I have given people tours to Germany--including a 
     stop by Buchenwald, the concentration camp. America's killing 
     centers will someday be likened to these locations of death.
       I find it appalling beyond words that my church . . . my 
     church! . . . is being forced so pay for such despicable 
     acts. I plead with you to do all you can to ``let my people 
     go'' from this horrific Dept of Managed Healthcare 
     ``Pharoah.''
       Thank you so much
     Jim Garlow
                                  ____

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). The gentlewoman from 
Colorado has 15 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 
11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to another bill 
that is aimed to come between a woman and her doctor. I have heard a 
lot of people talk about laws in California and so forth and what we 
are doing.
  This is my license to practice medicine in California as a doctor. 
Core to the oath I took as a doctor were three things: to do good, to 
do no harm, and the third plank in the ethics that guide how we 
practice is patient autonomy. That is what I want to talk about today, 
because what is buried in our Constitution is individual rights, 
individual liberties, and there is no right more sacred than what we do 
with our own bodies.
  Now, my job as a doctor is to sit in that exam room, answer the 
questions, and empower my patients to make the decisions that best 
impact their lives. That is why I find the Conscience Protection Act so 
objectionable, because it takes away a patient's right to make the 
decisions about their own health care. Let me give you an example that 
actually happened in our State.
  In northern California earlier this year, a woman was going to have a 
baby. She wanted to have that baby. She was scheduled to have a C-
section, but she already had prior kids, and she wanted to get a tubal 
ligation after the C-section. Her doctor thought that was the most 
prudent thing to do. That is totally acceptable. That is standard 
medical care. The problem was her hospital said she couldn't do it 
because they conscientiously objected to it.
  Now, to me that isn't a healthcare provider making a decision. That 
isn't taking best medical practice and making a decision. There wasn't 
anything objectionable about that. That is why we need to get the 
government out of our healthcare system. We need to get politicians out 
of the exam room. We need to make these decisions about that sacred 
bond between a patient and their physician, because she needs to make 
the decision.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, this is about honoring that sacred oath 
between a patient and their physician.
  Let's protect patients' rights, let's make our patients and women 
able to make the decisions that best impact their lives, and that is 
what this is about--individual liberties and individual rights.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conscience 
Protection Act. This legislation helps us protect our Nation's most 
vulnerable and protects healthcare providers' right of choice. The 
Conscience Protection Act will enable healthcare providers, charities, 
small businesses, and churches to have the power to make decisions 
regarding their practices.
  Our government should not force these entities to participate in or 
perform abortions against their deeply moral, ethical, or religious 
beliefs. No American should be forced to act against their beliefs. I 
am proud this bill provides protection to those who do not wish to be a 
part of these practices.
  I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce for 
their work on this very important bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I 
rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  Republicans have a hard time winning, especially on abortion. Already 
there are no Federal funds for abortion except rape, incest, or life of 
the mother. Already religious objections must be accommodated. But this 
bill allows the employer to veto his employee's reproductive health 
choices. How un-American.
  Let's thank the Supreme Court of the United States that, in an 
unusual move, has just sent a case back to the Justice Department for 
an appropriate compromise after nuns did not want to fill out a form 
absolving them of making a decision on abortion for their employees. 
The Court said, you can find an answer without depriving these 
employees of their healthcare choices.
  Some Republicans won't be satisfied until abortion is unavailable 
nationwide, as Congress has done, to its shame, for poor women in the 
District of Columbia, whose local tax funds cannot be used for abortion 
services. This choice belongs to women and to women alone.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record statements from 
the Protection Act Forum in addition to the statements previously 
included by Mr. Pitts.

Energy and Commerce Conscience Protection Act Forum Testimonies Part I, 
                     July 8th Forum on Capitol Hill

       Good morning. My name is Dr. Marie-Alberte Boursiquot and I 
     am the president-elect of the Catholic Medical Association. I 
     am delighted and honored to be invited to address you ladies 
     and gentlemen today on the Conscience Protection Act (CPA).
       It's providential that we are gathered today to discuss a 
     threat to our religious liberties following the July 4th 
     holiday. I need not remind any of you that our First 
     Amendment states: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
     establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise 
     thereof...''
       I am here today to help you appreciate the importance of 
     upholding conscience rights and religious liberty in all 
     aspects of life and most especially in the delivery of health 
     care.
       As an organization, the CMA was accepted as a party to the 
     case of the ACLU vs. Trinity Health Care where the ACLU would 
     force hospitals to perform abortions and threaten the rights 
     of medical professionals and the choices of pro-life 
     patients. This case would furthermore violate federal 
     conscience laws.
       The Conscience Protection Act of 2016 is necessary in that 
     it will protect health care professionals from being forced 
     to pay for or participate in abortions and allow victims of 
     discrimination a ``right of action'' to defend their rights 
     in court.
       We cannot allow our government to force hospitals, 
     physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals to 
     stop offering much needed health care because they cannot in 
     good conscience participate in destroying developing life.

[[Page H4854]]

       This intrusion of the government prohibits the free 
     exercise of our faith as Catholics. Catholic Medical students 
     are particularly vulnerable in that they may be forced to 
     participate in abortions and learn how to perform them. This 
     would not only violate their conscience, as Catholics, but 
     force them to violate the Hippocratic Oath.
       This oath, as you know, was developed in the 5th-3rd 
     century, B.C and requires a new physician to swear to uphold 
     specific ethical standards in the practice of medicine. A 
     modernized version of the original Greek version is often 
     used today. But originally one swore to the following:
       Respect the authority of our teachers
       To treat the sick according to one's ability and judgment 
     but never with a view to injure and wrongdoing
       Never to administer poison to anyone who'd ask for it nor 
     to suggest such a course
       Not to give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion
       To keep pure and holy both our lives and our art
       Help the sick and abstain from all intentional wrong doing 
     and harm
       Respect the confidentiality of our discussion with our 
     patients
       All human life is a gift from God. Pregnancy is not an 
     ailment but a sign of health. Abortion terminates that gift 
     of life and the woman ultimately suffers physically, 
     spiritually, and emotionally. Physicians and Catholic 
     hospitals should not be coerced to violate their consciences 
     in performing this harmful act nor allow it to be performed 
     in a Catholic setting.
           Respectfully,
     Marie-Alberte Boursiquot, M.D.,
       F.A.C.P., President-elect, Catholic Medical Association.
                                  ____


         Foothill Church, Testimony Before Congressional Forum

       Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Chris 
     Lewis and I'm the Lead Pastor at Foothill Church in Glendora, 
     California.
       Foothill Church has approximately 1,000 people who attend 
     each weekend. We are actively involved in serving our local 
     community by helping low income public schools, raising money 
     for victims of sex trafficking and serving in a local crisis 
     pregnancy center. We've never waivered in our Biblical 
     conviction about the sanctity of all life and that life 
     begins at the moment of conception and must be protected.
       In May of 2014, Foothill Church, on its own initiative, 
     asked its insurance broker to begin working with our 
     insurance providers (Kaiser & Blue Shield) specifically to 
     ensure that we were not covering abortions or abortifacient 
     drugs. Our sole purpose for doing that was to ensure that we 
     were not contradicting our deeply held beliefs about the 
     sanctity of Life by offering insurance that, in practice, 
     denied those beliefs. Our church's employees don't want 
     abortion coverage and our church members don't wish their 
     tithes and offerings contributing to abortion coverage.
       In the Summer of 2014, we were pleased to find out that 
     Kaiser Permanente had already been approved to offer such a 
     plan by DMHC in 2012. Our insurers were willing and able to 
     provide us with an insurance plan that met the needs of our 
     employees and which was consistent with our religious 
     convictions. This should have been the end of the story.
       But on August 22nd, 2014, the DMHC issued an order 
     requiring every medical plan in the state to ``provide 
     coverage of ALL terminations of pregnancies effective 
     immediately.'' There is no religious exception.
       Today, because of the decision by the DHMC and the refusal 
     of HHS to require them to follow federal law and grant 
     religious exemptions, Foothill Church is being coerced by the 
     State, to violate one of our most cherished beliefs and 
     deeply held religious convictions and offer abortions in our 
     medical plan. Jesus taught us to render to Caesar that which 
     is Caesar's, but neither human life, nor our consciences 
     belong to Caesar, they belong to God. The tithes and 
     offerings of the people of Foothill Church do not belong to 
     Caesar, they belong to God. And when Caesar and God disagree 
     we have no choice: we must render to God what is God's.
       This illegal mandate places Foothill Church in an 
     impossible situation. On the one hand, we have a Biblical 
     (and now under Obamacare a legal) obligation to take care of 
     our employees. And we want to do that. But on the other hand, 
     California says that in fulfilling that obligation, we must 
     cover abortions and violate one of our fundamental beliefs. 
     If we don't, we will face penalties of thousands per 
     employee. We have explored alternatives, but as a single 
     church we simply can't take on the cost and risk of self-
     insuring our employees and their families.
       So here we are, left in a precarious position first by the 
     State and now by the Administration which has refused to 
     enforce the law that should protect us.
       I want to thank you for taking time to hear me today and 
     I'm asking you to act.
                                  ____


                  Testimony of Fe Vinoya, July 8, 2016

       My name is Fe Esperanza Racpan Vinoya, a nurse of 26 years 
     and I represent the 12 nurses who were ordered to assist in 
     abortion 6 years ago in a Same Day Surgery Unit in New 
     Jersey. I became a nurse to help people, not to do harm. 
     Participating in the destruction of human life is not only a 
     violation of my religious convictions, it conflicts with my 
     calling as a medical professional to protect life, not to end 
     it.
       Despite our numerous pleas to our superiors due to our 
     religious beliefs, we were required to be trained to 
     participate in the preparation, delivery, and disposal of the 
     baby. Our jobs were threatened if we were not to follow their 
     directives.
       Protecting our conscience serves our patients well. I will 
     not participate in abortion. Period. So no amount of 
     compulsion against me would have succeeded. But forcing me 
     and my colleagues out of our jobs would have denied all of my 
     patients access to the services we perform on a daily basis. 
     And no one should want medical professionals, with the power 
     of life and death in their hands, that are forced to set 
     aside their moral convictions.
       Both New Jersey and federal law prohibited discrimination 
     against us because of our refusal to perform abortions. But 
     in practice those laws are often only as effective as the 
     willingness of government to respect them. In response to our 
     lawsuit to defend our rights the hospital argued that those 
     laws gave us no right to sue and enforce those laws. That I 
     and my colleagues had to go through this ordeal shows the 
     need for clearer protections that do not rely upon the good 
     faith of government officials.
       I am here in your presence right now as the voice for the 
     health professionals who are and will be undergoing the same 
     traumatic experience of being ordered to participate in the 
     killing of the innocent babies. I was asked to choose between 
     following my conscience or keeping my job to sustain my 
     family. We were blessed to have the assistance of ADF and 
     attorney Demetrios Stratis to protect our rights. Others will 
     not be so fortunate, and should not have to rely simply upon 
     the hope that whichever Administration is in power will 
     enforce the law.
       I encourage you to protect medical professionals like us 
     and allow us to serve our patients without fear of 
     discrimination. Please pass the Conscience Protection Act.
                                  ____


  Remarks by Alliance for Conscience Rights Director William J. Cox, 
 Energy and Commerce Committee Forum on Conscience Rights, July 8, 2016

       Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bill Cox, and I am here 
     in two capacities: as the director of the Alliance for 
     Conscience Rights, a national coalition of Catholic health 
     care systems formed to address growing governmental 
     discrimination against faith-based health care providers; and 
     as CEO of the Sacramento-based Alliance of Catholic Health 
     Care, which represents California's 48 Catholic hospitals.
       The nub of this morning's conversation is about whether 
     federal civil rights statutes, such as the Weldon Amendment, 
     should include a private right of action. This would give the 
     victims of private and governmental discrimination standing 
     to adjudicate their claims in federal court.
       I'll briefly make four points: First, every federal civil 
     rights law includes a private right of action, including the 
     Administration's new health care non-discrimination rule. The 
     Weldon civil rights statute should include one as well. As a 
     matter of fairness, when protecting a civil right, every 
     American deserves their day in court. Second, this Congress 
     has a duty to add a private right of action to Weldon, given 
     that the Office for Civil Rights just stated that the 
     Department of Justice believes the current Weldon remedy--the 
     rescission of a state's Labor-H funds--is unconstitutional 
     under the Supreme Court's NFIB v. Sebelius ruling. Thus, the 
     OCR and DoJ have basically admitted that the executive branch 
     will never enforce Weldon. Third, a Weldon private right of 
     action would provide an alternative to rescinding a state's 
     federal health, education and other funds--billions of 
     dollars that support programs for those who are struggling 
     the most. We're not interested in financially penalizing 
     states that violate Weldon--our only interest is in bringing 
     them into compliance with federal law. All we're seeking is 
     the legal status quo (Weldon) with an additional remedy (a 
     private right of action). Fourth, the OCR's recent refusal to 
     uphold Weldon revealed another possible enforcement defect: 
     health care insurers that are covered by Weldon, but ignore 
     their clients' conscience rights. California's health plans 
     acceded to the state's abortion mandate and, therefore, do 
     not believe they can honor their clients' sincerely held 
     moral convictions. Weldon should be clarified to ensure that 
     purchasers of health insurance, who object to covering 
     elective abortions, are never required to do so. Without that 
     clarity, states, such as California and New York, will 
     continue to discriminate against employers and health care 
     providers that choose not to cover, pay for or provide 
     elective abortions; and other states will inevitably follow 
     their lead.
       In conclusion, those opposed to enforcing Weldon allege two 
     things: First, the growth of Catholic health care in states, 
     such as Washington--where Catholic hospitals provide 40% of 
     the acute care--is reducing access to abortion; and second, 
     Catholic hospitals' moral beliefs result in substandard 
     emergency care to pregnant women. In respect to the first 
     allegation, in 2013 the State of Washington's Healthcare 
     Research Group released a study showing that there has been 
     no diminishment in access to abortion pursuant to the growth 
     of Catholic hospitals in

[[Page H4855]]

     that state. In respect to the second allegation, numerous 
     lawsuits claiming Catholic moral beliefs result in injury to 
     patients have not withstood even preliminary challenges in 
     the courts. And no state or federal regulatory authority has 
     ever cited a Catholic hospital for providing substandard 
     emergency care to a pregnant woman. If patients were actually 
     injured in a hospital--any hospital--damages and malpractice 
     claims would be filed immediately. In the instances alleged 
     in these suits, none have been filed. The injury allegations 
     made in them are not anchored in fact, but asserted solely 
     for political reasons to tarnish Catholic hospitals' sterling 
     brand. Finally, and notwithstanding claims to the contrary, 
     Catholic moral principles do not preclude Catholic hospitals 
     from providing emergency contraception when treating rape 
     victims. For example, in California 11 Catholic-affiliated 
     hospitals are state-designated rape trauma centers and/or 
     Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) sites.
       Mr. Chairman, our nation is strengthened by faith-based 
     hospitals that have been delivering care, consistent with 
     their core convictions, for well over 150 years. This 
     Congress needs to clarify and strengthen Dr. Weldon's 
     amendment to enable them to continue serving their patients 
     and communities, free from governmental compulsion to violate 
     their moral beliefs.
       Thank you.
                                  ____


 Oral Statement of Donna J. Harrison M.D. Executive Director, American 
    Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists at the 
    Congressional Briefing: Conscience Protection Act, July 8, 2016

       As Executive Director of The American Association of Pro-
     Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, representing 4000 
     obgyns and other reproductive health care professionals, I 
     routinely hear from medical students, residents and members 
     of my organization who are being pressured to kill their 
     unborn patients. I know students denied residency positions, 
     fully tenured faculty fired for testifying in court cases, 
     defending the lives of their fetal patients, or teaching 
     about the scientific fact of human existence from 
     fertilization. Physicians who practice according to the 
     Hippocratic Oath are expelled from the medical system or 
     prevented from entering it for refusing to cooperate in the 
     killing of their patients. And the ACLU has recently launched 
     a project to force hospitals to perform abortions. Through 
     our attorneys at ADF, AAPLOG has intervened to help defend 
     these Catholic hospitals and the pro-life medical 
     professionals that work there. Who do you want to care for 
     you and your family: a physician with moral integrity or a 
     physician without moral integrity? Most patients want a 
     physician who shares their moral values and most U.S. women 
     think killing unborn children is wrong. Elective abortion is 
     not medical care. Killing human beings to solve social 
     problems is not medical care. As stated in the International 
     Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health, and our AAPLOG mission 
     statement, killing our unborn patients has no place in the 
     practice of the healing arts. 85% of obstetricians do not 
     perform elective abortions. It is not from lack of skill. We 
     don't kill unborn patients because we went into medicine to 
     care for both the pregnant mother and her unborn child. We 
     don't want to be forced to use our professional skills to 
     participate in killing one of our patients.
       I speak to medical student groups across the country. 
     Medical students tell me frequently that they are interested 
     in obgyn, but they won't train in it because they don't want 
     to be forced to kill unborn children. No wonder there is a 
     shortage of obgyns and costs are rising. On paper, federal 
     and state conscience laws protect rights of conscience. But 
     these students see the grim reality--those protections are 
     worthless without a right of action when the Administration 
     refuses to enforce the law.
       Compelling medical professionals and students to perform 
     abortions won't increase access for women's healthcare. It 
     will force medical professionals with moral integrity out of 
     the field. Women won't have more access to abortionists. 
     They'll have reduced access to obgyns to meet their health 
     needs and deliver their babies.
       America used to recognize conscientious objections to 
     killing and allow her citizens to live out their convictions 
     in ways which do not involve taking human lives. That is what 
     the First Amendment is about. But without an administration 
     willing to uphold our First Amendment rights, a health care 
     professional has little recourse. On behalf of pro-life 
     medical professionals and the women and unborn children they 
     serve, I urge you to pass the Conscience Protection Act.
           Respectfully submitted,
     Donna J. Harrison, M.D.,
       Executive Director, American Association of Pro-life 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers). She is our 
Conference chair and also a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Conscience Protection Act because, in America, we think and believe 
differently than each other. We are granted the freedom to believe. It 
is a freedom that sets us apart, makes us unique. It is not a flaw; it 
is special. It is spectacular, even.
  Preserving this freedom is not easy. It wasn't meant to be. Living in 
a country where everyone is promised the right to live free according 
to their own beliefs and dreams is difficult. But it is a challenge 
that we have risen to time and time again, and we must continue to do 
so.
  All of this is exactly why the Conscience Protection Act is so 
important. It stops the government from coming in and taking away a 
person's freedom to choose a doctor who shares their beliefs or forcing 
churches to make decisions that violate their conscience, like 
purchasing health insurance plans that go against who they are.
  Importantly, it allows doctors and other healthcare providers to 
focus on healing and caring for their communities without the fear of 
having someone from the government telling them they have to do 
something that violates who they are and what they believe.
  It is no secret, the Federal Government isn't supposed to be 
discriminating against healthcare providers who refuse to participate 
in abortion. It is against the law. Here we have the Department of 
Health and Human Services ignoring the law and doing whatever they want 
to do. Along the way, they are ignoring people, people who wish to 
leave abortions out of their coverage or their medical practice.
  There are a number of reasons this kind of discrimination cannot 
stand, but the biggest reason: people are being told what to do and 
what to believe by the government. In this case, it is the Department 
of Health and Human Services joining the ranks of countless, faceless, 
nameless bureaucrats who are trying to dictate what beliefs are more 
worthy of the protection than others. They have to stop it.
  Support the Conscience Protection Act today because people who 
believe differently than us are promised the freedom to still find 
unity as communities and companies, and no one should be denied that 
freedom based on their unwillingness to participate in abortion. 
Support the Conscience Protection Act on behalf of people who are just 
trying to live their lives and do what they believe is the right thing.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Colorado for yielding and for all her work in this area.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today would allow a woman's boss to 
decide what type of medical care she is allowed to access.
  Republicans are telling us that it is not up to a woman to consult 
her doctor or her family or her own faith--that she needs to consult 
with her boss when it comes to her personal, private, and 
constitutionally protected medical decisions.
  Here we are in the midst of unprecedented public health emergencies--
nearly 50 American women diagnosed with Zika every single day, a 
dangerously underfunded opioid response program, no relief for the 
families of Flint, Michigan, and the worst gun massacre in our 
country's history--and this is the Republican majority's priority?
  The response to these emergencies is wrapping themselves in religious 
liberty when religious objections are already protected under our 
current laws, as they should be, and, instead, insert themselves into a 
woman's most private medical decisions.
  This is no way to govern. I know it, the majority knows it, and the 
American people are going to remember it.
  This so-called Conscience Protection Act is ironically titled because 
I cannot imagine a more blatant admission of this Congress' crisis of 
conscience. With 91 people dying every day by guns, with the threat of 
Zika to unborn babies unanswered and unfunded, with 125 deaths from 
opioids every day in this country, this bill is an abject rejection of 
conscience. If anyone needs their conscience protected, it is the 
Republicans in Congress who think this is

