[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 754-755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                ABORTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burgess). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the foundation of American 
democracy is freedom. In particular, as Americans we are all free to 
choose or decline issues of conscience, but regarding abortion, choice 
is losing in a way that may surprise many people.
  Such is the case regarding physicians, hospitals and health plans 
that choose not to perform, pay for or refer for abortions. From Alaska 
to New Jersey, abortion advocacy groups are forcing health care 
entities to do the very thing they would not if they had the choice. 
Abortion advocates are using the courts, State and local agencies and 
laws to mandate that abortions be performed, paid for and referred for.
  In July of 2002, an Alaska court forced a community hospital to 
provide elective, non-life-threatening, late-term abortions contrary to 
its policy. In New Jersey, abortion advocacy groups urged the State of 
New Jersey to require a Catholic health system to build an abortion 
clinic on its premises. Last year, the State of New Mexico refused to 
approve a hospital lease because the hospital-owned system declined to 
perform elective abortions.
  Such coercion is wrong and should not be permitted, particularly with 
Federal taxpayer dollars. Roe v. Wade created a woman's right to an 
abortion. Today Federal law requires that an abortion be provided to a 
woman in a life-threatening situation, but in a perverse concerted 
effort, radical advocates for abortion are engaging in legislative and 
court efforts to coerce health care providers, health plans and clinics 
to provide, pay for and refer for elective, non-life-threatening 
abortions.
  In July of last year, I offered an amendment during committee 
consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriation bill to stop this 
coercion. This provision was included in the bill when it came to the 
floor of the House, to which no one objected. It was then included in 
the final consolidated appropriation bill for 2005.
  The Hyde-Weldon amendment is simple. It prevents Federal funding when 
courts and other government agencies force or require physicians, 
clinics and hospitals and health insurers to participate in elective 
abortions. My amendment in no way infringes on a woman's ability to 
seek and receive elective abortions. It simply states you cannot force 
the unwilling.
  The amendment does not apply to willing abortion providers. Hyde-

[[Page 755]]

Weldon allows any health care entity to participate in abortions in any 
way they choose.

                              {time}  2000

  It simply prohibits coercion in nonlife-threatening situations.
  But there is the rub. People who call themselves prochoice want no 
tolerance afforded toward health care entities that desire their rights 
of conscience be respected. Sadly, radical abortion advocates only 
support choice on their terms and are more than willing to use the 
coercive power of government to advance their agenda. Their true mantra 
seems to be: safe, legal, and coerced.
  It is predictable that abortion advocates would look to the courts to 
enforce their bizarre notion that abortion should not be provided just 
by the willing but also the unwilling, and that is just what has 
happened today. In California, Attorney General Lockyer filed a lawsuit 
against the Hyde-Weldon amendment. He makes a number of assertions in 
the complaint, and I want to look at some of them right now.
  Interestingly, Mr. Lockyer seems to be eager to reserve the right of 
the State to coerce an unwilling health care provider to participate in 
an elective abortion, despite the fact their own State law prohibits 
them, and which my amendment attempts to provide such protection to all 
health care providers nationally.
  In the 26-page complaint, the California Attorney General fails to 
point to even one example of a single case supporting the assertion 
that the Hyde-Weldon amendment would somehow interfere with the State's 
desire to see abortion services offered as an emergency medical 
service. The complaint offers no specific case where an emergency 
situation required an abortion in which a health care provider refused 
on grounds of conscience. Why? Because it does not happen. The bulk of 
the rhetoric in the complaint is about this very speculative scenario.
  The question I have for the California Attorney General is: Prior to 
my amendment, was California compelling non-willing providers to 
perform emergency abortions? If no, then the Attorney General has 
nothing to fear from my amendment because that is all it addresses. If 
the answer is yes, then the Attorney General wishes to protect this 
practice as evidenced by his desire to litigate over it.
  In fact, if the answer is yes, the Attorney General is ready to 
subordinate all other spending priorities in his State to defend his 
position of coerced abortions.
  In this court filing he raises the notion that women will die because 
they will not have access to an abortion needed to save the life of the 
mother. Hyde-Weldon does nothing of the sort. It ensures that in 
situations where a mother's life is in danger a health care provider 
must act to protect the mother's life.
  In fact, Congress passed the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and 
Active Labor Act (EMTALA) forbidding critical-care health facilities to 
abandon patients in medical emergencies, and requires them to provide 
treatment to stabilize the medical condition of such patients--
particularly pregnant women.
  The bottom line is that this lawsuit seems to be more about politics 
and using the coercive power of the state for forced participation in 
abortion, rather than ensuring that pregnant women in emergency 
situations have access to life-saving care.

                          ____________________