Statements and Speeches

Statement for an Amendment to be made to the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act
September 24, 2002

By Henry Waxman

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am here today to ask for an amendment to be made in order to H.R. 4691, the self-styled "Abortion Non-Discrimination Act." If made in order, this amendment will be offered by a diverse group of my colleagues, all of whom come together in their concern about the consequences of this bill.

Before describing the amendment, let me say that I regret that it is necessary to take up the Committee's time. Had this bill been marked up in Subcommittee or Committee, I would have had the chance to offer amendments then. But the bill was "polled out" of Committee without even a meeting, much less a markup. Consequently, to address our concerns, we must ask you to make an amendment in order for the floor consideration.

The bill before you is an enormous change in current policy about reproductive health, about patients' rights, and about Federalism. It is not a "clarification," as some have termed it.

Under current law beginning from the time of Roe v. Wade, there have been Federal laws allowing doctors, nurses, and hospitals to refuse to perform abortion services because of their religious beliefs--and still get Federal funds for other services. Catholic doctors don't have to perform abortions. Catholic hospitals don't have to support abortion clinics. This permission for religious people to refuse because of their conscience is established and works smoothly.

But this bill goes far beyond that.

First, and most obvious, this bill is not about religion or conscience. Any HMO could gag its doctors, not because HMOs have a conscience, but because they'd rather cut time with a patient from 9 minutes to 8. Any public hospital could decide that they'd rather not have a protester out front.

Second, this bill is not just about doctors or even hospitals refusing to provide services. Those people are given permission to refuse under current Federal law. This bill expands to cover insurance plans, HMOs, and other corporate entities. These are the very entities that the Patients' Bill of Rights was seeking to stop from gagging their providers. This bill instead provides a legal protection for the gag.

Third, this bill overrides any State or local autonomy in reproductive health. If the State of Alaska's Supreme Court has interpreted its constitution to require that a public hospital that is the sole provider of services in an entire region be made available for legal abortion services, we should not overturn Alaska's constitution lightly. This bill does. If a State says that abortion counseling should be covered by insurance, we should not start here to regulate health insurance at the Federal level. This bill does.

So, I would request that you make an amendment in order to provide for a rule of construction for this bill. The amendment would provide that this legislation--
· does not authorize any institutions to gag its providers from providing medically appropriate information or services,
· does not authorize any institution to withhold medically appropriate information or services from its patients; and
· does not pre-empt a State from enforcing its constitution or laws.

The amendment makes no change to current law that allows individual doctors and nurses and hospitals from refusing to provide services that they have a religious objection to. That law is in place. The amendment creates no requirement for abortion services or counseling. The amendment does not affect the Hyde language or any of the myriad other prohibitions providing abortion services with Federal funds.

The amendment simply limits the harm that this bill does. It makes clear that what is at stake here is medically appropriate information and services that doctors should be able to give their patients without interference.

Thank you.