|NJ nurses with attorney Matt Bowman, Rep. Chris Smith|
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Contrasting quotes from a Washington Post news story of a dozen pro-life nurses pressured to participate in abortions illustrate the coercive ideology behind the battle for conscience rights in health care.
Nurse Beryl Otieno-Negoje sums up simply her conscientious commitment: “I’m a nurse so I can help people, not help kill.”
A hospital manager reportedly bluntly dismissed the nurses' Hippocratic ethics, reportedly instructing nurse Fe Esperanza R. Vinoya, “‘You just have to catch the baby’s head. Don’t worry, it’s already dead.’”
The American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project reveals an upside-down view of American civil liberties--by asserting that the nurses' freedom to support reproduction over abortion is an intolerable way to "discriminate against patients."
The Obama administration has launched its own discrimination campaign, by designing grant stipulations for trafficking victims to deny funding to organizations with moral objections to abortion, by mandating without a meaningful conscience exemption the provision of controversial contraceptives, and by gutting the only federal regulation protecting conscience in health care.
It's time for the ideologues in this administration and the medical community to stop coercing others to conform to their abortion agenda, end the discrimination and uphold First Amendment conscience rights.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
See National Right to Life News Today for published version of this article.
- Question #1: Where does a performance rating of just 69 out of 100 merit an award of over two and a half million dollars?
Answer: Only in Washington, DC.
- Question #2: When does a tiny organization without even a qualified financial officer receive a federal grant that will nearly triple its operating budget?
Answer: When the organization submits to the Obama administration's political ideology and a more qualified grant applicant does not.
- Question #3: According to the Obama administration, what one medical "service" trumps all others when caring for human trafficking victims?
A grueling December 1 hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee revealed the disturbing answers to these questions, in the process infuriating Republican committee members and others concerned with aiding victims of human trafficking.
By the end of an over three-hour long grilling of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials, one message had become clear about the Obama administration's criteria for receiving the $4.5 million in federal grants for trafficking victims services:
Pro-life groups need not apply.
Withering questioning and comments by majority party committee members included expressions of disgust, dismay and even unusually salty language by a clearly frustrated committee chair, California Republican Darrell Issa. Yet HHS officials under fire stubbornly accepted no responsibility for bias or wrongdoing--either for stipulating that "strong preference" would be accorded to grant applicants willing to participate in abortion and other controversial "services" or for awarding the grants to applicants deemed by objective reviewers to be poorly qualified.
Political appointees "rigged" grant process to weed out pro-life groups
Internal HHS documents obtained by the committee revealed that two organizations awarded grants by HHS officials--Tapestri and the U.S. Committee on Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI)--had submitted applications that received significantly lower scores by independent review panelists than did the application submitted by the pro-life U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The Tapestri application earned a score of just 74 out of 100; USCRI's application garnered only 69; while the USCCB application received a score of 89.
The radically pro-abortion Obama administration had set up the weighted grant process by introducing new language to a grant program introduced in the Bush administration to aid victims of human trafficking, or modern-day slavery. The funding opportunity announcement for the "competitive" grant stipulated:
"The Director of [the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement] will give strong preference to applicants that are willing to offer all of the services and referrals delineated under the Project Objectives. Applicants that are unwilling to provide the full range of the services and referrals under the Project Objectives must indicate this in their narrative ...."
The stipulations added that "…preference will be given to grantees under this [funding opportunity announcement] that will offer all victims referral to medical providers who can provide or refer for provision of treatment for sexually transmitted infections, family planning services and the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care..."
Translation: Participate in abortion or forget the grant.
For five years, the Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) department of the bishops had provided inarguably exemplary services for human trafficking victims, apparently without a single report of objection to the fact that the bishops did not refer for or otherwise participate in abortions because of faith-based moral convictions. Nearly half the victims served by MRS were males for whom gynecological services were obviously irrelevant.
George H. Sheldon, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Children and Families, testified that USCCB "provided strong performance under contract they had" and "has been extremely cooperative" in transitioning care to the newly funded groups. He also did not dispute the scores, saying, "I think reviewers did a very good job."
Yet Sheldon refused to admit any regret for his decision to overrule the clear recommendations of the independent expert panelists and deny the USCCB funding solely on the basis of its religious objection to abortion. Sheldon's decision to deny funding on the basis of merit and the collusion of top HHS officials in that decision clearly infuriated Rep. Chris Smith, the New Jersey Republican who authored the law on human trafficking that had provided for the grant funding.
"In what can only be described as an unconscionable abuse of power," Smith seethed, "the Obama Administration has engaged in what amounts to bid rigging; denying taxpayer funds to a demonstrably superior organization—the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)—with an exemplary, ten-year track record of performance that scored significantly higher in independent HHS reviews than two of the three NGOs that got the grant."
