PDA

View Full Version : Negotiators Add Abortion Clause to Spending Bill




zimv20
Nov 20, 2004, 12:32 AM
link (http://nytimes.com/2004/11/20/politics/20spend.html?hp&ex=1101013200&en=34c38192ba5e17fe&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


WASHINGTON, Saturday, Nov. 20 - House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.

The provision may be an early indication of the growing political muscle of social conservatives who provided crucial support for Republican candidates, including President Bush, in the election.

House officials said Saturday morning that the final details of the spending measure were worked out before midnight and that the bill was filed for the House vote on Saturday.

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

"It's something we've had a longstanding interest in," said Douglas Johnson, a spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee. He added, "This is in response to an orchestrated campaign by pro-abortion groups across the country to use government agencies to coerce health care providers to participate in abortions."

The provision could affect millions of American women, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who warned Friday that she would use procedural tactics to slow Senate business to a crawl if the language was not altered.

"I am willing to stand on my feet and slow this thing down," Ms. Boxer said. "Everyone wants to go home, I know that, and I know I will not win a popularity contest in the Senate. But they should not be doing this. On a huge spending bill they're writing law, and they're taking away rights from women."

Ms. Boxer said that she complained to Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but that he told her that House Republican leaders insisted that the provision, which was approved by the House in July but never came to the Senate for a vote, be included in the measure.

"He said, 'Senator, they want it in, and it's going in,' " Ms. Boxer recalled.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Stevens, Melanie Alvord, said on Friday that her boss would have no comment on the spending bill because House and Senate negotiators had not settled on the final language.

Some lawmakers and Congressional aides interpreted the House leaders' insistence as reflection of the new political strength of the anti-abortion movement and of Christian conservatives, who played an important role in re-electing Mr. Bush this month.

"They are catering to their right wing doing this," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. "It doesn't make it right. I think this is the first step."

Mr. Harkin said he intended to try to force a vote next year on support for upholding the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion. "I think it is time the women of America understand what is happening here," he said.

The spending measure, called an omnibus bill, was the main reason Congress returned to Washington after the election, and members of both parties say that despite Ms. Boxer's warnings, it is likely to pass with the abortion language intact.

The alternative is to let government funding for a wide array of agencies - like the F.B.I., the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency - run out, in effect causing a partial government shutdown.

(more)

so.... the christian conservatives are ready to let the FBI shut down for their pet cause. nice. guess if they reckon they get a free trip to heaven, it doesn't matter what the terrorists do.



Daveman Deluxe
Nov 20, 2004, 02:51 AM
I think that it's right that this bill be held up. It's not right to withhold federal money based on whether a doctor at a clinic will refuse to give an abortion.

Free-riders of any kind make me ill though. :mad:

skunk
Nov 20, 2004, 09:52 AM
Posted in error. :o

Desertrat
Nov 20, 2004, 10:08 AM
"The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers."

So this is bad?

It is right and proper to force people to go against their legitimate beliefs?

It is right and proper to withold money from the providers, possibly (probably?) forcing them to close their doors? Because they don't want to perform abortions, the public at large should be denied medical help for cuts or broken bones or cancer?

'Rat

miloblithe
Nov 20, 2004, 10:25 AM
Rat. Yes. This is very very bad. You're looking at it from the point of view of one particular provider who happens to have a particular belief. What about the point of view of the _patients_ that person is supposed to serve? Shouldn't they be able to get the health services they require from health providers?

If you don't want to be a health care provider, get a different job.

skunk
Nov 20, 2004, 11:30 AM
If you don't want to be a health care provider, get a different job.
This line doesn't wash, Milo. There must be room for Conscientious Objectors. A belief that it is not part of a doctor's duties or rôle to take away life should not prevent anyone who wants to practise medicine from being a doctor. There must be another way.

pseudobrit
Nov 20, 2004, 01:53 PM
I live in the midst of Amish country.

They refuse modern medicine, partly because of religious beleifs, to the point where they will let their children die rather than seek "English" medical care.

What happens if the reverse were extended to the community? Would insurance companies would refuse to immunize your children because it was against stockholder, board, or executive (or the the third-floor mail clerk's) religious beleifs?

miloblithe
Nov 20, 2004, 01:53 PM
Once again, think of this from the patient's perspective. Don't they have the right to expect health care services from health care providers?

Looking at this from the doctor's point of view doesn't really reflect reality. If a doctor doesn't want to perform abortions, they can choose a line of medicine that does not include performing abortions. Or they can open a private practice and not recieve federal funding. But if someone wants to open up a clinic or a hospital and recieve federal funding, that institution must have abortion providers on staff.

