Silence Shrouds Proposed Fetus/Child Regulation

Silence Shrouds Proposed Fetus/Child Regulation

CNSNews.com
Tuesday, March 27, 2001

Only days before a federal regulation left over from the Clinton administration was to go into effect, congressional staff for the House Pro-life Caucus discovered language aimed at redefining when a fetus becomes a child. Under the new definition, a fetus would become a child only if it were able to breathe and maintain a heartbeat on its own.

Immediately, four congressmen – Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., Joe Pitts, R-Pa., John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and James Barcia, D-Mich. – fired off a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson asking that he suspend the March 19 effective date so that it could be more fully evaluated.

But unlike other legislative shots across the bow of a particular policy, the guns quickly fell silent over this regulation.

Conspiracy of Silence?

The four congressmen decided to keep quiet, not only about their letter, which was obtained last week by CNSNews.com, but their motivations as well.

When asked about the reasons for wanting to minimize public scrutiny of the regulation, officials for the congressmen refused to talk about the issue on the record or did not return calls seeking comment.

The silence isn't limited to Capitol Hill. Leading conservatives outside Congress are also trying to keep a lid on the fetus/child redefinition issue.

"I would ask you all to please not do anything on this one. This is an issue that will be best handled behind the scenes," read an e-mail message by pro-life activist Phil Sheldon, an informal adviser to Pitts.

The e-mail, which referenced a March 21 article by CNSNews.com on the matter, stated "the more attention this one gets, the less chance we have of getting our way. Please do not send this [news story] around."

Sheldon said his desire to squelch the fetus/child issue was based on "trying to further the conservative agenda."

"I felt that if handled properly, it would provide a real opportunity to use the bully pulpit to talk about babies," said Sheldon. When asked how public scrutiny of the proposed regulation might diminish the "bully pulpit" impact, Sheldon said, "It is regrettable that some people, for their own desire for media attention, are going to attempt to force the administration to do things they intend to do anyway."

As far as the motivation of others to keep the proposal out of the limelight, Sheldon speculated that some congressmen, along with the Bush administration, might agree that pro-life forces would have a better chance of getting rid of the rule if their efforts were conducted quietly. "They didn't let [the regulation take effect] and in a matter-of-fact manner are looking through this," Sheldon said.

Questions Raised on Clinton's Motives

The regulation to redefine when a fetus becomes a child was one of many issued in the waning days of the Clinton presidency, escaping media scrutiny in light of a variety of questionable pardons issued by the former president.

Gabe Neville, press secretary for Rep. Pitts, would not comment on the record about why pro-life Republicans wanted to keep the regulation out of the public eye, but he did shed light on congressional reaction to the proposal.

According to Neville, congressional staff found the regulation about a week before it was scheduled to take effect. Their first instinct was not to eliminate the regulation, but to push back the effective date.

After HHS received the letter from Pitts and his colleagues, Neville said, the Bush administration put a 60-day hold on the regulation, which he said would provide enough time for a thorough investigation of its impact.

"We didn't fully understand what the Clinton administration was up to, but we smelled a rat because defining a newborn baby as a fetus is bizarre and defies reality," Neville said. "We suspected, and still suspect, that the Clinton administration had some kind of clandestine motive to do this."

Neville said the regulation could have been written to affect policy on such issues as partial-birth abortion or stem cell research. But he said the exact motive in redefining the terms "fetus" and "child" remain unknown.

"This is not just a slippery slope," said Neville, adding that the Clinton administration "may have wanted to provide cover for scientists to do research on newborns, or scientific cover for fetal stem cell research, or partial-birth abortion, or any number of controversial procedures – surgeries, tons of research."

"There is tons of speculation, and we don't know why they did this."

Despite the concerns over the regulation, there were accusations of foot-dragging by the administration and the House Pro-life Caucus leveled by some pro-life advocates. Neville denied that was the case, arguing that it was the four congressmen and the administration that suspended the regulation before it took effect.

"We are going to find that in the last days of an administration, they are going to try to do the things that couldn't stand the light of day, such as the Marc Rich pardon," Neville said. "We have every reason to suspect President Clinton would wait until the last minute to do all the risky, scary, unpopular, objectionable and unethical things that couldn't stand the light of day."

Sheila Moloney, policy director of the House Republican Study Committee, said HHS now must decide what action, if any, to take.

"They have three options during the 60 days: open it back up for comment, which they have done in other cases, they can revoke it and scrap it, or the third being they let it go into effect," Moloney said. "Obviously, we hope the third is not chosen."

Neville said that since the effort has already been made to suspend the effective date of the rule, all pro-life supporters can do now is wait for HHS and the administration to conduct their evaluation.

"We will stay in contact with Secretary Thompson and his staff on this issue, and we fully expect that the president and Secretary Thompson will do the right thing on this," Neville said. "We have a conservative administration now that will do the right thing, and we have no doubt about that."

While some activists and members of Congress want to keep news of the regulation out of the public eye, others do not share that position.

"These four congressmen and their staffs deserve an awful lot of praise, and we have every hope that this regulation will simply dissipate," said Scott Weinberg, spokesman for the American Life League. "We have gotten a ton of calls about interviews, and in response seen three emotions: outrage at Clinton, gratitude toward members of Congress, and encouragement at the new president."

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Clinton Scandals
Bush Administration