Congress begins attack on women's right to choose

[Tsu]

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.

On Friday, nine female senators - eight Democrats and one Republican, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - wrote a letter to Senator Stevens asking that the language be changed and complaining that it had not gone through committee or to the Senate floor for a vote.

Ms. Snowe called the language "a bad provision" that would "adversely affect reproductive health access for women across the country." She added, "It is an ill-advised policy that is clearly harmful to women."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/politics/20spend.html?oref=login

 

[loseyourname]

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.

I'd like to see the actual bill if you have a link, but all this says is that you cannot deny funding to a doctor that refuses to perform an abortion for conscience reasons. Currently, we have that exemption for Catholic doctors and this extends the exemption to all doctors. I'm not too sure what your objection is. You want to uphold a woman's right to choose, but you don't want to give the doctor a choice?

 

[Tsu]

I have no problem with allowing physicians to choose whether or not to provide abortions to their patients. That is surely their right. What I do have a problem with is having this slipped into a giant omnibus bill without going through committee. It's just another sneaky, sleezy way that they are using to try force their morals and beliefs upon the public. This is just the beginning of loosing a rather large pantload of hard-won civil rights.

p.s.
No. I don't have a link to the actual bill itself. If you want to read it - well, that's what Google is for.

 

[loseyourname]

If you're willing to take the times' portrayal of the language, I suppose I'll trust it as well. I still don't see what the problem is here. Regardless of how it was introduced, do you really take issue with a bill that says you cannot take away a doctors funding just because he refused to perform an abortion?

 

[Tsu]

Did you read what I wrote in my response to you? You are obviously not seeing the greater implication here. Sorry you don't 'get it'.

 

[loseyourname]

Did you read what I wrote in my response to you? You are obviously not seeing the greater implication here. Sorry you don't 'get it'.

I read it. I just don't agree with you that giving doctors the right to choose whether or not they want to perform an abortion is forcing morals upon anybody. In fact, I think the opposite would be.

 

[Tsu]

Well, I guess I say again that YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT! I said I have NO PROBLEM with that. I said that what I do have a problem with is them slipping it into a giant omnibus bill (tucked away) and not passing it through committee (PROPER channels - you know?! Democractic PROCESS?!HELLOOOOO!).

 

[loseyourname]

It's just another sneaky, sleezy way that they are using to try force their morals and beliefs upon the public.

You also said this, and I'm saying that I don't think allowing doctors the right to choose is an imposing of morality on anyone. I certainly wouldn't characterize it as sleazy or sneaky. If your only objection is that it was piggybacked onto another bill, then I guess you must have a huge problem with congress in general, as that practice is extremely common.

 

[Tsu]

Again, you just don't 'get it'. Go back to sleep.

 

[loseyourname]

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/recarch/98rs/6460.htm

Here, I found a list of piggybacked bills in the Kentucky legislature from the year 1998. I haven't looked through all of them, but the ones I have looked at all increase the efficacy and funding of child welfare programs. I wonder if you think these are a sleazy undermining of democracy?

 

[Smurf]

Loseyourname, your trust in your government is admirable, if slightly foolish.

 

[loseyourname]

What the heck are you psychos talking about? Because I think it's fair to allow doctors the right to choose whether or not they want to perform an abortion I suddenly have great faith in government? If it was up to me, just about every aspect of government would either be privatized or eliminated.

 

[loseyourname]

Go back to sleep.

By the way, there's no way in hell I'm going back to sleep. Ohio State just upset Michigan and Alabama is in the process of upsetting Auburn! What an exciting day in college football.

 

[Tsu]

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/recarch/98rs/6460.htm

Here, I found a list of piggybacked bills in the Kentucky legislature from the year 1998. I haven't looked through all of them, but the ones I have looked at all increase the efficacy and funding of child welfare programs. I wonder if you think these are a sleazy undermining of democracy?

Did they go through committee to get there? My guess is - you don't know!If so - no problem. If not - then, yes. I DO think its a sleazy undermining of the democratic process.

 

[Tsu]

By the way, there's no way in hell I'm going back to sleep. Ohio State just upset Michigan and Alabama is in the process of upsetting Auburn! What an exciting day in college football.

Ah. Yes. Priorities. College football is MUCH more important than our civil liberties... Good God...

 

[loseyourname]

Did they go through committee to get there? My guess is - you don't know!If so - no problem. If not - then, yes. I DO think its a sleazy undermining of the democratic process.

Most riders are added on after the bill has already gone through committee. This is really a common practice. And don't pretend that was your problem with this. The title of your thread is "Congress begins attack on women's right to choose," something that is simply not true. The title is not "Congress begins attack on committee processes," which would also not be true, as the practice is common and was begun quite some time ago. I don't personally like the use of riders, but there is no reason to single out this bill, especially when the amendment added isn't even nongermane. It's those ones that really get to me.

Ah. Yes. Priorities. College football is MUCH more important than our civil liberties... Good God...

Jesus Tsu! Would going back to sleep really promote my civil liberties, or are you just being a little ridiculous here?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I guess I say again that YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT! I said I have NO PROBLEM with that. I said that what I do have a problem with is them slipping it into a giant omnibus bill (tucked away) and not passing it through committee (PROPER channels - you know?! Democractic PROCESS?!HELLOOOOO!).

Careful, Tsunami - you're getting violent :rofl: . The title of your first post says nothing about the process, it says this is an attack on a woman's right to choose. This is precisely the sort of knee-jerk reaction I've talked about before and now that you see you reacted to it before you knew what the issue really was, you're lashing out.

 

[GENIERE]

…you psychos…

Wait one moment. You can’t make that judgment based on the few posts in this thread. I can only assume it’s the sum total of all their posts that led to your conclusion.

..

 

[plover]

I think the relevant quote is probably Boxer's "On a huge spending bill they're writing law". Some senators, most prominently Byrd (D-WV), are already pissed enough that appropriations have ended up being funnelled into this omnibus end-of-session bill. Attaching a rider that obviously deserves debate (mostly, it seems, to keep the DeLay posse happy) to an already overloaded bill that essentially must be passed before the senate session can end seems like a good candidate for abuse of procedure to me. I say "obviously" as the provision is controversial enough to have provoked the reaction indicated by the NYT. It's not the use of riders that's upsetting, but the misuse of them.

And anything that's got the fetus über alles crowd pitching rhetoric like "government agencies [coercing] health care providers to participate in abortions" definitely needs some vetting.

In the end, however, the Times is annoyingly vague on precisely what those opposing the provision expect to happen if it is passed, so other than the procedural sliminess, it is hard to know what to make of the issue. But if this provision would have had no chance of being passed without parasitizing a do-or-die bill then it should definitely not be there.

 

[franznietzsche]

Again, you just don't 'get it'. Go back to sleep.

No you don't get it.

There is nothing sleezy or wrong here. All they are doing is saying doctors don't have to do that if they choos not to. You are making crap up in your posts about this being an attempt to reduce civil rights. Its not.

PLease show me wher ein the constitution it says a woman haas the right to choose? I'm not even going to bother using anti-abortion language, because either way it is not there. That said i still don't think it should be made illegal, but that's for separate reasons altogether.

You know what democrats tried to sneak through the legisalture in a bill limiting methane emissions from the posteriors of cows?

Free tuition for illegal aliens at public universities--thats right, giving foreign cirminals completely free education. Thats a hell of a lot worse than trying to keep doctors from being punished for excersizing their right to choose. Thats because the democrats are such upstanding citizens themselves.

You are as hypocritical as your party affiliation, and just as lacking in reason.

 

[Moonbear]

On this one, I have to disagree with you Tsu and go with what Loseyourname and Russ are saying. The "process" is very common in Congress. In this case, I don't think it's all that unreasonable either. Usually much worse legislation sneaks in this way...the typical "pork barrel" projects. It's always a balancing act. Try to get in as much as you can riding on a well-supported issue without making it so much that even those in favor of the original bill must vote against it because the riders have gotten out of control and do more harm than good. I don't like the practice, because I think a lot of government waste comes of it, but sometimes it's an important way to get good legislation passed...by tacking on a few pork projects that appease the borderline objectors.

 

[russ_watters]

The "process" is very common in Congress. In this case, I don't think it's all that unreasonable either. Usually much worse legislation sneaks in this way...the typical "pork barrel" projects. It's always a balancing act.

In THIS particular case, there were 11,772 pieces of pork totaling $15.8 Billion. Yeah, its a big problem.

 

[franznietzsche]

• $335,000 to protect sunflowers in North Dakota from blackbird damage.

• $60 million for a new courthouse in Las Cruces, N.M.

• $225,000 to study catfish genomes at Alabama's Auburn University.

• A potential boon for Bush himself, $2 million for the government to try buying back the former presidential yacht Sequoia. The boat was sold three decades ago, and its current owners say the yacht is assessed at $9.8 million and are distressed by the provision.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[plover]

In THIS particular case, there were 11,772 pieces of pork totaling $15.8 Billion. Yeah, its a big problem.

But at least it's a monument to Republican leadership...

"I'm very proud of the fact that we held the line and made Congress make choices and set priorities, because it follows our philosophy," [said] Majority Leader Tom DeLay...

More here...

The abortion language remained in the spending bill, but late yesterday, Senate opponents agreed not to block its consideration after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) promised to schedule a vote in the near future on a bill drafted by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to repeal the provision.

And I'm sure granting Congressional committee chairs the power to look at the tax returns of anyone they don't like would be a spiffy idea:

Adding to the chaotic finale of the proceedings on the giant bill was a last-minute fracas over another provision, apparently slipped into the bill at the last minute by a House staff aide, that would allow agents designated by the chairman of the House or Senate Appropriations Committee to look at tax returns.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) described the provision as a "terrible, egregious abuse of power," and GOP senators joined in denouncing it.

To snuff out what appeared to be an incipient rebellion, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) took the floor to apologize for the provision and to promise that it would be corrected.

"It's wrong," an angry Stevens shouted at one point, saying it was inserted without his knowledge.

Here's the text of the provision:

Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein.

McCain's comment from an interview with Russert:

... the fact that our system is such that that would ever be inserted and passed by the House of Representatives--if there's ever a graphic example of the broken system that we now have, that certainly has to be it.

Most news articles seem to be reporting the original line that the language was inserted by some unknown Congressional staffer, but Frist told AP that the provision was introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK).

 

[loseyourname]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday made an important decision on this.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court handed a legal victory on Friday to medical groups working on behalf of health-care providers who refuse to offer abortion services.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allows private groups of health care providers to partner with the U.S. federal government to defend the federal Weldon Amendment from a lawsuit brought against it by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-06-09T234933Z_01_N09188252_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-ABORTION.xml

Here is the full text of the decision. They still haven't decided on the constitutionality of the amendment itself, only that these healthcare interest groups will be able to join in on the court battle.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

McCain's comment from an interview with Russert:

... the fact that our system is such that that would ever be inserted and passed by the House of Representatives--if there's ever a graphic example of the broken system that we now have, that certainly has to be it.

:rofl:

Yet he has no problem with hijacking immigration reform with a Senate initated bill that would have neutered what the House had spent months trying to create.

I have to agree that this whole business of inserting what are effectively separate bills into other bills like political tetris is an obnoxious policy. Just because it's common doesn't make it right, whether the rider is an issue you agree with or not (which in this case it is, given how loseyourname explained it, not how the thread is titled).

Both parties do it on a regular basis. It's dirty politics and it's out of control. The usual result is that the lawmaking that the country actually needs gets stalled by further circular bickering. Whatever happened to the outcry for a line item veto? That would solve the whole problem.

 

[newp175]

When Patriot act is enacted everybody is happy to defend it, however a measure that protects the moral intergrity of doctors is a severe breach of rights wothry of revolution etc etc. I am surprised that not one of the posters considered that this may be something good. It is not as if women don't have several contraceptive means, right ? And now you want to prevent the ones who have to do the killing from stopping? Abortion is not like removing a bad tooth people, it is murder.

 

[Curious3141]

As a doctor who is a conscientious objector to elective terminations I have some insight into this. *Every* doctor has the right to choose whether or not he or she wishes to provide elective medical care to someone. It is only emergent life saving therapy that the doctor is ethically *bound* to provide immediately. But even if the physician is not willing to provide non-urgent therapy himself he is ethically obliged to refer the patient to another physician who will.

While doctors are not ethically permitted to discriminate against patients on the basis of their gender, ethnicity or religion, conscientious objection to, and refusal to perform elective abortions is a protected right of doctors (at least in most civilised countries, I don't know what happens in China, for instance). The proscription against doctors carrying out abortions dates back to the time of Hippocrates (proscriptions against euthanasia and discrimination are also enshrined in the Oath). Modern Medicine has diluted the gravitas of the sacred oath, and abortions have become acceptable to most doctors. But doctors still have the right to choose whether or not they want to provide this completely elective service to patients.

All this bill does is (as I understand it) is to guarantee the protection of the right of doctors to refuse to accede to their patients' demands for an elective termination, without fear of economic repercussions. There is *nothing* wrong with this, it is a step in the right direction, despite all the hysterical hand wringing about women's rights. Womens rights are not even the issue here, doctors' rights are.

And just to put everyone's minds at rest, there is no danger of *all* or even most doctor refusing to perform abortions. Most doctors have no moral objection to it, and it's pretty easy money. So the consumer will always have the choice as long as long as abortion itself is not illegalised.

Just wanted to add this important point : conscientious objection to abortion is not the sole province of religious folks. I am an atheist and I object to it (in fact I am a member of the "Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League", a very real organisation with quite a few members). If I were to be practising in the US, I would welcome the added legitimacy this gives to my objection as a non-theist.

And, as I understand it, lots of bills are passed together with larger bills in the US system. So, really, what's the big fuss?

 

[SOS2008]

:rofl:

Yet he has no problem with hijacking immigration reform with a Senate initated bill that would have neutered what the House had spent months trying to create.

I have to agree that this whole business of inserting what are effectively separate bills into other bills like political tetris is an obnoxious policy. Just because it's common doesn't make it right, whether the rider is an issue you agree with or not (which in this case it is, given how loseyourname explained it, not how the thread is titled).

Both parties do it on a regular basis. It's dirty politics and it's out of control. The usual result is that the lawmaking that the country actually needs gets stalled by further circular bickering. Whatever happened to the outcry for a line item veto? That would solve the whole problem.

Good post. Also voting in the middle of the night annoys me, but certainly passing any law in a way that votes are not accounted for. How can there be representation if constituents can't see a voting record for their representatives? It is a constitutional matter that the people cannot be taxed without representation, and that includes transparency in the White House (er, ahem, Bush/Cheney).

 

[McGyver]

As a doctor who is a conscientious objector to elective terminations I have some insight into this. *Every* doctor has the right to choose whether or not he or she wishes to provide elective medical care to someone. It is only emergent life saving therapy that the doctor is ethically *bound* to provide immediately. But even if the physician is not willing to provide non-urgent therapy himself he is ethically obliged to refer the patient to another physician who will.

While doctors are not ethically permitted to discriminate against patients on the basis of their gender, ethnicity or religion, conscientious objection to, and refusal to perform elective abortions is a protected right of doctors (at least in most civilised countries, I don't know what happens in China, for instance). The proscription against doctors carrying out abortions dates back to the time of Hippocrates (proscriptions against euthanasia and discrimination are also enshrined in the Oath). Modern Medicine has diluted the gravitas of the sacred oath, and abortions have become acceptable to most doctors. But doctors still have the right to choose whether or not they want to provide this completely elective service to patients.

All this bill does is (as I understand it) is to guarantee the protection of the right of doctors to refuse to accede to their patients' demands for an elective termination, without fear of economic repercussions. There is *nothing* wrong with this, it is a step in the right direction, despite all the hysterical hand wringing about women's rights. Womens rights are not even the issue here, doctors' rights are.

Portions quoted above redacted for relevance.

This is a very complex case. I read through the "appeal" and the Court's decision to reverse. As a matter of law, I believe the problem here lies mostly with the Weldon Amendment. It has interjected itself and created a conflict between federal appropriations moneys and treatment and decisions involving a patient. I believe, in difference to our doctor here, that the health and welfare of the patient "trumps" a physicians personal beliefs about his/her medical decisions. Physicians oath is to protect the interest and welfare of the patient. It then becomes a matter of "fact" in each case whether a doctor's decision and denial of service placed a patient in jeopardy. The Weldon Amendment does not appear to absolve a physician from civil actions that may arise should a patient allege harm. The physician must still perform his duty to counsel and refer the patient, even if such advice contradicts the will of the patient. This preogative of the physician would be his/her care provided.

Clearly, the "emergency status" of the abortions denied substantive claim in the action filed by CA's Lockyer was in error. The remaining points the Court stipulated in their reversal are complex, and I think the Court is saying "go back and correct your legal points and claims," and separately address the Weldon Amendment, which I believe Congress errored in passing. This is what the petitioners should challenge. This may well later end up in the higher U.S. Supreme Court, who would rule on the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.

The more concerning route (for all patients) that physicians could pursue is to have new and current patients sign an advance waivor that "this physician" will not treat patients in the event of a request for abortion, not withstanding an emergent needs occasion. It would be legally tough to break if patients once patients signed it. Physicians could then start adding all kinds of advance notice of exclusions to care, and we'd really have a mess. Of interest today, Health and Human Services Secretary in Washington is now requesting more intervention and activism by health insurers on behalf of their insured patients, primarily for improved costs and efficiency out of health care providors and physicians. However, this could lead to insurance companies advocating in matters on "behalf" of the patient. This would improve checks and balances in health care.

As for Congress's actions in this matter, insertions of unrelated bills is a widespread practice. Hopefully, voters will hold any and all accountable for not only interfeering in the care of a patient, but also for any harm caused by delay/compromise of the primary intended bill.

 

[loseyourname]

To clarify what McGyver is saying, the reason this got brought up by Lockyer is that, in California, the state mandates that all physicians must perform any procedure necessary to help a patient whose life is in immediate danger, which includes emergency abortions. The Weldon Amendment conflicts with that law, saying that a physician cannot be penalized by the state for refusing to perform an emergency abortion needed to save a woman's life.

I would imagine, however, that any claimant would at least need to produce a case in which a woman incurred serious harm or death due to this amendment in order to be able to bring a challenge that will actually win. I understand Lockyer's reasoning, but what is the chance that a physician will refuse to perform an emergency abortion for a dying woman and no other physician will be around to do it in his place?

This is what happens when an amendment is tacked onto a bill and passed without debate, though. This could have been brought up and the amendment altered to provide an exemption in cases in which the woman's life is in direct and immediate danger. Then again, doesn't the Hippocratic oath itself dictate that an attending physician must perform any procedure necessary when a patient's life is in direct and immediate danger?

 

[Curious3141]

This is a very complex case. I read through the "appeal" and the Court's decision to reverse. As a matter of law, I believe the problem here lies mostly with the Weldon Amendment. It has interjected itself and created a conflict between federal appropriations moneys and treatment and decisions involving a patient. I believe, in difference to our doctor here, that the health and welfare of the patient "trumps" a physicians personal beliefs about his/her medical decisions. Physicians oath is to protect the interest and welfare of the patient. It then becomes a matter of "fact" in each case whether a doctor's decision and denial of service placed a patient in jeopardy. The Weldon Amendment does not appear to absolve a physician from civil actions that may arise should a patient allege harm. The physician must still perform his duty to counsel and refer the patient, even if such advice contradicts the will of the patient. This preogative of the physician would be his/her care provided.

Clearly, the "emergency status" of the abortions denied substantive claim in the action filed by CA's Lockyer was in error. The remaining points the Court stipulated in their reversal are complex, and I think the Court is saying "go back and correct your legal points and claims," and separately address the Weldon Amendment, which I believe Congress errored in passing. This is what the petitioners should challenge. This may well later end up in the higher U.S. Supreme Court, who would rule on the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.

The more concerning route (for all patients) that physicians could pursue is to have new and current patients sign an advance waivor that "this physician" will not treat patients in the event of a request for abortion, not withstanding an emergent needs occasion. It would be legally tough to break if patients once patients signed it. Physicians could then start adding all kinds of advance notice of exclusions to care, and we'd really have a mess. Of interest today, Health and Human Services Secretary in Washington is now requesting more intervention and activism by health insurers on behalf of their insured patients, primarily for improved costs and efficiency out of health care providors and physicians. However, this could lead to insurance companies advocating in matters on "behalf" of the patient. This would improve checks and balances in health care.

As for Congress's actions in this matter, insertions of unrelated bills is a widespread practice. Hopefully, voters will hold any and all accountable for not only interfeering in the care of a patient, but also for any harm caused by delay/compromise of the primary intended bill.

Well, I'm just a simple doctor, unaware of all the legal complexities of this situation (and I don't practice in the US). I will say this, however, and it should apply to all physicians practising anywhere : the needs of the patient never trump the proper values of a physician. In certain instances those needs may *apparently* override the "usual" objections a physician may have (like when a patient needs a life saving termination) - however, one indispensable value every good physician has is to put the life of his patient first. This "trumps" everything, so in situations where saving the life of the mother is a priority, there is no conflict. Every doctor, no matter how opposed to taking the life of a fetus, must do whatever it takes to save the life of a patient.

In elective circumstances, the demands of the patient can never be allowed to override a deeply held value of a physician. However, I believe every physician should have the duty to refer the patient to a colleague who does not share those objections.

I googled the "Weldon amendment", and I think it's worded in a dangerous fashion (which I didn't initially realize). I believe all references to protection of a physician's "right to refuse to refer" should be expunged. In reality, the physician really never had such a right - in fact, timely referral is part of the duty of care. I also feel that emergent care should be carefully stipulated as an exemption to the refusal clause.

Life-saving terminations almost never happen in this day and age. Rare cases of uncontrollable ecclampsia may necessitate this. In these cases, the mother does not wish to lose her child, and she is just as much against the termination as anyone else. This is a life-saving procedure, and I know of no physicians (among the conscientious objectors) who would refuse to save her life by taking that of her fetus.

It is only the *elective* situation when the woman actively wants to end the life of her unborn healthy fetus that we conscientious objectors feel is not justified. We should never be forced to provide such a service, but we should always be willing to refer the patient to someone else who will, that is our ethical duty.