Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frist a Major Shareholder in Reputed For-Profit Abortion Provider
Human Events ^ | 12-20-02 | Terry Jeffrey

Posted on 12/19/2002 10:26:29 PM PST by The Old Hoosier

Frist a Major Shareholder in Reputed For-Profit Abortion Provider
By Terence P. Jeffrey

Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.), reportedly the White House choice to succeed Trent Lott (R.-Miss.) as Senate majority leader, is a major shareholder in HCA, a for-profit hospital chain founded by his father and brother. HCA reportedly provides abortions to its customers.

So now Republicans face this question: If it is disqualifying for their Senate leader to make offensive remarks interpreted as endorsing an immoral policy that denied African-Americans equal rights, is it also disqualifying for their Senate leader to make money from a hospital chain that denies unborn babies the right to life?

Frist has deposited his major stockholdings in a "blind trust" chartered Dec. 28, 2000. A schedule of the original assets in this trust filed with the Senate showed holdings in 16 companies. Frist reported the value of these assets, as per Senate rules, within broad ranges (e.g. $1,001-$15,001). If the lowest possible value is assigned to each holding, Frist at that time had invested a minimum of $566,015 in 15 other companies, while investing at least $5,000,001 in HCA.

That would mean that approximately 89% of his holdings were in this company.

Furthermore, on its face, the trust agreement appears structured to allow the administrators to maintain this heavy concentration in HCA stock. It also specifically instructs the administrators to inform Frist if they divest entirely from any holding, including HCA. And, finally, it gives Frist the power to directly order the administrators to divest from HCA or any other holding that Frist determines "creates a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof."

HCA does not trumpet its reported involvement with abortion. But, in April, Catholic Financial Services Corporation (CFSC), a mutual fund company, announced that it was starting an S&P 500 Index Fund that would "exclude companies on the abortion issue"—and that HCA was one of only six companies on the index that would be excluded on these grounds. A spokesman for the mutual fund explained to me last week that the company excludes hospital chains that perform abortions and pharmaceutical companies that deal in drugs that induce abortion.

On December 18 and 19, I placed several calls to HCA corporate spokesman Jeff Prescott, to ask him directly whether abortions were performed in HCA facilities, or whether the company refuted CFSC’s determination that they were. I left him voice messages to this effect, and repeatedly told his secretary my questions. At 5:00 p.m. on the 19th, as press time approached, the secretary left me lingering on hold with no answer. When I hung up and called back, I got Prescott’s voice mail again and left him one last message. He never returned my call.

I also spoke with Sen. Frist’s spokesman, Nick Smith. I explained to Smith my understanding that the terms of Frist’s "blind" trust allowed the administrators to maintain a heavy concentration in HCA, while allowing Frist to order the sale of this stock, and while also compelling the administrators to inform Frist if they divested entirely from HCA or any other holding. I cited the specific passages in the trust to this effect. I also asked Smith to clarify Frist’s position on abortion—which has confounded pro-lifers over the years—and why Frist would not divest, since he apparently could, from a company that reportedly performs abortions.

When Frist first ran for the Senate in 1994, the Nashville Banner reported that he "frequently" said he "does not believe abortion should be outlawed." In a May 1994 radio interview, the Banner reported, Frist said, "It’s a very private decision." One of Frist’s Republican primary rivals, Steve Wilson, the Banner said, "demanded that Frist sell his millions of dollars in stock in the Hospital Corporation of America [HCA], which Frist’s family founded. Some of the hospitals in the chain perform abortions."

Tennessee Right to Life PAC Director Sherry Holden, however, told the Banner that Frist had told her organization he was pro-life. "He said he’s against abortion, period—no exceptions, except rape and incest," said Holden.

Yet, an Oct. 10, 1994, Memphis Commercial Appeal report on a debate between Frist and incumbent Sen. Jim Sasser (D.-Tenn.) said: "There were some topics on which the candidates agreed—both said they’re personally opposed to abortion but don’t think the government should prohibit abortions."

I asked Smith whether Frist wanted to prohibit abortion either by constitutional amendment or by over-turning Roe v. Wade and enacting prohibitions in the states, including Tennessee.

Smith responded by faxing me a statement. The White House, pro-life Republican senators, and their grassroots supporters can decide whether it is responsive:

"These two issues [the HCA investment and abortion] are separate and distinct," wrote Smith.

"On his own accord, by placing his assets in a federally qualified blind trust, Sen. Frist took a step above and beyond to ensure there is no conflict of interest," wrote Smith. "He believes this was the proper and responsible thing to do. He has never been employed by, or served on the board of, HCA or any of its hospitals.

"As a U.S. senator who acts on public policy each and every day, his record on abortion is clear," Smith continued. "He is opposed to abortion except in the instances of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is threatened. He is opposed to federal funding of abortion. And in the Senate, he led the fight against partial-birth abortion."

