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. |
Whether the doctor is a conservative or a liberal is immaterial.
The issue is being truly pro-life, including the mother's life. Many conservatives are rabid on this to the point of passing laws to force women to die for the IDEALS of others. It is vicious and evil.
I'm almost certain you are correct. It would essentially be a "violation of church and state" to take a religious stand on abortion procedures at a state funded hospital and one of the pre-requisites for state funding is to agree to follow all the same requirements as if it were a state run hospital.
Disgusting individual with thirty years' history aborting babies, but the resume on his website states the following for the Wesley Medical Center (which I assume later became an HCA hospital, since it's later mentioned as HCA Wesley):
1970 - 1975
Chairman, Medical Records, Utilization, Pharmacy Committee - Department of Family Practice
1974 - 1980
Executive Committee Medical Staff
1979 President, Medical Staff
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1970 - present Clinical Instructor Family Medicine Residency, Wesley Medical Center/HCA Wesley
1973 - 1975 Volunteer Community Supervising Physician - Family Practice Residency - Wesley Medical Center
1976-Present - Clinical Instructor, Department of Family and Community Medicine - Wichita State Branch, University of Kansas School of Medicine
Present - University of Kansas School of Medicine - Wichita State Branch / HCA Wesley Medical Center
So according to this, he's now a teacher at the University of Kansas School of Medicine. But he's also the director of that Women's Health Care clinic, which performs third-trimester abortions, and which does not appear to be affiliated with HCA (it's not on their website)
Tiller and botched abortion at HCA Wesley: HERE
The abortion was botched in a clinic, and completed in HCA Wesley after the woman was rushed there in an ambulance. I don't know why this organization finds it suspicious that the hospital will not release her name or condition. The son of a good friend was in the hospital recently, and the hospital wouldn't tell ME anything either. It was not my business, and not my right to know.
What would convince me that Frist should divest is evidence that elective abortions are performed, since HCA's status as a for-profit hospital would mean they are "making money off of abortion" even if said abortion was a medical necessity. I wish these boycott lists would state a little more than "abortions performed" as the reason, since nearly all hospitals will perform them under certain cirumstances (which is worse--charging money for an emergency abortion, or deeply discounting an elective one?). I have to make a distinction between elective and non.
Oh, and if they had mandatory abortion training in their teaching hospitals (if they own any) even when the law doesn't require it (as it soon will here); that would also convince me.
Otherwise I'm still going to think of this article as highly deceptive and aimed right at Frist.
Of all the ridiculous utterances ever spewed out your piehole, that one is the worst yet.
As for Askel's "brilliance"? If you understand even half of her psychotic rants, it puts you in her category.
LOL. Frist can't win for losing. Now that the Dems don't have Lott to kick around anymore, keep an ear out for plaintive wails of "Bill Frist makes millions of dollars by denying reproductive rights to women all over the U.S.!"
Actually they do to the only one who that is able to hear them, God almighty.
Not that they need to, since God knows all.
Judgment will come in God's time; no earthly government system can stop the laws of God almighty.
It appears that, unlike Mr. Gore, and Mr. Clinton, Rev. Jackson, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Nunn, Sen. Frist has gone from a mostly pro-abort position to a mostly pro-life position. I'll take that any day.I’ll take it in one of 51, not in the leader of the 51. That is a big difference.
I recall one. Sen. Hatch. I was quite bitterly disappointed in his failure to support life in this area.Yeah, pretty close.
Nonetheless, the pulling of a lever marked (D) will not occur through the efforts of my fingers.Nor through mine. I vote every time, and I vote pro-life. That never means Democrat, never means green, etc. However, it does not always mean Republican.
patent +AMDG
I understand your position and other people's about investments and similar issues. However, the difference is that Frist's investment in HCA is HUGE; HCA is a major provider of abortions, including late-term abortions; Frist's history on abortion is conflicting (he has said that he is "personally pro-life but" thinks abortion should remain legal, then flipped and said he was pro-life except rape, incest, life of mother.)
