Mandatory Contraceptive Coverage Bill Needs Conscience Clause Protection

MEMORANDUM

DATE:       April 23, 2001

TO:             House Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee

FROM:      D. Michael McCarron, Executive Director

SUBJECT: Mandatory Contraceptive Coverage Bill Needs Conscience Clause Protection
                    [HB 381 (Rich)/CS/SB 168 (Wasserman-Schultz)]

Waivers for Religious Plans Insufficient

   Even with waivers for religious health plan sponsors and individual health care service contracts with religious organizations, HB 381 (Rich) and CS/SB 168 (Wasserman Schultz) do not contain sufficient conscience clause protection to address our concerns.  This legislation does not protect those providers and employers who on the basis of religious and moral grounds, object to providing oral contraceptive coverage.  To force them to violate a deeply held religious belief is contrary to strong legislative precedent in Florida.  An amendment along the lines below will address this deficiency:

Strong Precedent Against Forcing Citizens to Engage in Activity Violative of a Deeply Held or Conscientious Belief

   Conscience clauses exist in Florida law protecting conscientious objection for participating in lethal injections [s. 922.105 (9)]; objecting to participating in abortion services [s. 390.0011 (8)]; and, provisions related to life-prolonging procedures (s. 765.1105).  Moreover, Florida law provides conscience clause protection for physicians or others for refusing to furnish contraceptives or family planning services, even providing that they shall not be held liable for such refusal. (s. 381.0051)

   Should a provider or employer who feels it is wrong to do so be forced to provide a service by state policy? Perhaps one should have the right to provide such a service, but it is an abuse of government to force one to do so, if an employer or provider believes it to be wrong.

Chemical Abortions Not Excluded

   As originally filed, this legislation explicitly excluded chemical abortions, but in its present form it does not do so.

EEOC Decision Very Narrow

   The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision, upon which this legislation relies, applies only to the parties of the original case.  This decision is barely four months old, was based on a single complaint, and does not have the benefit of any rule-making mechanism by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  It may even be reversed at some point.  It seems a stretch to view it as a mandate or as binding on the entire insurance industry of America.

Abortifacient Drugs/Devices Should Not be Mandated for Coverage

   Some of the contraceptive drugs and devises mandated for coverage by this bill will prevent a living human embryo from implanting in the mother’s womb.  It is our position that human life begins at conception and that it should be respected and protected from that point forward.  Policies affording protection of life during the interval between fertilization and implantation are of great concern to us and many other Floridians.  In our view, the only difference between a newly conceived human being and any other person is simply that they are at difference stages of human development along a continuum of life.  This view is not appreciated by all and we do not impose it on any.  However, if a drug is abortifacient in nature, it should not be our state policy that it be mandated for coverage.

  We thank you for your consideration of our concerns.

DMMc:cs
cc:  Representative Nan Rich
      Speaker Tom Feeney