[[Page H4856]]

what we should be dealing with right now.
  My question to my colleagues is this: How does your conscience feel 
when you remain silent in the face of such tragedy and public health 
threats?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), who is a true fighter on the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, in 2009, President Obama, told Notre Dame 
University graduates:

       Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with 
     abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make 
     sure that all of our healthcare policies are grounded not 
     only in sound science, but also in clear ethics.

  Over the course of the ensuing 8 years, however, what the President 
has said and what he is doing now are completely opposite. Instead of 
protecting the conscience of those who disagree, the President and his 
administration have discriminated against Americans because of their 
views on abortion.
  No American should be forced to participate in an abortion or be 
coerced to purchase a healthcare plan which includes abortion. Yet 
today, that is exactly what is happening. In California, churches are 
being forced to purchase healthcare plans and pay for abortion. Yes, 
churches.
  In America, respecting the freedom of conscience is a long-held 
American tradition. Let's continue that tradition today and pass the 
Conscience Protection Act.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Speaker, a central principle in our Nation's 
history has been a clear rejection of government forcing someone to 
take an action that violates their religious or moral convictions.
  Americans rejected being forced to return runaway slaves. We rejected 
forced conscription against conscientious objections. We reject being 
forced to support State-run churches. And now we must reject the forced 
participation in the killing of unborn life.
  No one should be forced to have an abortion, no one should be forced 
to participate in an abortion, and no one should be discriminated 
against for refusing to collaborate in an abortion. When government 
endangers these protections and discriminates against healthcare 
providers who are holding fast to their moral convictions, it is time 
to provide safeguards. That is why I urge the House to pass S. 304, the 
Conscience Protection Act of 2016.
  No one should be forced to purchase health plans that cover 
abortions. Certainly, no one--nurses, doctors, or other healthcare 
providers--should be forced to help carry out an abortion against their 
conscience. Certainly, no one should be punished or discriminated 
against for refusing to carry out this gruesome procedure.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conscience 
Protection Act, and I would like to thank my colleague from Tennessee 
for her work on this important issue.
  Health care is about saving life, not taking life. Medical 
professionals should not be forced to violate their deeply held 
convictions and participate in abortion procedures based on a 
government mandate.
  In this Nation, universities and even churches are being forced to 
cover abortion through their insurance plans. These mandates trample on 
religious freedom.
  This bill, which I support here today, would stop the Federal 
Government and State and local governments from penalizing, 
retaliating, or discriminating against a healthcare provider if that 
provider chooses to not participate in abortion services.
  I am the proud father of three boys with my wife Kristen, and I am 
also a practicing Catholic. I stand here today in defense of the unborn 
and religious freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, regardless of their faith or their 
views on abortion, to understand and realize that this form of 
government coercion is immoral. We must protect Americans' rights to 
follow their conscience, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
necessary legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Conscience 
Protection Act, which allows employers and others to block women's 
access to full health care.
  Under the guise of conscience protection, this is a hypocritical bill 
that would make it even harder for women to obtain the reproductive 
health care they need. It is hypocritical because it does nothing to 
protect the doctors whose conscience guides them to provide women with 
safe, legal abortions. Because of hundreds of punitive bills filled in 
State legislatures and in this Congress, these providers face the 
threat of harsh penalties for following their conscience: onerous 
fines, years in prison, and loss of their medical license.
  With that said, Mr. Speaker, let me respectfully suggest that the 
consciences we should be protecting today belong to the women of this 
Nation, who should be allowed to choose their own reproductive destiny.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania Mr. Rothfus.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, as seen in this debate, few issues divide 
this country the way abortion does. One sides argues an autonomy that 
allows no questions. The other implores we recognize the inalienable, 
God-given right to life of all human beings, a right recognized in our 
Declaration of Independence. Notwithstanding these divisions, our 
citizens have long agreed that no one should be coerced into 
participating in abortion or paying for an abortion.
  Pro-life Americans have deeply held convictions that abortion 
destroys a human life. They have watched sonograms of babies in utero, 
and they have seen the tragic aftermath. They do not want to be 
involved in this procedure in any way.
  Yet, from a New York nurse, who was forced against her conscience to 
take part in aborting a 22-week-old baby, to Catholic institutions in 
California being forced to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion, 
people of conscience are threatened. This is wrong.
  Martin Luther King, Jr., a faith leader--he was a Reverend--was a 
powerful advocate for conscience rights. Dr. King put it simply: 
``Conscience asks the question, is it right?''
  The Conscience Protection Act is in the long tradition of our 
Nation's respect for religious freedom and the protection of people of 
conscience. I urge support for this legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conscience 
Protection Act, which would prevent the Federal, State, and local 
government from discriminating against healthcare providers who choose 
not to participate in abortion.
  I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I stand before you today as a 
surgeon who has practiced for over two and half decades. I want to say 
clearly that no healthcare provider should be forced to participate in 
abortion or any medical or surgical procedure, for that matter, against 
their will.
  Doctors take an oath to do no harm. I took that oath myself. Health 
care is about protecting life, not taking life. Make no mistake about 
it, I am pro-life.
  Forcing healthcare providers to violate their conscience is a 
rejection of the individual liberty on which our Nation is built.
  And even more to make a point, what patient would want a doctor to 
perform a procedure--any procedure--that they don't feel comfortable 
with, for whatever reason they don't feel comfortable with it?
  This defies human reason. Enforcing it defies human freedom in this, 
the land of the free, or so we say.

[[Page H4857]]

  Healthcare providers are not owned by the government or any other 
entity. No American is owned by the government or any other entity. 
This protection is long overdue, and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this crucial bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, when I started this debate, I said that this bill is 
really a wolf in sheep's clothing. And I meant it.
  We have heard throughout this last hour many calls for conscience, 
many assertions that people shouldn't be forced to perform abortions 
against their religious convictions. We even just now saw a quote from 
my hero, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., here on the floor, talking about 
civil rights.
  Well, guess what?
  As speaker after speaker on our side has pointed out, under current 
law, providers are not required to provide abortions. This has been the 
law since the 1970s, when the Church amendment was passed.
  In the 1970s, when the Church amendment was passed--it has been law 
ever since then--I was in high school at that time. It says that 
providers do not have to provide abortions against their religious 
convictions, and they have legal recourse if they don't want to do it.
  The Church amendment was expanded in 2005 by the so-called Weldon 
amendment, which has been an appropriations rider since that time. What 
the Weldon amendment says is that no Federal funding will be made 
available to government entities that subject a healthcare entity, 
physicians, hospitals, or HMOs to discrimination because it does not 
provide, pay for, cover or refer for abortions.
  So, in fact, under current law, if somebody is being made to provide 
abortion services against their will, they have recourse.
  And guess what?
  In every single example that the majority gave today, they had 
recourse. And they won.
  Let's talk about the Catherine DeCarlo case, the nurse in New York 
that so many of my colleagues have referred to, who, by her employer, 
was required, against her ethical convictions, to provide abortion 
services. She filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights, as 
she is allowed to under law. An investigation ensued.
  And guess what?
  The hospital was required to take remedial action and change their 
policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the decision from the Department 
of Health and Human Services entered under the Obama administration 
giving Ms. DeCarlo these rights.