His Senate website includes a statement saying, "No one can deny the potential human cloning holds for increased scientific understanding. But . . . I am unable to find a compelling justification for allowing human cloning today."

As Bill Clinton might say, that doesn’t rule out tomorrow—when he may be Senate majority leader.



TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionlist; catholiclist; escr; frist; fristabortion; singleissueloser; terencepjeffrey; terryjeffrey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 601-610 next last
To: concerned about politics
I'm a political and social conservative. I hold those I vote for to a high standard.

And this trait is what seperates the true conservatives from the so-called "moderate conservatives," which is a paradox.

Moderates are more concerned with compromising core beliefs in order to stay in power, whereas conservatives are not.

381 posted on 12/20/2002 8:25:02 AM PST by A2J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: GoMonster
You haven't read my posts. Go back and do it first.
382 posted on 12/20/2002 8:25:25 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Yeah, they just keep on scoffing at the platform...one of these days their scoffing is going to catch up with them.

Regards

EV
383 posted on 12/20/2002 8:25:34 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Askel5; Howlin
Everyone knows it. Quit pulling out your personal sorrow as trump card. Your grief at the loss of your son bears no relation whatsoever to your respect for the "law of the land" that is legal abortion and your perpetual haranging of pro-lifers.

You're a real b***h, I hope you know that. Have you ever lost a son? Have you ever even given birth? Or is that also a "trump" card?

384 posted on 12/20/2002 8:25:39 AM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Mover

I did that too!

385 posted on 12/20/2002 8:26:25 AM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.), reportedly the White House choice to succeed Trent Lott (R.-Miss.) as Senate majority leader, is a major shareholder in HCA, a for-profit hospital chain founded by his father and brother. HCA reportedly provides abortions to its customers.

This is such a pathetic reach. Terry, you just lost my renewal subscription to Human Events.

386 posted on 12/20/2002 8:28:11 AM PST by Darling Lili
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Virtually every Hospital in the US that is not a Catholic Hospital provides abortion services. FWIW most OB-GYN doctors do as well, but they will not advertise it and only do it for regular patients. Although I detest abortion and will do everything in my power to try to minimize it, it is legal in this country and will be around until the vast majority of the people see the issue like you or I do (which is that it is immoral and wrong).
387 posted on 12/20/2002 8:29:43 AM PST by Woodman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
First, you ought to read the whole article. THen come back and ask any questions you may have.

And for a for-profit chain, I think "customers" works fine. Also for abortion, which is not a legitimate medical procedure anyway.

388 posted on 12/20/2002 8:32:48 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Who decides what the law will read? Is that what you're asking?"

Sure. And how it is enforced. Who determines if a mother's life is in danger. What is the 'threshold' and who decides? Can a woman choose not to give birth for whatever reason, maybe out of scorn, and say her husband raped her and thus gets to snuff out a baby?
389 posted on 12/20/2002 8:33:00 AM PST by ApesForEvolution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
I only brought up the Hitler example because so many people are using this "one-issue" bs as if it were a bad thing. Show me why I should support someone who knowingly makes money off killing babies.
390 posted on 12/20/2002 8:34:17 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The exceptions are irrelevant. THe fact is, here's someone who has said he is pro-abortion, then said he is pro-life, and continues to make LOTS of money from abortions. Is he really pro-life like he says he is, or is he a liar?
391 posted on 12/20/2002 8:37:37 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
"If a Republican primary were held today, I'd vote for the other guy. If presidential elections were held today, I'd simply vote against the Democrat. It's only 4 years we'd have to hold our breath. I'm a political and social conservative. I hold those I vote for to a high standard. If they "fall from grace (lie to me)", they lose my support forever.

Thank you for saying it. I agree.
392 posted on 12/20/2002 8:38:02 AM PST by ApesForEvolution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Look, I make money off of a large electric company that is one of my biggest clients. That electric company supplies the electricity to abortion mills...

If you can't see the difference between that and owning more than $5m of stock in an abortion provider, then I don't see the point in arguing with you, since it's an intelligence problem.

393 posted on 12/20/2002 8:39:58 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Should anti-abortion posters on FreeRepublic be treated by hospitals that perform abortions? Have you ever been treated by a hospital that performs abortions?

1) being treated and profiting from are not the same thing.

2) Not all hospitals provide abortions.

3) Not all hospitals are for-profit.

394 posted on 12/20/2002 8:44:44 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: A2J
My reputation was ruined back 29 years ago when this happened. It was very hard to go through. I know the Lord loved me, but at that time I wondered about that. I never hate a woman who has had an abortion because I know what pressure she is under. That baby was one of the 3 best things that ever happened to me. My 5 year old grandson, and 2 day old granddaughter look exactly like that son. This son is very pro-life.
395 posted on 12/20/2002 8:45:23 AM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Don Nickles doesn't own stock in an abortion mill.

Neither does Frist. HCA is a chain of major hospitals. It's likely that both you and Nickles owns stock in either HCA or a similar chain through your mutual funds.

396 posted on 12/20/2002 8:46:30 AM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: alnick
I don't think they're merely abortion mills, or whether anyone gets treatment at them. I just think that a Senator who claims to be so pro-life should have a conscience that wouldn't let him profit from abortion. Otherwise, I'm more inclined to believe what he said in 1994--that he's pro-abortion.
397 posted on 12/20/2002 8:46:47 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: alnick
Make that: I don't care whether anyone get treatment at them.
398 posted on 12/20/2002 8:47:30 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: A2J
Rush is my guy. I like him a lot.

He's talking about those who adopt the term "moderate" in general to describe themselves.

I am a conservative. Specifically, I'm a moderate conservative or a compassionate conservative if you will. You should focus on the word conservative.
399 posted on 12/20/2002 8:48:19 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
How is it a hit piece? Where is it wrong? Let me point out a couple:

The guy tries to calculate the amount of his "abortion" holdings by assigning the "lowest possible value" to each of the 16 holdings. While at first blush this seems reasonable and conservative, it is, in reality, calculated to show Frist in almost the worst possible light, without appearing to do so. The only kind of calculation that could make his percentage of investment look more lopsided would be to maximize his HCA holdings and minimize the rest. It seems fair and reasonable - but it is actually terribly slanted in a most negative manner; the work of a MASTER propogandist.

"HCA reportedly provides abortions" - another way of saying RUMOR, without appearing to do so; the work of a master propogandist.

"'Some of the hospitals in the chain perform abortions.'" This is a quote from someone else - the author never directly makes this statement. Some, SOME! This could be one, it could me all but one. But neither the author nor the speaker specify; the work of master propogandists.

Now, lets look at the other side of the picture:
Frist is actually at least 4 degrees removed from the abortion: Blind trust, corporation, specific hospital, doctor who performs the abortion. There is probably a holding company in there and possibly some other layers between Frist and the abortion.

This is a family business, begun by his father and brother.

Frist has no policy making authority regarding the hospitals.

The impact to Frist's income or net worth from abortions is so small as to be non-existant.

It is inconceivable that Frist's opinion regarding abortion or his actions in public or in private would be influenced by these holdings (although the author carefully plants the idea that they will).

It is unrealistic to expect someone to divest themselves of the family business because of such a remote and financially inconsequential feature (the author makes much of Frist's ability to divest himself of this asset).

So let's see - Frist has no direct influence on policy, the company is not only family created, built and owned, it is highly profitable (and most likely the foundation of Frist's financial well being). Abortion probably has so little impact on the corporation's bottom line as to be a statistical zero. Frist will not be influenced in his thinking or policy toward abortion by this tiny speck in his family's business. And folks demand him to be "pure" by selling this asset. BROTHER!

I am strongly anti-abortion (ask Howlin) and I would love to see the guy make such a super-human sacrifice for his convictions; but I don't examine my stock holdings and my mutual funds to determine whether or not they ever perform an abortion. Even as anti-abortionists, we have no right (indeed, no rational reason) to demand such purity. One cannot make the case that Frist "profits from abortion" except in the most theoretical sense - nitpickingly technical...yes, in sensible reality...no! The demand for divestiture is strictly emotional. If it does not affect his decision making as a senator, then it is disingenuous and morally inappropriate to demand that he, as a pro-life senator, divest. Would I prefer that he not have these in his portfolio? Yes. But this discussion should not be about our preferences - it should be strictly limited to his fitness to serve in the Senate and its leadership - this issue does not make him a whit less fit and should not be under discussion as if it did.

Besides - does anyone have any idea what he is or isn't doing to remove abortion from those "some" hospitals? Isn't it possible that there are becoming fewer because of his influence in the past? Mighten the chance for ridding the corporation of this procedure be greater should he continue to keep his holdings than if he were to divest, and the shares be bought by an active abortion promoter? Does Frist contribute monetarily to pro-life causes? If so, is it more or less than the tiny "profit" he makes from the abortions performed under the corporate umbrella?

Since we don't know the answers to these questions, it is irresponsible to be demanding a decision based on such flimsy and skimpy information. But the author of this piece clearly is urging us to do just that - And those are the reasons why this is a slimy hit piece, and wrong - as are you in labeling the man "an abortion profiteer". While possibly technically correct (it might even be technically wrong!) it is a gross overstatement, intended to create a greatly distorted picture of the truth (exactly like Clinton's assertion that he had "never broken any of this country's drug laws".....the work of a master propogandist.

400 posted on 12/20/2002 8:52:14 AM PST by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 601-610 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson