Frist a Major Shareholder in Reputed For-Profit Abortion Provider

Human Events ^ | 12-20-02 | Terry Jeffrey

[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.

[The Old Hoosier]

You can be treated wherever you have to. It's quite different to actually make money off killing babies.

[The Old Hoosier]

I just gave you the facts. Check em out.

[Diamond]

Frist has deliberately chosen to live in a country in which Abortion is legal!!!!!!

Show me the law. I'm from Missouri.

Cordially,

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[The Old Hoosier]

Adios, everyone. Indiana wants me.

Merry Christmas to all.

[Z.Hobbs]

"None of us know for sure if the companies we do business with donate to pro-abortion organizations or not." In many cases you can find out. You may be surprized what you find.

And, what's more, essentially everyone posting here has invested in the U.S.A. by staying here and paying taxes for government funded abortions. Following your logic, your only morally acceptable option is to sell your U.S. property and move out of the country, lending your productivity to an abortion prohibiting country.

As has been pointed out abortions in hospitals are a very small part of their business. They may be required to provide facilities as the market dominant hospitals in certain areas.

The causes of abortion are more associated with a lack of father commitment to and love for children than a hospital making itself available for this procedure. Getting government out of the provider business (strengthening the imperative for woman to say no), strengthening the family by allowing them to keep more of their own money, strengthening marriage laws and not funding abortions and pro-abortion propaganda is what the goverment can do to reduce abortions. Bigger picture, Senator Frist is better than what we have had in the past.

We don't know what Senator Frist's position has been in dealing with that aspect of the family business, but I don't think his divestiture would do anything to eliminate the abortions that do take place a HCA facilities.

[CA Conservative]

If you can't see the difference between that and owning more than $5m of stock in an abortion provider,

But if the hospital which treats you provides abortion, then the money you pay them subsidizes abortion, and you are culpable... Nice try, but there is no real distinction. You are willing to support such a facility as long as you benefit (in this case, from receiving the medical care you need.) It may not be a financial benefit, but you are supporting an abortion provider so you can benefit. That is just as hypocritical as you accuse Frist of being. IF you are going to hold to your principles as closely as you claim, you should only avail yourself of medical services that have no relationship to any possible abortion activity.

[sitetest]

Dear Gophack,

The link about Tiller and the botched abortion and HCA seems to tell a story about an abortionist who botched an abortion at his abortuary. The woman whose child was being murdered was rushed to the emergency room of an HCA, where the abortion was completed.

It appears that the woman would have died without the emergency room services.

There is no indication that the baby could have been saved at this point.

The other criticism leveled at the HCA hospital in this case is that it was supposedly "covered up". Apparently, the hospital made some efforts to keep the whole thing private.

That may have been the wish of the woman who was admitted.

That a hospital saves the lives of women who have had botched abortions is flimsy evidence that the hospital is "pro-abortion". The other links just say how evil is HCA, without really telling me specifically why.


sitetest

[patent]

"What a disaster this guy will be."

I assume that you mean Sen. Frist.

Correct. Rove is already a disaster. He wins elections, but so did Dick Morris.

Why do you believe that he will be a disaster?

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.

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.

He seems about as conservative as Sen. Lott, in terms of the issues.

You mean the issue of getting Mr. Rove elected again? If not, I disagree.

And, in Sen. Frist, we will have the benefit of a Majority Leader who does not believe himself obligated to kow-tow to the affirmative action crowd to maintain his viability.

Well, I believe Lott should go, but that doesn’t mean I want Frist to replace him.

"I don't know if I can vote for a team with this man on it."

I remember there were folks who felt that way about the first President Bush because of advisors like Richard Darman. Of course, the failure to support Mr. Bush led us to the presidency of Mr. Clinton. For me, enough bad things happened during Mr. Clinton's term to justify thinking that conservatives ought to have better supported the first President Bush.

I disagree. You seem to forget that you are much more reasonable than I am. I am much less willing to compromise on this issue. Had Bush the elder won again, or had Dole won, they would have led the Republican party farther and farther down the pro-choice road.

Yes, Clinton is worse than Bush or Dole, by far. Having absolutely no party to support us – or being nothing more than plantation slaves, much like minorities are to some democrats – is a far greater evil than suffering under Clinton for a time. All Clintons all the time. Well, that seems to be the party Rove envisions, so long as its “electable.” No thanks.

