ARTICLES

GOP and Latino Dems to the Rescue

GET REPRIEVE FOR CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

Freedom of religion prevailed as the state assembly rejected a proposal by Assemblywomen Sheila Kuehl (by a vote of 31 to 39), which would have required Catholic hospitals to provide either abortions or referrals for abortions. When Assemblymember Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) first sought support for her measure, a letter to all members of the state legislature soliciting co-authors was sent out on her assembly letterhead, along with a column from The Nation entitled, "Immaculate Contraception." The article features a picture of the Blessed Mother holding an infant Jesus and warns that Catholic hospital mergers have resulted in severe denial of "reproductive care" for women. Among those who opposed the bill were the Catholic Conference, the California Association of Catholic Hospitals, the Alliance of Catholic Care Systems, and the California ProLife Council.

While the Bay Area's legislative contingent all voted for the measure, five Latino Democrats voted against it, thus insuring that Kuehl would not get the bill out of the assembly. Under Kuehl's proposal, those Catholic hospitals which refused to provide or arrange for abortions would have been prohibited public bond financing or Cal-Mortgage Loan Insurance unless they guaranteed that they would provide abortions and other controversial services, or "partner" with agencies that would. Insurance companies would have been required to contract with facilities that provide abortions and other reproductive health services. Under the measure, the attorney general would have been required to consider the impact on access to abortion and other controversial reproductive health services before approving mergers occurring between non-profit hospitals.

Under this bill everyone would have been forced into complicity with or subsidization of acts which many find unethical or immoral. California ProLife Council pointed out that Catholic hospitals are not the only ones that would have been affected by the bill. The First Amendment rights of hospital systems owned by or associated with any religious institution whose doctrine directs their institutional policies would have been violated by the provisions of Kuehl's bill. The California Association of Catholic Hospitals, in their opposition letter to the bill said, "For us, to 'arrange for' is the functional equivalent of providing abortions and is something we cannot do.

"These provisions will force us to use taxable debt that will increase our costs by an amount estimated to equal almost 800,000 days of charity care over the next ten years. This puts us in the untenable position of choosing between providing or arranging for abortions or providing care for people who are uninsured." Washington D.C.-based Catholics for a Free Choice supported the bill and said that in its survey of 589 emergency rooms in Catholic hospitals 82 percent would not give "emergency contraceptives" to rape victims. President Frances Kissling was quoted by the Associated Press saying, "As the number of Catholic health care facilities increase and as non-Catholic hospitals agree to follow Catholic rules as a condition of consolidation, more and more women will be denied reproductive health services."

Dennis Cardoza (D-Merced), a pro-choice member of the Latino Caucus,rose in strong opposition to the bill. "I know that there are many hospitals in the state which provide the services in the bill but there are some fundamental issues, for example, that Catholic hospitals cannot do. Ms. Kuehl, I know that you are a passionate lady and when you feel strongly about an issue, you stick tough. But these folks also stick tough. Abortion is a fundamental issue with the Catholic Church. If we didn't have Catholic hospitals in California, we would have a health care crisis, in my opinion."