New York Times Opinion Piece Revisits Abortion Access Fight At Wasilla Hospital In Light Of HHS Proposed Rule

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Public Health
Article Date: 31 Oct 2008 - 10:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

A New York Times opinion piece by Dorothy Samuels on Thursday examined a 1992 decision by the operating board of Alaska's Matanuska-Susitna Valley's community hospital to bar physicians from performing abortions at the hospital except in cases of rape, incest, when the pregnant woman's life is in danger or when a physician documents "the fetus has a condition that is incompatible with life." The hospital's operating board had been "captured" by 20 local evangelical churches, including Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin's Assembly of God Church, according to the opinion piece. Samuels writes that the "policy change left Alaska without any hospital where a woman with, say, a negative amniocentesis result or other problem not included among the exceptions could obtain a second-trimester abortion at a doctor's discretion. Such procedures account for about 10% of all abortions."

Samuels reports that at the center of the issue was Susan Lemagie, who in 1992 was the only physician in the state who performed elective abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Along with the Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, Lemagie sued to overturn the hospital restrictions. In 1997, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled anonymously in favor of Lemagie, "holding that Valley Hospital was a 'quasi public' institution because it was the only hospital serving the community and received millions of public dollars. As such, it could not deny a woman's 'fundamental right' to abortion, which is secured by the broad right to privacy embedded in the state's constitution." According to Samuels, "The outcome reverberated nationally. Supporters of reproductive rights felt bolstered. Those opposed seized upon the Alaska decision and like developments elsewhere to call for congressional passage of the so-called Abortion Non-Discrimination Act." The act proposed to extend the right of individual health care providers to refuse to perform or assist in abortion or sterilization procedures based on moral or religious grounds to hospitals, HMOs, insurance plans and various other health care institutions. In addition, under the bill, any law or regulation mandating such services was deemed "discriminatory" and could result in a loss of federal funding.

According to Samuels, although the bill was passed in the House but blocked in the Senate in 2002, "the issue did not fade away." For instance, the Weldon Amendment -- which prohibits funding from going to federal, state or local agencies that act against health care providers or insurers that refuse to provide abortion services, make abortion referrals for or cover abortions -- was added to the 2004 spending bill for the Labor, Education and HHS departments and remains in force today. Currently, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt "appears poised to enlarge" the amendment with a proposed rule that would add abortion counseling and the provision of accurate reproductive health information to the list of services providers and institutions could refuse to provide. Samuels writes that the rule, with roots in the 1992 Alaska controversy, shows that although it is "a long way from Wasilla to Washington," the "impact of that far-away abortion brawl is being felt still" (Samuels, New York Times, 10/30).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations