Oppose Extension of the Federal Refusal Clause
Dear Representative:
As you consider appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union urges you not to extend the federal refusal clause language, also known as the Weldon Amendment, included in the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill. This amendment would allow virtually any health care entity to refuse to provide, cover, pay for, or even refer patients for abortions even when such actions are otherwise legally mandated.
Laws requiring the provision of abortion services tend to apply only in extreme circumstances, such as when a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when a woman's life or health is threatened by a pregnancy. The Weldon Amendment would allow health insurance companies, health plans, hospitals, providers, and others to ignore these laws with impunity. This broad federal refusal clause therefore endangers women's lives and undermines women's ability to make their own health care decisions during pregnancy.
Supporters of the federal refusal clause wrongly argue that it is needed to protect individuals and health care organizations that oppose abortion. The reality is that no federal law forces individuals to provide abortion care. In fact, the 1973 Church amendment explicitly protects individuals who object to providing abortion care based on religious beliefs or moral convictions. No federal law requires hospitals to provide abortions either, except in a medical emergency. Moreover, upwards of 45 states have refusal clauses for either individuals or institutions that object to providing or participating in abortions.
The federal refusal clause seeks to permit health care entities to refuse to provide abortion services or referrals for any reason, not just on the basis of religious objections. However, the vast majority of Americans oppose allowing institutional health care providers to deny services to patients even on the basis of moral or religious objections. For example, seventy-six percent of the public opposes exempting hospitals from providing medical services to which they object on religious grounds and eighty-nine percent oppose allowing insurance companies to refuse to pay for medical services on religious grounds.
Although the true impact of the federal refusal clause is unclear, its proponents want it to be defined broadly. If their view prevails, the provision will present a direct and serious threat to women's reproductive health.
* * *
The ACLU urges you to oppose the extension of the federal refusal clause.
Sincerely,
Gregory T. Nojeim
Acting Director