We didn’t say much when Rove/Bush started appointing pro-abort, pro-gay ambassadors. Then it was various department heads. Then it was cabinet positions. Each step along the way, we are told “the position doesn’t have anything to do with abortion, don’t worry about it.” Well, now we are talking about the Senate majority leader. We are talking about a man who pushed the nomination of an abortionist to be Surgeon General. We are talking about a man who owns $5 million worth of an abortion providing hospital, not to mention what his family owns. Do your really think this man will work to make abortion rare? I see no evidence he will.

Yet, we are still being told to hush, you silly one issue voters. Sorry, you can be reasonable. I’m off the res.

We quickly forget how much damage a liberal president can do.

Not at all. I just disagree with you on the priorities. Doesn’t mean I’ve gone brain dead, of course. Who could forget Clinton?

patent  +AMDG

[sitetest]

Dear patent,

You make lots of excellent points. My problem is that I don't know enough about Sen. Frist to judge him quite as harshly as you do. You may be right about him.

However, it appears that his current official position on abortion is that it ought to be illegal except in the Great Exception cases. Xzins has produced some documentation attesting to this fact, that is posted at least twice herein.

Xzins, you may wish to comment where you got this info.

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.

"Well, I believe Lott should go, but that doesn’t mean I want Frist to replace him."

I'll agree with this. Now that Sen. Lott has stepped aside, I have read that at least one other Senator is challenging for the position. I think that's a very good thing. Much will come out in the wash of this election.

But, if Sen. Lott had not stepped aside, practically speaking, it would have been either Sen. Lott or Sen. Frist. Given that choice, I'd prefer Sen. Frist.

"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."

I recall one. Sen. Hatch. I was quite bitterly disappointed in his failure to support life in this area.

"I disagree. You seem to forget that you are much more reasonable than I am. I am much less willing to compromise on this issue. Had Bush the elder won again, or had Dole won, they would have led the Republican party farther and farther down the pro-choice road."

I can't agree with any of this. Especially the second sentence of this paragraph. ;-)

I don't know where we would have been led in a Bush second term, or a Dole presidency.

"We didn’t say much when Rove/Bush started appointing pro-abort, pro-gay ambassadors. Then it was various department heads. Then it was cabinet positions. Each step along the way, we are told “the position doesn’t have anything to do with abortion, don’t worry about it.” Well, now we are talking about the Senate majority leader. We are talking about a man who pushed the nomination of an abortionist to be Surgeon General. We are talking about a man who owns $5 million worth of an abortion providing hospital, not to mention what his family owns. Do your really think this man will work to make abortion rare? I see no evidence he will.

"Yet, we are still being told to hush, you silly one issue voters. Sorry, you can be reasonable. I’m off the res."

Well, I may not be as reasonable as you think. I used to give a modest amount of money to Republicans each year. In fact, early in the 2000 election cycle, I gave Mr. Bush enough money to get a lot of really nice invitations to give even larger sums of money to Republicans of all kinds. I still get several of these gracious invitations each week.

But my disenchantment with the party on precisely this issue has caused me to cease all financial support. And I have written them to tell them why.

Also, as to his HCA holdings, I haven't seen yet evidence of much more than incidental involvement in abortion. I've been googling around looking for smoking guns, but haven't found much one way or other. I found something cryptic about a hospital that spun off from HCA. It alluded to the fact that the new hospital administration would continue to abide by the court order legally obligating the hospital to permit abortions to be performed in it. I wish I could have found more.

As to whether Mr. Bush does right by us or not, the jury is still out. You can say what you want about ambassadors and such, but many of his judicial nominations have been quite good on this issue. The real test comes when he must nominate Supreme Court justices.

And, we'll see what happens with PBA.

Nonetheless, the pulling of a lever marked (D) will not occur through the efforts of my fingers.

"Who could forget Clinton?"

Precisely why I will not pull that (D) lever.



sitetest

[Barnacle]

Imagine that, he has a share of the family business.

Just shocking I tell you.

