Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

health plans, HMOs, insurance companies or any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan. In other words, it applies to everybody. And instead of applying merely to the provision of abortions or referral for abortions or training in those things, it applies also to providing coverage of abortions or paying for them. So it vastly expands the kinds of entities that can have exemptions and the exemptions they can claim. That is why, for example, in the example I gave, a Medicaid managed care organization, an HMO, that participates in the Medicaid Program, could simply refuse to discuss abortion, even abortion that a woman was entitled to under Federal law.

Ms. CAPPS. And at this point, I would appreciate just a brief answer from the other three. I want to really get at the distinction between the conscience clause for an individual provider and what it means to be offering a service. And do you think taxpayer dollars should provide that service, such as a hospital, a clinic or an HMO? And maybe each of you have a chance-I would like to ask if, in your mind, you see no corporate responsibility-you, for example, Ms. Vosburgh, being on the board of a hospital-no corporate responsibility to provide the services that the taxpayers have funded you with?

Ms. VOSBURGH. It is an elective the abortions that are done there are elective, and, no, I don't see anything. The bill that is trying to be passed here would give a conscience clause out, not only to the doctors and nurses, which are already provided

Ms. CAPPS. Yes.

Ms. VOSBURGH. [continuing] but for the entities themselves.

Ms. CAPPS. But let us get at, and I will ask, Mr. Wardle, you too to answer here, if there are further distinctions that can be made. Do you believe also that an institution is the same as an individual in terms of the conscience clause? And that we who fund here take very seriously our responsibility to use taxpayer dollars wisely, that when we set out to fund the Medicaid and the various provisions that are authorized under the Constitution of this United States, that an institution has the right to opt-out of that responsibility?

Mr. WARDLE. Well, thank you, Ms. Capps, Representative Capps. I would like to respond in two ways-three ways. First, you have used the term, "corporate responsibility." That is a wonderful term, and it ought to be on our mind, and the purpose of this bill is to protect corporate responsibility, responsibility meaning conscience, ethics, principles. Second, look at the history of the protection, the conscience clause laws in this country. The very first one that was passed was passed by Congress. It was the Church Amendment passed almost exactly 30 years ago, and it was designed to protect the rights of institutions to not have to perform abortions.

And, third, is there a difference between individuals and corporations? Yes, there is, but with respect to protecting rights of conscience, where will you draw the line? Are you going to say you, as an individual, have the right to free speech, but, oh, no, corporations cannot engage in free speech, newspapers, radio companies, television

Ms. CAPPS. I am going to interrupt just because Mr. Chairman, may I have 1 extra minute so that Ms. Weiss can also answer this question. I would like to get a survey from all.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection, but your 27 seconds over already. Without objection, it is

Ms. CAPPS. Thirty seconds more.

MS. WEISS. Of course there is a critical difference between institutions and individuals in this matter, and that is because when institutions claim rights of conscience they are very likely to be imposing their religious tenets on people who do not share them. That is to say there are conscientious rights on both-rights of conscience on both sides of the ledger. When an individual patient makes a decision not to have any more children, she is making a decision in which she is standing on moral ground. It is a decision about what is best for her and her family and her children. And that means that she has rights that need to be protected on that side of the ledger.

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Pitts?

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. Ms. Weiss, you mentioned in your testimony about Sophie Smith. Would you, for the record, provide more information to the committee on this case that you mention in your testimony, the blood clot?

MS. WEISS. Yes, Representative. What information would you like?

Mr. PITTS. Well, just anything you have on it: The name of the hospital that you are talking about.

MS. WEISS. The hospital was a sectarian hospital in Nebraska, and I have not mentioned its name in testimony because the physician in question, the one who called me, is fearful of violence and does not want to be revealed and continues to practice there. So I have not provided identifying information for that reason.

Mr. PITTS. Okay.

MS. WEISS. I apologize. That is often a problem in providing identifying details in this field because of the ongoing problem of violence.

Mr. PITTS. In your line of reasoning, as I was seeking to follow it, you seem to say that any entity that takes public money can't have a conscience. A couple of days ago, an article appeared in the Burlington County Times about the purchase of a hospital in Burlington County by Our Lady of Lordes Health Care Services. And the article indicated that the ACLU in New Jersey had been challenging the purchase. The articles says that the ACLU is insisting that our Lady of Lordes, “add a separate building on the Rancocas Hospital campus where women could go for abortions." Is it the position of the ACLU that Catholic hospitals, that our Lady of Lordes, should be required by law to build a separate clinic for abortions upon their property?

MS. WEISS. Well, that is a very interesting case, Representative Pitts. That is a case in which a Catholic facility is acquiring or merging with a formally secular facility and trying to ensure that the new merged entity lives by the ethical and religious directives for Catholic health care services that govern Catholic facilities,

thereby preventing abortions, sterilization, contraception, fertility treatments, a wide array of reproductive health care.

But the facility that it is buying was itself created by a charitable trust, and in that charitable trust there was-the intent of the donor was expressed to provide a wide array of health services to the low-income community in the relevant city in New Jersey. Now, the question in that case was does the conscience, the moral stance of the original donor to the secular institution have also rights or is it only that the Catholic facility has rights of conscience? And the answer is of course that is not the case. Both facilities were created by charitable trusts, both facilities have consciences, and the question is how do we can they merge, is there a way that they can affiliate and recognize the conscientious rights of both facilities? That is what is at issue in that case, that is why there is an ongoing debate about how to preserve the intent of the founders of the formally secular facility. That is why you are seeing that in the newspaper, sir.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. I wish I could continue with you. Maybe we will have a second round, I don't know.

Professor Wardle, do you understand this bill to cover cases of emergency contraception that some providers may see as abortifacient? Does it expand or change the current legal definition of abortion anyway?

Mr. WARDLE. I don't think it changes the current definition of abortion in any way. But let me point out two things here. The critical issue is who decides what my rights of conscience are? Is it going to be for the ACLU to dictate the boundaries of my conscience? And if my definition of what is conscience and what is moral disagrees with them, can they force me to do their will? Can they deny me the opportunity to practice, if I were a doctor, practice medicine; if I were a health care administrator, to administer medicine? The question is who defines conscience? I am pleased to let Ms. Weiss define her own conscience but not to impose that on me. Likewise, if patients want to have medical services that I would not perform as a doctor, let Ms. Weiss direct them in the direction where they can get those services.

You see her definition of abortion is as an entitlement, a definition that has been repudiated at least five times by the United States Supreme Court, but she and the ACLU don't accept it. They believe that abortion is not just a right of private choice but it is an entitlement that has to be facilitated and you have to facilitate it. The distinction between public and private is specious in our economy that is so wholly publicized. The government takes my money then gives it back to me in manner of a student loan. Does that now make me as a student a public actor? Gives it back to me in the form of a license to practice medicine or a certificate of need to perform medical services. Does that make me a public actor? The public/private distinction is a specious distinction.

Mr. PITTS. I see that I am out of time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Your time is expired. Would you gentlemen like to have an additional minute?

Mr. PITTS. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection

Mr. PITTS. I will ask Professor Wardle, based on your research, do you recognize a concerted movement or an effort to require all hospitals to provide abortions? You made some reference to that. I would like you to expand.

Mr. WARDLE. Thank you, Mr. Pitts. Yes, and that is how the issue has changed. I have seen a dramatic change in 30 years. I have studied this for 30 years and written about it for nearly a quarter of a century, and you have seen a dramatic change in the dialog and the expectation from privacy. Just let us be able to choose this. We are not asking to force anybody to do anything. Just let us be able to choose to. Now, you have to facilitate, you have to perform, you have to pay.

Essentially, the position that has been articulated by Ms. Weiss this morning is that no Catholic hospital, and I would say not just Catholic but other religious affiliated hospitals and not just religious affiliated hospitals. We have here a witness from a sectarian hospital that asserted by democratic process a set of principles, right of conscience, forcing them to take a position. The position that is taken today is if you are a hospital that would decline to perform abortions, you cannot expand, you cannot merge, you cannot acquire, you cannot grow unless you are willing to do abortion. Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Strickland to inquire.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wardle, I have a question in regard to your most recent comment that you have observed something over a 20- or 25-year period, and people have gone from just wanting to be able to make the choice to have that as some kind of right that could be imposed upon others. But I am just curious, do you agree with the first part of that? Do you believe that the person should be able to make a personal choice?

Mr. WARDLE. I believe that in some cases that is absolutely right. I think the Supreme Court could have reached the decision it did in Roe v. Wade without the absurd toddering doctrine that it put underneath it. In the case of rape, certainly, in the incest, in the case of life or a health threat.

Mr. STRICKLAND. You know, this really puzzles me because when we talk about the morality of abortion, when we talk about the taking of an innocent human life, then to say in case of rape, in case of incest. It seems to me that there is an inconsistency. If it is an innocent human life, then the child conceived as a result of rape or incest is also an innocent human life. Now, I believe in the right of a woman to choose, but I am just pointing out what I think is a glaring inconsistency among those who make these moral distinctions and still question the validity of a conscience of an individual who may have a different point of view.

Mr. WARDLE. Mr. Representative, I believe the question is, though, and I respect your point of view and the point you make is a very thoughtful and thought-provoking one, but is it for you to tell me what my conscience is or to tell Ms. Vosburgh what her conscience is or to tell Ms. Weiss?

Mr. STRICKLAND. No, it isn't, and that is why-this causes conflict within me, because I think what we are talking about here is an area that for thoughtful people results in internal conflict.

You said something about the mayor of New York. Would you, for my sake, repeat what you said that his comment was when someone was found to be pregnant?

[ocr errors]

Mr. WARDLE. I am quoting from news reports. "These media mogul reportedly once told a pregnant employee to, 'kill it, kill it.' I would add, as I do in my written testimony, Bloomberg has denied making the comment, but it was cited in legal papers of Sekiko Sakai Garrison, a former Bloomberg news staffer, who brought one of three publicized sex harassment cases

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. WARDLE. [continuing] against him or his company.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I just think it would have been more fair of you to have relayed his denial at the time when you relayed what supposedly was his comment. I don't know Mr. Bloomberg, have no affiliation or any particular sympathy for him, but I think to put out such a statement without also giving us his denial was a little unfair to him.

Mr. WARDLE. Well, I did give it to you in writing, and I just read it to complete the record, sir.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, thank you for that. Ms. Vosburgh, this may have been discussed when I wasn't here, and if it is, I apologize. But does your hospital believe that it should perform an abortion under any circumstances?

Ms. VOSBURGH. Yes, rape, incest, life of the mother. It is in the policy that they every year rewrite, which lines up with Federal law too, with title X.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I was just unsure because I was not here.

Ms. VOSBURGH. Yes. And while I am on here, I would like to answer Mrs. Capps. She said since we are a hospital, I am on the board-Okay, sorry.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes. I am sorry, we only have 5 minutes. I think Ms. Capps may have-I hope the chairman will give us a second round here.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I am not contemplating doing that. We have another panel to go yet.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Okay. Well, I am

Ms. VOSBURGH. I would have been finished by now anyway. Well, the thing is we are elected

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, I will respect your right to

Ms. VOSBURGH. Okay. Well, we are elected. We are elected from the community, from our community. We are elected, and we elect people onto the operating board which make that decision, and the community, the body of the community does not want-they do not want abortions there. Abortions to the majority of the community there, it is an abhorrent thing. It is the taking of human life. Very tiny, yes, but it is human life. That is what fetus means, little one. And it is killing them.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Can I interrupt here?

Ms. VOSBURGH. Yes.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Because are you expressing a religious belief

Ms. VOSBURGH. No.

Mr. STRICKLAND. [continuing] when you say that or are you expressing a scientific belief? And if it is a scientific belief, then it

« ZurückWeiter »