WASHINGTON, D.C. (REUTERS) — The House of Representatives backed a bill Wednesday that supporters say would strengthen “conscience clauses” allowing health-care providers to decline to perform abortions, but critics said it would severely curtail women’s access to the procedure.
The “Abortion Non-Discrimination Act” passed by a 229-189 vote with a majority of Republicans voting for it and most Democrats against it. The bill is not expected to be taken up by the Senate this year but is part of a long-running Washington fight over abortion.
The bill allows any health entity, including health plans and hospitals, to decline to offer or cover abortion services without being penalized by any state or federal program.
Supporters, led by Florida Republican Michael Bilirakis, said it is necessary because state laws and some state courts have eroded conscience clauses.
Conflicts have arisen in particular in communities where Catholic and secular hospitals have merged, with abortion-rights groups pushing for the new entity to offer abortions or related services so that women in the community can continue to have access to the procedure. Disputes have also occurred when there is only one hospital or clinic in an area, and it does not offer abortions.
Bilirakis said the legislation “provides clarity” to existing law. He denied the bill would greatly curtail access to abortions.
But critics said the wording of the bill would, in fact, significantly limit access to abortion. Health entities could opt out of abortion not just because of religious beliefs but because they want to avoid protesters or because they believe abortion counseling is time-consuming and could cut into their profits.
“This isn’t a conscience clause, this is a cop-out clause,” said Democratic Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C. She said it would usurp states’ power to regulate health care.
Lois Capps, a California Democrat and nurse, asked Bilirakis whether the language in the bill would affect such services as emergency contraception or the “morning after” pill for rape victims.
“This is not about abortion, this is about freedom,” he replied. Definitions, he added, were “not pertinent” to the legislation.
