Jago Times "English Edition" Best Online Newspaper
Related Articles
WASHINGTON — A top U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs official Thursday defended the move to begin providing abortions to veterans and their beneficiaries in certain cases, even in states such as Texas where those services are illegal or tightly restricted.
Testifying before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Shereef Elnahal, the VA’s undersecretary for health, also sought to address concerns VA providers in states with strict abortion laws might be reluctant to perform those procedures, fearing criminal liability.
Rep. Colin Allred, D-Dallas, a member of the panel, raised those concerns and noted that providers in Texas might also be afraid of being sued under Senate Bill 8.
Elnahal said the department is anticipating such fears and will stress to providers they are legally shielded if performing abortions in a VA facility or referring patients to jurisdictions where abortion is legal. That’s based on the principle that federal law trumps state laws.
“So we will do everything we can to make sure we communicate that they are protected and will be protected by the federal government,” Elnahal said.
The VA announced earlier this month its plan to offer abortion counseling and abortions at federal health facilities in cases where they are medically necessary or in instances of rape or incest. Self-reporting by a pregnant veteran constitutes sufficient evidence of rape or incest under the policy.
The VA did not previously provide abortion services.
Republicans who oppose abortion rights have blasted the policy change as a clear violation of longstanding federal law and a transparent attempt to bypass the restrictions a number of red states have adopted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Elnahal said those new state-level restrictions have created “urgent risks to the lives and health of pregnant veterans and VA beneficiaries” and required the change in VA policy.
“Protecting the health and lives of pregnant veterans is the primary concern of VA,” Elnahal said. “It is important to emphasize that VA is taking these steps with our primary mission in mind: to preserve the lives and health of veterans. There is nothing more important than that.”
Details of the policy’s implementation remain unclear, and Elnahal said a formal plan is still in the works.
The agency is moving forward with some steps, however, as it seeks to ensure facilities have adequately trained staff and necessary equipment.
Medication abortion is expected to be the first available and most common form of abortion provided, so the department is working to ensure providers have access to both the relevant training and necessary drugs, he said.
In cases where the VA can’t immediately provide services, it plans to provide transportation benefits. In light of intense divisions over the issue, the department also is looking to bolster security at some VA facilities.
More than 1.5 million veterans live in Texas, including about 190,000 women — more than any other state. Roughly 9 million veterans are enrolled in the VA and eligible to receive health care at its medical centers.
Allred alluded to the fact that Texas has the most women veterans — and some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.
He said he supports the policy change and raised the prospect of women who served the country in uniform being forced to leave the state or carry a pregnancy to term even if it’s the result of rape.
He also cited the potential for veterans facing life-threatening complications not being able to find care at local hospitals.
“This is not a hypothetical scenario,” Allred said. “There are Texas women who’ve been turned away with life-risking conditions because the hospital was worried that if they provided this care that they would be subject to criminal penalties, a felony, in fact.”
Republicans blasted the policy change as both illegal and misguided.
They said even states with abortion restrictions still allow doctors to act in cases where it’s necessary to prevent a woman from dying.
And they pointed to a 30-year-old federal law still on the books that prohibits the VA from offering abortions. They said some states already are looking to challenge the policy in court and expressed hope those lawsuits will succeed.
Democrats responded by citing another law granting the VA secretary authority to define what is included in the department’s medical benefits package. They said that law supersedes the previous one.
Rep. Jake Ellzey, R-Midlothian, a member of the committee, described the change in VA policy as a “cynical” move.
“This is a workaround for the federalization — using the VA as a mule — to legalize abortion paid for by the federal government,” Ellzey said.
He said the 1996 law cited by Democrats, unlike the previous law, made no reference to abortion and predicted the matter will come up during the next federal appropriations process.
“This rulemaking is yet another example of this administration using unelected bureaucracy to make law where it has no power to do so,” Ellzey said.