HHS official overseeing grant worked for group awarded grant
Oklahoma Republican Rep. James Lankford wryly noted that the expert grant application reviewers had gone to extraordinary lengths to highlight the inadequacy of the application by USCRI, despite the fact that its former vice president and chief financial officer, Eskinder Negash, had recently taken on a position as director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement–the very office overseeing the grant. Although Negash had recused himself from the actual grant decision, the department’s supposed objectivity was called into question by the fact that his former organization won a sizeable award–nearly $2.6 million–despite its low score by reviewers and the tiny organization’s obvious lack of institutional capacity and financial management competence.
Although Congress had come together over the years in rare bipartisan efforts to combat human trafficking by passing Smith's bill, the obvious bias recently demonstrated by HHS in the grant process, Smith warned, "will severely undermine confidence of the public and of Congress."
Chairman Issa warned that if the grant discrimination were allowed to stand, discriminatory HHS policies could easily expand to the point where in all of its programs "HHS can have a strong preference against doctors who are not willing to provide abortions."
One has to wonder why the Obama administration would insist on playing the abortion trump card, given the potential political fallout (even the normally sympathetic Washington Post exposed the corrupted process) and the fact that the abortion clause in the grant guidance was not even necessary for human trafficking victims to attain abortions.
As Rep. Issa pointed out, as soon as an organization refers victims to a medical professional or institution, federal medical privacy laws take effect, and both patient and physician would be free to pursue an abortion without the knowledge or approval of the referring organization.
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, New York Republican, protested that under the new abortion referral requirement, "Now we are going to ask 12-year-olds to make life-changing decisions. You don't know the trauma of abortion. This will only add to the trauma already experienced by the victims."
Grant bias fits pattern of administration's animus toward pro-life, faith-based groups
The decision to insist on submission to its abortion ideology as a condition for federal grants illustrates the depth of the administration's radical abortion policy and its increasingly obvious disdain for conscience rights and religious freedom. That animus has been reflected in the administration's gutting of the only federal regulation protecting conscience rights in health care; by a recent HHS rule mandating the nationwide provision of controversial, life-ending contraceptives; and by the administration's intervention in a Supreme Court case (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC ) to lobby to limit the hiring freedoms of faith-based organizations.
Michigan Republican Rep. Tim Walberg warned that the biased grant process sends a dark message to faith-based organizations: "On the basis of strongly held religious or moral belief, you will be discriminated against."
Whether or not HHS officials technically broke federal law in the biased grant process remains to be determined.
Rep. Kelly concluded, "There is a huge difference between what's legal and what is right."
Meanwhile, what's right for the desperately needy and traumatized victims of human trafficking has been tragically lost in a political determination to advance abortion ideology.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
In a Washington Post opinion piece, Michael Gerson highlights the administration's trampling of Catholic conscience concerns, yet the assault threatens the conscience rights of Americans of all persuasions.
When the administration gutted the only federal regulation protecting health care professionals from discrimination for upholding ethical standards, the action threatened not only physicians who cannot morally participate in abortion, but also those who cannot morally participate in the death penalty.
When the administration promulgated a rule mandating provision of contraceptives which the FDA warns can end the development of a living human embryo, the policy not only penalized those who follow Hippocratic standards; it also forced insurance companies to pay for the administration's ideology at a time of economic distress.
When the administration began designing grant stipulations for trafficking victims and AIDS patients to favor organizations lacking moral objections to abortion or contraception, the discrimination not only harmed faith-based organizations but also the vulnerable individuals who depend on their competent and compassionate care.
Unless Americans of all persuasions challenge the administration's assault on conscience rights, we all stand to lose our First Amendment liberties.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Apparently the lessons of history and the inestimable value of conscience rights are lost on some current-day politicians, as illustrated in this Washington Post interview with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco Democrat:
Catholic health-care providers in particular have long said they’d have to go out of business without the conscience protections that Pelosi says amount to letting hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion.” Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing’’ that she insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic providers strongly disagree.
- Here's how Pilgrim pioneer William Bradford expressed "this conscience thing:"
‘Nevertheless, to keep a good conscience, and walk in such a way as God has prescribed in his word, is a thing which I must prefer before you all, and above life itself.’
- Here's how Thomas Jefferson expressed "this conscience thing:"
"[O]ur rules can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God."
- Here's how the United States Constitution expresses "this conscience thing:"
Preamble: "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
Amendment One: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
Amendment Five: "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
- And here's how the Declaration of Independence express "this conscience thing:"
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ..."Regarding politicians who disdain conscience rights, perhaps the words of British poet John Milton (1608–1674) express it best:
"Peace hath her victories
No less renowned than war; new foes arise,
Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains:
Help us to save free conscience from the paw
Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw."