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. |
Exactly! We cannot hope to overturn Roe v. Wade by using a sledgehammer we are not yet strong enough to swing. We need more conservative judges. Lots more.
If whoever is chosen SML can help move us in that direction, we can build our strength slowly but surely. Good legislation that cannot make it past our courts is, in essence, an exercise in futility. Let's get going - time's a wasting.
By the way, I feel Senator Frist is a good choice. I think his recent voting record on conservative issues stands on its own merit. Is he perfect? No. But he doesn't try to use a 16 pound sledgehammer when a 16 ouncer will move our agenda forward - one step at a time. And I reject the notion that Dr. First is pro-abortion!
The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item.
Abortion Issues
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning abortion. [ ] a) Abortions should always be illegal. [ ] b) Abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable, with or without life support. [ ] c) Abortions should always be legally available. [ ] d) Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy. [X] e) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape. [X] f) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered. [X] g) Abortions should be limited by waiting periods and notification requirements as decided by each state government. [X] h) Prohibit the dilation and extraction procedure, also known as "partial birth" abortion. [X] i) Prohibit public funding of abortions and public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortions. [ ] j) Support "buffer-zones" by requiring demonstrators to stay at least five feet from abortion clinic doorways and driveways. [ ] k) Provide funding for family planning programs as a means to decrease the number of abortions. [ ] l) Other
Sounds rather centrist...probably not good enough to satisfy the anti-abortion zealots though...
I don't believe I insulted you. Why do you insist on insulting me?
I'm just not going to cast stones because Frist's sin appears to be larger than my own. Have you ever heard of removing the log from ones own eye before advising others that they have splinters in theirs?
We are all guilty before God. Mr. Frist's investment in a hospital that may have saved my life or another family member's life is not going to be condemened by me. I can only thank God that there are those who are willing to invest in hospitals today. Quite frankly a hospital chain is not a very good investment. A lot of hospitals today are going belly up.
Would you prefer it if all of Mr. Frist's hospitals suddenly closed tomorrow? Would that promote the sanctity of life? Or are the lives of old people and cancer victims not important in your theology?
2)OK, so maybe the 89% thing is wrong, but given that he could own five times as much HCA as $5m, it's probably not too much of a stretch. Either way, that part does little for the piece anyway.
3) It's more than a rumor. As recently as 1998, HCA was telling people yes, we do them. This fund won't hold them because they do them. Now they're not answering Jeffrey's phone calls. Should he not write the piece just because they won't answer questions? The use of "reputed" and "reported" only shows that he's extra careful, nothing more.
4) When you get the answers--which will be forthcoming now, I'm sure--will you still support this guy like you have money bet on him? I'm very suprised at the vehement defense of him by so many people.
People who b!tch and whine because real conservatives want to have a small hand in running the GOP are not the kind of people I'd expect to see on FR.
The man owns more than $5 m in the stock of an abortion provider, yet says he's pro-life. That doesn't make you wonder at all? Or are you just going to bend over because he's Dubya's pick?
If you just want to drop your pants for whoever looks like the next SML, fine, go ahead. I'm looking for another SML candidate.
being treated and profiting from are not the same thing.
You can't be treated at a hospital that performs abortions without somebody investing in a hostpital that performs abortions.
If it is ok to be treated in a hospital that performs abortions then it is ok to invest in a hostpital that treats people in addition to performing abortions.
I'll ask the question again because you never answered it; Have you ever been treated by a hospital that performs abortions?
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.