The Republican position here sounds reasonable: someone who doesn't want to perform an abortion shouldn't have to. Who wouldn't agree with that? The problem is, that's not what the law would really do.

pseudobrit
Nov 20, 2004, 01:57 PM
This line doesn't wash, Milo. There must be room for Conscientious Objectors. A belief that it is not part of a doctor's duties or rôle to take away life should not prevent anyone who wants to practise medicine from being a doctor. There must be another way.

I disagree. A doctor must serve her patient. They take an oath, and their profession cannot be overruled by their religion.

I feel that conscientious objection is not analogous to this case. If a soldier enlists rather than be conscripted, he cannot claim C/O status.

skunk
Nov 20, 2004, 02:51 PM
I disagree. A doctor must serve her patient. They take an oath, and their profession cannot be overruled by their religion.
That oath does NOT include a commitment to take away life on demand.

miloblithe
Nov 20, 2004, 03:18 PM
That oath does NOT include a commitment to take away life on demand.

Then they can work as a foot doctor, not an abortion provider. Look. What we are talking about is can someone use federal funds to set up a medical practice that functions on religious rather than medical principles. The answer is no.

Read the article:

"The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers."

Look at that last line. HOSPITALS!!!! INSURERS!!! Are you paying attention? This is not about forcing individual doctors to perform abortions against their will, which NEVER HAPPENS, EVER. It's about allowing public institutions to take away women's rights.

zimv20
Nov 20, 2004, 04:51 PM
i expected IJReilly to come in and say this, but maybe he's busy. so i will...

of course, the real issue is here is the politics the anti-abortionists are playing w/ the spending bill. even _we_ got sucked into the debate of the language of the amendment, rather than commenting on whether or not such an amendment is appropriate in such an important bill.

the fbi might shut down some of its operations w/o further funding. sort of ironic, 'cuz bush ran on basically two things: his anti-terror abilities, and his morality. in this single bill, they're coming to a head, 'cuz we apparently have to pick one or the other. and anti-terrorism is losing! huh?!??!

skunk
Nov 20, 2004, 07:27 PM
i expected IJReilly to come in and say this, but maybe he's busy. so i will...

of course, the real issue is here is the politics the anti-abortionists are playing w/ the spending bill. even _we_ got sucked into the debate of the language of the amendment, rather than commenting on whether or not such an amendment is appropriate in such an important bill.
Absolutely right, Zim: the amendment clearly has no place in the spending bill, whatever one's views. False choices are being offered, as usual.

Then they can work as a foot doctor, not an abortion provider. Look. What we are talking about is can someone use federal funds to set up a medical practice that functions on religious rather than medical principles.
To me, not being a denizen of Jesusland myself, this is not necessarily a "religious" issue: it's a question of definitions. There are perfectly good "medical principles" on the basis of which to disagree with abortion on demand.

IJ Reilly
Nov 21, 2004, 11:12 AM
Attaching unrelated, special-interest riders to omnibus spending bills is an old game in Washington; in fact, it's one of the reasons our deficit spins out of control. Be that as it may... I read another article about this particular bill this morning, and I have an idea it will be challenged successfully in court. As has already been pointed out, it doesn't so much give conscientious objectors to abortion the ability to opt-out of providing them (a right they've always had), so much as it allows both medical plans and hospitals who take federal funding to prohibit willing doctors from providing the services. Even more controversially, it allows these providers to prohibit their doctors from even referring patients to facilities that do provide the service. So it goes straight to the heart of the doctor-patient relationship, which should be sacrosanct, and also treads on the First Amendment. We shall see how these provisions fair in court. Of course all real conservatives will oppose them. Right?

skunk
Nov 21, 2004, 12:30 PM
Attaching unrelated, special-interest riders to omnibus spending bills is an old game in Washington; in fact, it's one of the reasons our deficit spins out of control. Be that as it may... I read another article about this particular bill this morning, and I have an idea it will be challenged successfully in court. As has already been pointed out, it doesn't so much give conscientious objectors to abortion the ability to opt-out of providing them (a right they've always had), so much as it allows both medical plans and hospitals who take federal funding to prohibit willing doctors from providing the services. Even more controversially, it allows these providers to prohibit their doctors from even referring patients to facilities that do provide the service. So it goes straight to the heart of the doctor-patient relationship, which should be sacrosanct, and also treads on the First Amendment.
OK, I'm with you now. And I totally agree.

We shall see how these provisions fair in court.
We shall also see how they fare.

IJ Reilly
Nov 21, 2004, 12:47 PM
Fare enough.

skunk
Nov 21, 2004, 02:32 PM
:)