Congress Expected to Debate 
Pro-Life Bill Protecting Hospitals

September 19, 2002—Washington, DC: The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to hold its first full debate on a new pro-life bill designed to protect the rights of private and religious hospitals and other medical facilities that do not wish to perform abortions.

The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (HR 4691) would guarantee that all health care entities are afforded the "abortion conscience clause" that federal and state laws currently provide to doctors and medical professionals who wish not to be involved in performing abortions.

In 1996, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, provisions that protect health care professionals and a "health care entity" from being forced to perform and abortion if they have moral or religious objections to it. However, "court interpretations have called into question whether these sections of law apply to hospitals that object to offering elective abortions," according to the bill sponsor, pro-life Congressman Michael Bilirakis (R-FL).

Pro-life senators, in 1998, attempted to clarify the record by stating that a "health care entity" was defined to include physicians and other medical professionals but not meant to exclude hospitals.

During the July committee hearing, Karen Vosburgh, a board member of Valley Hospital in Palmer, Alaska explained, the clarification hasn't stopped states from forcing hospitals to perform abortions.

A local abortion practitioner in Palmer performs first-trimester abortions in an abortion facility and, because Alaska law mandates second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital, used Valley Hospital to perform them. In the early 1990s, the hospital board voted to prohibit most abortions.

The abortion practitioner sued Valley Hospital and both a trial judge and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled Valley Hospital must allow the abortions to continue. Vosburgh, also the director of Alaska Right to Life, said the courts declared Valley Hospital a "quasi-public" institution because it receives some state and federal money and insisted it is unable to prohibit abortions.

"Our hospital's policy is no different from the language of the federal Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortions with the exception of rape, incest and life of the mother," Vosburgh explained.

Vosburgh maintains her hospital is entitled to the same conscience clause protections as doctors and nurses and Lynn Wardle, a BYU law professor, agrees.

"In repeated cases, pro-abortion extremists are trying (successfully in many cases) to assert the position that a health care entity who will not perform abortions must be denied access to the public marker," Wardle, who testified in the subcommittee with Vosburgh, explained.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, says the House will hold two crucial votes before considering the full legislation.

Congress will first adopt the rule for debate on the bill. Abortion advocates will argue for an "open rule" that could allow amendment which would weaken the pro-life bill. "A 'closed rule' is desirable because it would protect the bill from deceptively worded amendments intended to nullify its effect," Johnson explains.

Secondly, pro-abortion lawmakers are expected to offer a "motion to recommit." Such a parliamentary tactic is done to send a bill back to committee in order to severely weaken or kill the bill. Johnson urges pro-life advocates to ask lawmakers to oppose a recommit motion.

ACTION: Please contact your Representative and:

1. Urge support for the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (HR 4691)
2. Urge adoption of a "closed rule" for debate
3. Urge opposition to a motion to recommit. You can contact any member of Congress at 202-224-3121 or by finding more specific contact information for your legislator at http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html