BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 304 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 304.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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- 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. She is our Conference chair and also a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining on each side?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT