Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)

[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

[[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.

____________________