Shocking smocking. Listen, icing people who are causing payin’ customers a “inconvenience” is just a part of a family business. All ya need is a respectable lookin’ joint and a couple enforcers who got some particular letters behind their names and wah-lah - you got yourself a operation. Frist’s racket is a big earner and, due to “certain influences of a political nature,” it’s legit.

Good thing for Frist babies don’t vote. Ha ha ha. Those babies don’t never even breathe a single word.

[snippy_about_it]

Do you know for sure of a hospital that doesn't allow abortions? I'm asking seriously. Are they only done in clinics? Since it is legal, can hospitals refuse?

[xzins]

Some Baptist systems also have religious health-care policies, typically banning "elective" abortions, but not contraception or sterilizations. The Georgia Baptist Health Care System insisted that a 1995 joint venture agreement with the for-profit Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. include a ban on "elective" abortions at Columbia’s 18 hospitals and other medical facilities in Georgia.

above citation from: Merging religious and secular hospitals. found here click

It is very instructive that HCA enters into agreements with hospitals to provide administrative oversight. They do more than just OWN hospitals.

Now, the question is this. In joint ventures with "public" hospitals which receive tax money, would they be allowed to prevent abortions being performed SINCE abortions are legal. I'm almost certain I remember a ruling that a public hospital cannot refuse to perform a legal procedure which it is qualified and has the facilities to perform.

[Bluntpoint]

Thank you for not reminding me of all my other bad points.

[sitetest]

Dear xzins,

I found another link:

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=9049&c=30

Here, the ACLU is complaining that Columbia/HCA is too willling to agree to abortion restrictions:

"For example, when Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, the nation's largest hospital company, proposed a joint venture this year with Georgia Baptist Medical Center, which is owned by the Georgia Baptist Convention, Columbia agreed that its 18 hospitals and other medical facilities in Georgia, and the physicians employed there, would not perform elective abortions if the transaction were approved. (Ultimately, the two hospitals broke off negotiations.) Columbia is participating in mergers all over the country, and its willingness to agree to such restrictive conditions, imposed by Baptists as well as Catholics, is a recipe for disaster."

I don't know, xzins. I would like more evidence that HCA is pro-abort.


sitetest

[xzins]

I don't think Columbia/HCA is pro-abortion.

I think they take over hospitals for profit and operate according to agreements with religious based hospitals and according to law with public based hospitals.

[GilesB]

We are in agreement on the basics. There are a few things that give me pause:
1) This is his family's business; which has two subpoints:
a) Familial ties are powerful and I can't get exceptionally exercised in insisting that a man sever familial business ties.
b) He may well have the greatest influence over the long run by remaining a shareholder.

2) This situation APPEARS to be the exception of a few hospitals within the larger corporation - certainly not a significant focus, let alone THE focus of the business of the corporation.

3) Frist is not responsible for every action of every employee of the corporate holdings of the businesses he invests in - EVEN if those actions are taken under the auspices of said corporation, and EVEN if he knows of those actions. Such a bar would be unachievable high for any of us.

I have seen nothing to indicate that this is a focus, a direction, or even an encouraged practice within the corporation. I am also unsure about the specifics of all of the laws of each state and locality where there are hospitals - I do recall the concern a while back that even Catholic churches might be forced to perform abortions. It is a very small - however a very horrible - part of the overall corporate picture. In reality, Frist's efforts to end partial birth abortion is a direct (and legal, BTW) effort to divest the company of the practice.

I hope you understand, my reluctance to condemn Frist is an "on balance" calculation. I would feel different if he was invested in a chain of abortion clinics that his family began. I put this more in the category of a person being invested in a real estate investment company with thousands of tenants that happens to have one or two abortion clinics as tenants. I HATE abortion. I want to see in ended and made illegal. I think this particular battle is a distraction and misdirected. I am comfortable with and confident in Frist's commitment to the pro-life cause. I remember him during the partial-birth battle, and he was a heavy lifter.

My position also allows me to have great admiration for those entities who are so diligent and commited that they have divested themselves of their holdings. But just like I have great admiration for the devoutness of George Washington, who prayed privately, aloud and on his knees for an hour in the morning and again in the evening - I cannot bring myself to condemn or even disparage a man who doesn't practice this admirable trait. I think we are out of place to do so in both cases.

[goody2shooz]

Prove it. Tell us what abortion clinics he owns.