Putting the issue of his financial stake in the abortion industry for a moment, Frist has waffled on abortion issues. He is described as a "moderate" by the press (not that I believe everything the press says), and I question his conservative credentials. I do believe that it's important to have a pro-life conservative as leader of the Senate. I don't think Frist is the man for the job.
I agree with many of your points, and when I learn of major pro-abortion activities that corporations, like See's Candy, participates in, I avoid doing business with that company. It's not an easy road to hoe, but Jesus never said following Him would be easy.
Each of us can only do what we can to stop abortion. We all have families and jobs and churches and activities and commitments that prevent us from devoting 100% of our time to saving babies; but if anything we do saves one life, it is worth it.
We know that Frist has invested a substantial amount of money in an organization that performs abortions, including late-term abortions. We can ask that he divest himself of these holdings because of the seriousness of the matter. We can withhold support of him because his actions and words don't match.
There are other solid conservative, articulate Senator's who would make great leaders. Let's look at some of them. No one is 100% perfect, I agree, but this investment is personally disturbing to me and I couldn't in good conscience support him.
I agree, I want more information from the sites that claim that HCA provides abortions, and I'm working on it, but because I have found the information on a number of diverse websites, I tend to believe it's true.
Sen. Frist appears to have started out as pro-abort, and has seemingly changed to a pro-lifer.No, that isn’t even close to what I’m saying. I don’t see how saying “I’ll take it in one of 51, not in the leader of the 51” can lead you to think I don’t want people to switch to the pro-life position.Are you saying that's unacceptable?
What I don’t want is this man, who seems tepidly pro-life at best, and who continues to support pro-aborts and abortion AFTER this supposed switch, as majority leader. If he seemed to be a real convert, I could accept him. He does not seem pro-life to me, despite the votes, when you consider his entire record.
Also, I really haven't found any evidence yet that HCA is really pro-abort. In fact, the only evidence I can find seems to indicate that the company has had a preference not to permit abortions in its facilities, when it has a choice.First, this would be missing the point of my argument. I have mentioned HCA, if at all, only in passing. Let me focus you in on what I would consider the focus of my opinion, and if you want to argue against that please do so:
If chosen, he will lead the senate, chose who sits on committees (in part), chose what bills come up for votes, etc. Unlike you, I don’t agree that he is pro-life enough, nor do I consider it necessary to compromise as far as he has to win elections. It may be necessary in a national party election – though Bush’s election compared to Bush the elder and Dole’s losses seem to prove the contrary – and it may be necessary as a party platform. It is not to win a Senate seat in MN, much less TN.Second, as to the original question, I believe that post 495 provided sufficient support for what little I did say about HCA, which is just that they provide abortions. Which they do. Regardless of that issue though, he still speaks like a pro abort, pro stem cell research, etc., and in my view a party with him as a majority leader does not represent me.Moreover, when you look at his voting record alongside his personal comments, his record doesn’t match that of a person who is pro-life, but has to tone it down to get elected. It matches a person who is a pro-abort republican, but realizes he must be at least somewhat pro-life to get elected as a Republican in Tennessee. We have ample examples of weakly “pro-life” Tennessee Senators who recognized that they had to be pro-life to get elected down there, but once they moved on to bigger and better things they deserted the pro-life position promptly. See Albert Gore, who once was pro-life, supposedly. If even Mr. Gore had to pretend to be pro-life to get elected in TN, don’t you think that its possible Mr. Frist has recognized the same?
You mention stem cell. I don’t recall anyone whose efforts and comments disturbed me as profoundly as Mr. Frist’s did at the time that debate was raging. In short, I see little difference between Senator Frist and Senator Landreau from LA. She also opposed partial birth abortion in her votes, but you can hardly call her pro-life. It is a political necessity in her state. Yet the aborts down there support her. He may also have opposed funding, and I don’t recall her position on that issue, but I can see opposing funding merely on fiscal conservatism bases. She, unlike him, actually opposed stem cell research.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
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.