                                            Department of Health &


                                               Human Services,

                                                 February 1, 2013.
     Re Reference Number: 10-109676

     Matthew S. Bowman, Esq.,
     Alliance Defending Freedom,
     Washington, DC.
     David Reich, MD,
     Interim President, The Mount Sinai Hospital,
     New York, NY.
       Dear Mr. Bowman and Dr. Reich: The U.S. Department of 
     Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights 
     (OCR), has completed its investigation of the above-
     referenced complaint filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, 
     formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund (the 
     complainant), on behalf of Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo 
     (the affected party) against The Mount Sinai Hospital (the 
     Hospital). The complaint alleges that, on May 24, 2009, the 
     Hospital forced the affected party to assist in the 
     performance of an abortion procedure despite her express 
     religious objections. The complaint also alleges that, 
     because of the affected party's initial refusal to 
     participate in the May 24, 2009 procedure, the Hospital 
     discriminated against her by: (i) reducing the number of on-
     call shifts she received for the month of August 2009; and 
     (ii) asking her to sign a statement of her willingness to 
     participate in abortion procedures in emergencies as a 
     condition to being assigned more on-call shifts for September 
     2009 than she was assigned for August 2009.
       OCR initiated an investigation of this complaint consistent 
     with its authority under the Church Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 300a-7; Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 
     U.S.C. Sec. 238n; and the Weldon Amendment, Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. G, 
     Sec. 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209 (collectively referred to 
     as the Federal health care provider conscience statutes) and 
     their implementing regulation, 45 C.F.R. Part 88.
       According to information available on its website, the 
     Hospital is a 1,171-bed tertiary-care teaching facility that 
     oversees approximately 58,000 patients receiving inpatient 
     care, 530,000 outpatient visits, and 98,000 emergency room 
     visits each year. The Hospital is part of The Mount Sinai 
     Medical Center. The Hospital receives federal financial 
     assistance from HHS under the Public Health Service Act and 
     through its participation in Medicare and Medicaid.
       During the course of the investigation, OCR reviewed 
     information submitted by the complainant and the Hospital. 
     OCR interviewed the complainant, the affected party, Hospital 
     staff and administration, and physicians providing services 
     at the Hospital. OCR also coordinated the handling of the 
     complaint with the staff of the HHS program(s) from which the 
     Hospital receives HHS funding.
       The complainant indicated that the affected party has been 
     employed in the Hospital's Perioperative Services Care Center 
     since August 9, 2004, and has strongly-held religious beliefs 
     and moral convictions that she should not participate in 
     abortion procedures. During the course of its investigation, 
     OCR learned that elective abortion procedures are scheduled 
     on weekdays at the Hospital, staffed by individuals who have 
     agreed in advance to participate in such procedures. Urgent/
     non-elective abortion procedures that occur over the weekend 
     are staffed by Operating Room (O.R.) nurses and surgical 
     technicians who have signed up and are assigned to be ``on 
     call'' for that specific weekend. The complainant indicated 
     that the affected party was on on-call and called to the O.R. 
     for a procedure to take place during the morning of Sunday, 
     May 24, 2009. The complainant informed OCR that, shortly 
     after the affected party learned that the case was an 
     abortion procedure, she reminded her supervisor of her 
     religious objection and asked to be excused from the case, 
     but the Hospital insisted that she assist in the procedure.
       During OCR's investigation of this matter, the Hospital 
     stated that it did not force the affected party to assist in 
     the performance of an abortion procedure, and that it did not 
     discriminate or retaliate against her for her initial refusal 
     to assist in the abortion procedure. Nonetheless, the 
     Hospital also indicated that, since the events of May 24, 
     2009, it has implemented measures to address the 
     administrative issues that prevented the Hospital from 
     locating a replacement nurse for the affected party on the 
     day of the procedure.
       In particular, OCR learned that the Hospital adopted a 
     revision to its O.R. scheduling policies and procedures, 
     effective August 2009, which requires abortion procedures to 
     be scheduled with the O.R. with as much notice as possible. 
     The revised policy also establishes a process wherein the 
     Hospital maintains: (i) contact information for the O.R. 
     nurses and surgical technicians, and (ii) a list indicating 
     which nurses and surgical technicians are willing to 
     participate, and which are not willing to participate, in 
     abortion procedures. Further, the revised policy instructs 
     O.R. scheduling staff and on-duty nurse managers that, in the 
     event on-call O.R. nurses or surgical technicians must be 
     called in for an abortion procedure, the O.R. scheduling 
     staff must inform the on-duty nurse manager. If the scheduled 
     on-call O.R. nurse or surgical technician is listed as being 
     unwilling to assist, the scheduling staff (and the nurse 
     manager) will use the aforementioned lists to contact and 
     secure an O.R. nurse or surgical technician, as appropriate, 
     who is willing to assist in the performance of an abortion.
       Subsequently as a result of OCR's investigation, the 
     Hospital has agreed to take certain other actions to ensure 
     and strengthen its commitment and ongoing compliance with the 
     applicable Federal health care provider conscience statutes. 
     OCR notes that the Hospital has taken significant affirmative 
     steps to address the compliance concerns identified in the 
     complaint, and the following listed actions provide 
     additional safeguards for objecting health care personnel 
     while ensuring patients have access to needed health care. 
     Specifically, the Hospital has agreed in writing to:
       1. Comply with the provisions of the Church Amendments, 42 
     U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7 et seq.
       2. Continue to use its best efforts to ensure that non-
     objecting health care personnel are available to perform 
     their job duties with respect to abortion procedures, 
     including any abortion procedures that occur over the 
     weekend;
       3. Revise Human Resources Policy No. 15.3, titled 
     ``Exclusion from Patient Care--Employee Rights,'' to state 
     that ``The Mount Sinai Hospital does not discriminate in the 
     employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any 
     physician or other health care personnel, or in the extension 
     of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health 
     care personnel, because he or she performed or assisted in 
     the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or 
     abortion, or because he or she refused to perform or assist 
     in the performance of such a sterilization procedure or 
     abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance 
     would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral 
     convictions.''
       4. Continue to post the Hospital's Human Resources Policy 
     No. 15.3, titled ``Exclusion from Patient Care--Employee 
     Rights,'' electronically on the Hospital's intranet and

[[Page H4858]]

     post in hard copy on the Operating Room notice board; and
       5. Train O.R. managers, nurses and surgical technicians 
     about the Hospital's obligations to comply with the Church 
     Amendments and train Surgical Admitting Planning office 
     administrative staff to ensure that O.R. nurses' and surgical 
     technicians' objecting or non-objecting status is properly 
     recorded.
       In addition, OCR provided the Hospital with technical 
     assistance regarding its grievance procedure and its list 
     identifying whether O.R. nurses and surgical technicians are 
     willing or not to participate in abortion procedures. The 
     Hospital incorporated OCR's technical assistance, further 
     ensuring the Hospital's compliance with the applicable 
     Federal health care provider conscience statutes.
       Based on the above-described commitments and actions, OCR 
     finds that the Hospital took steps, subsequent to May 24, 
     2009, and during the course of OCR's investigation, which 
     have sufficiently addressed and resolved the allegation 
     regarding the May 24, 2009 procedure.
       With respect to the allegation that the Hospital 
     discriminated against the affected party by reducing the 
     amount of weekend on-call shifts to which she was assigned 
     for August 2009, the evidence gathered during OCR's 
     investigation did not support such a finding. The affected 
     party asserted that there were multiple sign-up sheets and 
     she had signed up for approximately 7-8 on-call shifts for 
     August 2009. The Hospital indicated that there was only one 
     set of sign-up sheets, and the affected party signed up for a 
     single shift, which the Hospital assigned to her. While the 
     Hospital's documentation does not definitively establish that 
     there was not a second set of sign-up sheets for August 2009, 
     OCR's interviews of multiple O.R. nurses indicate that O.R. 
     nurses and surgical technicians signed up at a single 
     location on a single set of sign-in sheets. Accordingly, OCR 
     has determined that there is insufficient evidence to 
     conclude that the Hospital discriminated against the affected 
     party when assigning on-call shifts for the month of August 
     2009.
       The complainant also alleged that the Hospital 
     discriminated against the affected party by asking her to 
     sign a statement of her willingness to participate in 
     abortion procedures in emergencies as a condition to being 
     assigned more on-call shifts for September 2009 than she was 
     assigned for August 2009. After interviewing the affected 
     party and other staff involved in the alleged conversations, 
     OCR found that at least one conversation occurred on or about 
     July 16, 2009, involving a request for the affected party to 
     sign a statement. However, there was substantial dispute as 
     to the substantive content of any conversation, including the 
     content of any requested statement. Based on our review of 
     the facts and circumstances of this matter, including that 
     the affected party did not agree to sign any statement and 
     the Hospital subsequently assigned her on-call shifts for 
     September 2009 after she signed up for them, OCR has 
     determined that there is insufficient evidence to 
     substantiate the claim that the Hospital discriminated 
     against the affected party by asking her to sign such a 
     statement.
       Further, on February 4, 2011, the complainant contacted OCR 
     to report an alleged act of retaliation by the Hospital 
     against the affected party for the filing of this complaint. 
     Following the May 24, 2009 procedure that is the subject of 
     this matter, the affected party sought assistance from the 
     Employee Assistance Program (EAP) at the Hospital. The 
     complainant alleged that, on February 3, 2011, the Hospital 
     informed the affected party that it would not provide her 
     with a copy of her EAP records unless she first obtained a 
     court order, because the affected party had filed OCR and 
     judicial complaints against the Hospital. A claim that the 
     Hospital's actions with respect to the affected party's EAP 
     records amounts to another act of discrimination under the 
     Church Amendments is not supported by the evidence. During 
     OCR's investigation of the complainants associated HIPAA 
     Privacy Rule complaint, TN 11-123374, OCR learned that all 
     employees of the Hospital who seek to obtain a copy of their 
     EAP records must first obtain a court order or subpoena, 
     regardless of whether: (i) the employee has or has not filed 
     a complaint or lawsuit against the Hospital, or (ii) the 
     employee has or has not refused to assist with an abortion 
     procedure, and irrespective of what the employee's religious 
     beliefs are about abortion.
       This determination of compliance is not intended, nor 
     should it be construed, to cover any issues, regarding the 
     Hospital's compliance status with the Church Amendments, that 
     are not specifically addressed in this letter. It neither 
     covers issues or authorities not specifically addressed 
     herein nor does it preclude future determinations of 
     compliance that are based on subsequent investigations.
       Please take all necessary steps to ensure that no adverse 
     action is taken against the complainant, the affected party, 
     or any other individual for the filing of this complaint, 
     providing information to OCR, or otherwise participating in 
     this investigation.
       Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary 
     for OCR to release this document and related correspondence 
     and records upon request. In the event OCR receives such a 
     request, we will seek to protect, to the extent provided by 
     law, personal information the disclosure of which would 
     constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
       If you have additional questions or concems, please contact 
     Frank J. Musumici, M.S., Supervisory Equal Opportunity 
     Specialist.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Linda C. Colon,
                                                 Regional Manager.

