Copyright 2000 The Washington Post
The Washington
Post
View Related Topics
July 20, 2000, Thursday, Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A24
LENGTH: 457 words
HEADLINE:
The Council and 'Conscience'
BODY:
DC.
COUNCIL CHAIRMAN Linda Cropp and Mayor Anthony Williams hope their letter
yesterday to Rep. Ernest Istook, chairman of the House D.C. appropriations
subcommittee, will stave off a congressional blow to the city's home rule
prerogative. At issue is a subcommittee provision tacked onto the District's
fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill last week that would have the effect of
nullifying a council measure mandating contraceptive coverage
in health insurance plans. The so-called Istook rider, added after the council's
bill failed to include a "conscience clause" exemption for religiously
affiliated institutions, is a good example of what can happen when poorly
thought-out local legislation encounters the ever-present congressional desire
for overkill.
In the case of contraceptive coverage, the council went
about its legislative business in the worst possible way: It tried to rewrite
controversial legislation on the dais, instead of in the calm of a committee
room, and it made a hash of things. District elected leaders, belatedly
recognizing the depth of local religious opposition to the Health Insurance
Coverage for Contraceptives Act of 2000, are asking for a second chance to
produce legislation that all parties in the city can support. Rep. Istook and
his colleagues should give District officials an opportunity to get it right
this time around.
The basic intent of the council's legislation--to meet
the needs of low- and moderate-income families that cannot afford family
planning services--is sound. The council is well within its prerogatives to
address that issue through the city's insurance law. At the same time, the
council should avoid enacting laws that infringe upon the religious freedom of
institutions adhering to doctrines that prevent them from providing such
services. The mayor and Chairman Cropp, indicating that they and their
colleagues understand the obligation they are under to respect conscientious
objection to contraception based on religious convictions, wrote Rep. Istook
that they are "prepared to address the necessary clause--giving great weight to
parties in the District who advocate family planning and religious liberty."
The House appropriations subcommittee should take the city's leaders at
their word. Rep. Istook ought to remove his restrictive language from the D.C.
appropriations bill. We understand that the council--if given the
chance--intends to approach the reshaping of this legislation in a more
deliberate fashion, consulting closely with the various local parties. That's
reason enough for Congress to stand down and let the council and mayor step up
to their duty to produce a responsible bill that can pass muster in the city and
on Capitol Hill.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: July 20, 2000 
