dyxlecis gril

Negotiators Add Abortion Clause to Spending Bill

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and CARL HULSE

Published: November 20, 2004


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.

Lawmakers in the House and the Senate intended to vote on the omnibus bill on Saturday, when a stopgap spending measure is set to expire at midnight. Congress failed to pass 9 of its 13 required spending bills before its election recess, leaving much of the government - with the exception of the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security - to operate under the interim measure.

The 11th-hour controversy over the abortion language capped a long and chaotic day Friday. In the House, the ethics committee ruled that a Democratic lawmaker had brought exaggerated charges against Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority leader, a finding that provoked another round of bitter recriminations between Republicans and Democrats.

In the Senate, the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his re-election bid, delivered a poignant farewell speech that brought him a standing ovation.

"It's had its challenges, its triumphs, its disappointments," Mr. Daschle said of his 26-year career in Congress, which included a decade as the Democratic leader. "But everything was worth doing."

link.

mh67511

I don't really understand...why would a doctor be forced to do an abortion? I don't think that hospitals run by religious denominations should be required to offer abortions at the hospital. That would be forcing them to go against their moral beliefs. Anyways if it's a private organization then they should be able to provide whatever services they choose. And why does protecing insurers even matter... are abortions covered by insurance? I didn't think they were.

I'm glad they were there past midnight though - they have it too cushy sometimes! And for that matter if they want to filibuster something I say NO breaks for food NO breaks for sleeping. No way, if you want to do that you can stay theire 24/7 until you figure something out.

TheAngel

The person doing the filibuster does have to stay there 24/7. Strom Thurman has the record, something like 24 hours and he read out of the New York phone book. Besides, they can always pass a cloture to limit debate. I think riders are stupid and shouldn't be allowed. Honestly, if someone doesn't want to perform an abortion, why make them. Some people simply have different moral beliefs and ideas. Why force them to do something they don't want to. Besides, if the life of the mother or baby is not in danger then it's not protected under the Hyppocratic Oath.

mh67511

Ok good I didn't know that about the filibuster.

ceilirose

Some insurance programs will cover abortions. This bill is talking about federally funded hospitals or those who receive federal funds for whatever reason I believe. Roman Catholic hospitals don't have to provide abortions.

Sorry but abortion is still legal in this country. If women choose to have the procedure they are entitled to have it done in a clean, safe and medically sound environment. Until the government takes that right away at least...but it stands as of today.

If a doctor can chose not to perform an abortion for personal reasons then what's to stop a doctor from not performing any other procedures for religious or personal feelings.

It's bad enough that some pharmacists are declining to fill prescriptions for birth-control pills. I'm not sure what's next.

Lovesbitch

This is opening a can of worms.

On one hand I don't think a doctor should be forced to perform any abortion if he doesn't morally want to but it is legal and if it's in a federally funded hospital I believe the hospital should be required to offer that services (private hospitals not offering it is perfectly fine by me because they are not funded by government money and have more right to what they do).

What if a doctor doesn't believe in medicaton cause he thinks that it interferes with Gods plans. Could he refuse to treat a patient just because he doesn't agree.

Plus, I think this bill allows the doctor to not even inform that patient of the option of abortion. Again, back to the situation I offered. The doctor may tell the person there are no options left for him to do to help, not mentioning a medicatoin that could save their life.

Federally funded hospitals should be forced to perform abortions because it is legally allowed in this country. If a doctor is so against it he can find another job at a private hospital. Plus, not all doctors can perform abortions, only a specific kind trained (I believe). So if a dctor doesn't want to do it he just not go into that field.

ceilirose

I was watching some of the CSPAN coverage of the Senate discussing this bill. A doctor doesn't have to perform an abortion even at at public hospital if he/she is a conscientious objector.

However this provision which will be law says that the doctor does not have to recommend another doctor/medical facility that will perform one. That's the real sticking point for pro-choice Senators.

The provision can't be taken out but they compromised on it and there will be a straight vote on it when the Senate re-convenes in January.

Lovesbitch

Yep, and they should be forced to give a referal.

TheAngel

I agree, however, also, not giving medications and performing abortions are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. The majority of abortions performed are not because the life of the mother is in danger, they are performed because the woman does not want to have a baby or because birth control failed. However, not giving medications that have an effect on personal health is totally different. Also, I hightly doubt there are many doctors that refuse to give medication because of religious reasons since very few medications are mentioned in Biblical terms, except for some religions not believing in Birth Control. By the way, under the oath that doctors take, the Hyppocratic Oath, they are required to help people that are in danger, but since Birth Control and abortions(normally) do not involve people being in physical danger they are not required to perform abortions or prescribe birth control. Of course, in a federally funded hospital, it should be up to the hospital administration to hire someone that does not have any reservations in performing an abortion or prescribing birth control.

Lovesbitch

I know what i said was extreme, I was trying to make the point that with this law we're opening a worm hole. This doesn't seem like such a huge thing but were do we draw the line after this?

What if a doctor believes that taking a person off the machine is murder even though the family wants to remove them. Does the doctor then get the right to say he won't do that?

I'm all for not forcing doctors to do abortions but I think if it's a federally supported hospital their should be doctors there willing to do so and information about referral should be available.

Abortions are legal in this country and even if they're not done because of life threatening reasons a hospital should still be required to perform them.

A person losing there arm is not life threatening but I'm sure any doctor would willingly reattach it.

LittleMilkJug

I am pro choice but in no way should any body be forced to do an abortion. I think doctors around the country should have addresses of places where they do abortions, so they can refer their patients to them.
That simple.

TheAngel

I agree, but of course in politics as with everything else, it is never that simple.

California_ here_ I _come

I myself don't agree with abortion, but if a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion b/c he doesn't believe in it, he shouldn't have to. He can step down, & they can find another doctor who has no prob. with it to do it.

Lovesbitch

Doctors already don't have to preform abortions if they don't want to. This law would allow them to refuse to give referals to other doctors that do.

I agree, I'm pro-choice but they shouldn't force someone to do it if they didn't want to. But they should force the doctor to refer there patients to a safe place for them to have the operation.

This law would allow doctors to refuse to give parents referals.

mh67511

What's so difficult about calling Planned Parenthood or looking in the phonebook for an abortion clinic?