  Ms. DeGETTE. Now, let's talk about the nine Nassau County nurses 
apparently required by their employer to provide these services. All of 
those nurses were reinstated to their job after they made a complaint.
  According to any example that we have gotten, these people have had 
recourse under current law.
  So what does this bill do?
  This bill doesn't give anybody any more conscientious ability to 
object.

                              {time}  1600

  What this bill does is it allows whole new classes of people to 
refuse to provide services to the women of America. It allows 
employers, it allows healthcare plans and health plan sponsors to 
refuse to provide women the services they need.
  The only people who are going to be hurt by this are the patients. 
And I will tell you what, if you want to talk about civil rights, talk 
about the civil rights of those patients.
  Talk about Mindy Swank, who is a woman from Illinois. She was denied 
care by a Catholic hospital when her water broke just 20 weeks into her 
pregnancy. Even though her life would have been endangered by 
continuing the pregnancy and it could have threatened her ability to 
have more children in the future, the hospital she visited not only 
refused to treat her, but it refused to provide documentation that her 
abortion was medically necessary so somebody else could treat her.
  She was forced to wait weeks, returning to the hospital four times 
with bleeding, until finally she was deemed sick enough to induce labor 
and give birth to a baby who died without ever regaining consciousness. 
Talk about her civil rights. That is what we are thinking about today.
  So I have got to say--I am a deeply religious person myself--I 
believe that we should give people their rights to their religious 
expression, and we do that under current law. I don't think that taking 
women's rights to health care away does anything to help with that 
situation.
  Here is one more thing. In case you didn't know, President Obama 
issued an order today saying that he is going to veto this bill if, in 
the unlikely event, it ever passes his desk.
  So what are we doing here today? The majority has announced that they 
are going out of session for 7 weeks at the end of this week. They are 
not going to deal with the Zika funding. They are not going to deal 
with gun safety legislation, which would save many Americans' lives. 
They are not going to finish the appropriations bills, on and on and 
on.
  We have spent a whole hour of our valuable time today debating about 
something that is not only unnecessary from a conscience point of view, 
but that could endanger women's lives, and we are doing nothing to help 
the lives of the millions and millions of Americans that need it.
  It is not the right focus. It is not the right time. It is not the 
right legislation. I urge every single one of my colleagues to examine 
their conscience and to vote ``no'' on this poorly thought-out piece of 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, let me talk for just a minute about what 
some of this does. We have spent a whole hour here, yes, defending the 
Constitution, standing up for an individual's right.
  This bill does not do a few things. It doesn't clog the courts. It 
doesn't hamper due process; it increases it. It doesn't create 
confusion; it creates clarity. It doesn't stop you from getting care. 
It doesn't offend conscience. It isn't vindictive. It isn't 
hypocritical.
  What it does do is state that someone has this right.
  The bill doesn't ban abortion. It doesn't take away rights. The bill 
doesn't remove lifesaving protections for women. And third, the bill 
doesn't force pregnant women from foregoing chemotherapy, all claims 
that we have heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

[[Page H4859]]

  

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, today we heard quite a few claims that were 
made, and I would like to set the Record straight.
  First of all, the bill before us today simply protects the other 
right to choose, that is the right of healthcare providers to choose 
not to be involved in abortion. The bill does not change the legality 
of abortion in any way.
  Some of my colleagues have raised concerns regarding how this bill 
may affect life-threatening cases. As a nurse who has worked in the 
emergency room, I can tell you that medical personnel always--always--
act to save patients who come through their doors, including pregnant 
women and their babies. It is that compassion and that drive to protect 
life that brought them to the medical profession in the first place.
  Furthermore, stabilizing a woman when her life is in danger is the 
law. It is already the law. There is a standard of care and there is a 
law. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and the Active Labor Act, 
doctors and hospitals are required to stabilize emergency patients, 
including pregnant women.
  So to be absolutely sure there is no confusion on this point, the 
Conscience Protection Act includes a rule of construction that 
clarifies those protections and EMTALA will continue to coexist side by 
side, offering women the assurance that they will be cared for in these 
situations.
  We protect insurance plans and employers purchasing such plans from 
participation in abortion in this bill because that is the very 
scenario that has prompted the consideration of the bill.
  Abortion is a highly controversial issue on which Americans have a 
wide range of views. It is reasonable to allow anyone who does not want 
to be a party to abortion to be able to opt out.
  Recognizing this point, even President Obama's healthcare law, 
ObamaCare, allows States and insurance companies to opt out of 
including abortion in the health plans offered on the exchanges.
  My bill simply ensures that the healthcare providers, as defined in 
the bill, are not forced or coerced to participate in a brutal 
procedure that is often painful to an unborn child.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition 
to S. 304, the so-called ``Conscience Protection Act.''
  This bill would allow employers, insurance companies, and other 
health care entities to refuse to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for 
abortion services.
  This is an overreaching and dangerous proposal under which employers, 
among others, could deny women comprehensive health insurance coverage 
and intrude on their personal health care decisions.
  This legislation is unnecessary since existing federal law already 
protects individuals who do not want to participate in abortion care 
and many states have refusal clauses for individual who wish to refuse 
to participate in abortion care.
  A woman's medical decisions should be left up to her and her 
physician; they should not be vulnerable to the arbitrary 
discrimination of an employer or other outside party.
  As responsible lawmakers, we have a duty to reject any and all 
provisions that seek to codify a health care system in which 
discrimination against women is legal and encouraged.
  The Supreme Court has upheld the right of women to choose regarding 
this matter.
  It is time that we move on from attempts to undermine this right and 
instead focus on improving health care quality and access for all 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing S. 304.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 822, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third 
time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Wasserman Schultz moves to recommit the bill, S. 304, 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 4. NO IMPACT ON RESPONSE TO ZIKA VIRUS.

       The provisions of section 3, including the amendment made 
     by such section, shall not apply to the extent that such 
     provisions would reduce access to health care services to 
     prevent, prepare for, or respond to the Zika virus.

  Mrs. BLACKBURN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point 
of order against the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  S. 304, the Conscience Protection Act, is yet another extreme attempt 
to block women's access to health care. This dangerous legislation, 
which the President has threatened to veto, would strip away patient 
protections and permit employers to override a woman's personal medical 
decisions. It is the 113th House GOP vote in this Congress alone to 
attack women's health care.
  This bill is an attempt to make permanent the so-called Weldon 
amendment, which pressures any Federal agency or program, or any State 
or local government, with the potential loss of all of its Labor and 
Health and Human Services funding if it doesn't allow a healthcare 
entity to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortions.
  The majority purports that this legislation would protect religious 
liberty, but, in reality, it is a thinly veiled attempt to restrict 
women's access to safe and legal abortion.
  To be clear, religious liberty is one of our Nation's most 
fundamental and cherished values, but it does not, and should never, 
mean the freedom to discriminate against or harm others. This bill 
would unduly limit women's healthcare choices by allowing a broad set 
of health providers, including many employers, to deny their female 
employees access to legal medical services based on any and all 
objections.
  This legislation could not possibly have been written more broadly. 
Specifically, the Conscience Protection Act would allow employers and 
insurance companies, among other ``healthcare entities,'' to refuse to 
``facilitate,'' ``make arrangements for,'' or ``otherwise participate 
in'' abortions.
  Women of color, low-income families, LGBTQ individuals, young people, 
and those living in rural areas already experience widespread and 
systemic barriers to health care. This vague and overly broad language 
will exacerbate the significant barriers to care that they already 
face.
  Additionally, the bill would give virtually any individual or entity 
standing to sue for an actual or threatened violation. As civil rights 
organizations have noted:

       This broad right of action would chill State, local, and 
     Federal Government's ability to advance pro-women's health 
     policies by exposing them to frivolous, resource-draining 
     lawsuits by opponents of safe, legal abortion.

  Undoubtedly, this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. In the name of 
religious liberty, the majority is continuing its campaign to deny 
women access to safe and legal abortion and create a healthcare system 
that is legally permitted to discriminate against women.
  Women and all Americans deserve access to the care and coverage that 
is right for them. The Conscience Protection Act threatens that access 
and is another attempt by the majority to insert themselves into a 
decision best left between a woman and her doctor.
  This motion to recommit prevents the harmful provisions of the bill 
from applying to any area in the U.S. where it would reduce access to 
healthcare services to prevent, prepare for, or respond to the Zika 
virus.
  More than 3,600 Americans, including more than 600 pregnant women in 
45

[[Page H4860]]

States, D.C., and 3 U.S. territories, have already been diagnosed with 
the Zika virus, and more transmission is expected. In my home State of 
Florida, there are more than 250 people that have contracted Zika, 
including 43 pregnant women. During pregnancy, the Zika virus can cause 
a serious birth defect called microcephaly, as well other severe fetal 
brain defects.
  The Zika virus is primarily transmitted through two types of 
mosquitos, and according to a recent article in the Journal of Medical 
Entomology, 40 States and D.C. have reported the presence of one or 
both of those mosquitos.
  Public health experts have made clear that it is not if we will have 
local transmission of the Zika virus in the continental U.S., it is 
when. Despite that risk, our Republican colleagues are on the floor 
today playing politics with women and children's access to federally 
supported healthcare services like Medicaid.
  Through Federal healthcare services, women can visit healthcare 
providers to better understand how to prevent contracting the Zika 
virus, and children born with severe fetal brain defects can receive 
the healthcare services that they need.
  Threatening receipt of Federal healthcare services by women and 
children in need of care to advance the harmful Republican war on women 
is unconscionable. It is shocking that anyone would even consider 
taking any action that would cut off federally supported healthcare 
services when the threat of the Zika virus looms so large in this 
country, especially during the summer, the height of tourist and 
mosquito season.
  This bill is dangerous and irresponsible. Pregnant women who contract 
the Zika virus and infants born with microcephaly or severe fetal birth 
defects as a result should have the federally guaranteed healthcare 
benefits and services that they need and not be punished because the 
Republicans wanted to score more political points.
  Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to 
recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of a point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I pose a simple question: When did this 
institution and the political discourse lose respect for freedom of 
conscience protections in health care?
  It is not fair. It is not fair that individuals today may have legal 
recourse to protect their civil rights but not their constitutionally 
safeguarded conscience rights.
  This straightforward bill reaffirms the Weldon amendment protections, 
gives individuals and entities a private right of action, and makes 
sure that nothing prevents providers from voluntarily electing to take 
part in an abortion.
  It is written to protect a person like Fe Vinoya, who is one of the 
nurses from New Jersey. During a Conscience Forum just last week, Fe 
said:

       Participating in the destruction of human life is not only 
     a violation of my religious convictions, it conflicts with my 
     calling as a medical professional to protect life, not to end 
     life.

  We owe this to Fe and anyone else who objects to being forced to 
provide or to pay for abortion services. So I simply urge you, I 
implore Members to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and to vote 
``yes'' on the Conscience Protection Act of 2016.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
order of the House of today, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________