JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The first substantive hearing of the Interim Committee on the Sanctity of Life ended Thursday afternoon with heated debate between committee chair Sen. Kurt Schaefer and the executive director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) Gail Vasterling.
While some discussion focused on the video accusations made by an anti-abortion group that Planned Parenthood was harvesting and selling fetal tissue from abortions, most of the hearing focused on the legality of the Columbia Planned Parenthood affiliate’s acquisition of an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) license from DHSS that allowed it to perform abortions.
The exchange came about when Vasterling refused to identify the hospital the Columbia Planned Parenthood affiliate agreed with to take women who may — case of a complication during an abortion — warrant emergency medical care.
The only two hospitals within range (15 miles or less) to intake those patients are Boone County Medical Center and the University of Missouri Hospital.
Schaefer, a lawyer with over 20 years of experience and candidate for Missouri Attorney General, stated the statute used by Vasterling to withhold the information, State Statute 197.477, did not hold up under legal scrutiny.
“That statute specifically says that those physician privileges are required to assure the public that there is some level of safety for follow-up should there be a complication,” Schaefer said. “And even though that is the requirement of the license to inform the public who that is, they are refusing under subpoena today to say who that is.”
The pertinent piece of the statute states that, “All other information whatsoever, including information and reports submitted to the department of health and senior services by governmental agencies and recognized accrediting organizations in whole or in part for licensure purposes pursuant to sections 190.235 to 190.249, sections 197.010 to 197.120, sections 197.200 to 197.240, or sections 197.400 to 197.475, collected during such inspections or evaluations or information which is derived as a result of such inspections or evaluations shall be confidential and shall be disclosed only to the person or organization which is the subject of the inspection or evaluation or a representative thereof.”
Schaefer, along with Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-St. Louis, stated that the use of terms “inspections or evaluations” was applicable to get the information from Vasterling since the information of whichever of the two hospitals was on an ASC license, not an inspection or evaluation.
“A first-year law student reading this could find no possible way that this is a closed record” Schmitt said. “You know that this deals exclusively with evaluations. It has nothing to do with the stated purpose of 197.210 that requires that this information is not just available to the Department, but to ensure the public that the health of these women will be taken into consideration.
“The idea that the Department is here today in light of the very clear and plain language of this statute, withholding information, not from this committee, but from the people of the state of Missouri, I find abhorrent, and it is very clear you are getting bad legal advice.”
Abortion providers or birthing centers must go through inspections and evaluations to qualify for the ASC license, which may cause some to agree with Vasterling’s argument.
Before calling a recess until Aug. 21 in hopes Vasterling would “reconsider” her position, Schaefer allowed her fifteen minutes to speak with her legal counsel, Nikki Loethen, to verify that would be her final position. Vasterling did not budge when the hearing was reconvened.
Schaefer said if she did not change her position, he would either hold her within contempt of the Senate committee or pursue legal action against her department to make her give up the information. He said he would probably pursue the former, the punishment for which he said would include 10 days in jail and up to a $300 fine.
The hearing was largely Schaefer’s show. He used Statute 197.215 subsection 2 to claim that the Planned Parenthood Columbia affiliate did not have a doctor licensed to provide continuity of care, and he claimed the statute only stated that a physician must be licensed with a hospital in the community where the ASC is located. Schaefer argued that a mere agreement between a hospital and an ASC was not sufficient to adhere to the statute.
Sen. Jill Schupp, D-St. Louis, the only Democrat physically present at the hearing, noted that Schaefer left out the part of the statute that stated “alternatively, applicant shall submit a copy of a current working agreement with at least one licensed hospital in the community in which the ambulatory surgical center is located, guaranteeing the transfer and admittance of patients for emergency treatment whenever necessary,” which she contends is directly in disagreement with Schaefer’s statements.
Schupp viewed Schaefer’s actions as “misleading.”
“It’s clearly part of the same sentence,” she said. “It’s not even the end of a sentence, it’s a semicolon and it says’ alternatively.’ So, I can’t help but think when you’re reading something you have to read it all the way down to the end. You can pick and choose what you want and make it say one thing, when clearly it said something different. I think that’s misleading. Whether it’s intentional or not, I can’t tell you.”
Schupp has also accused Schaefer of using the committee as a means to a political end in his campaign for the attorney general’s office, an accusation that Schaefer did not take lightly.
“Anyone who says that exposing what’s in that video, which is abhorrent on a moral, a legal, on any level, to say that somehow bringing that to the attention of the public, that baby parts, lungs, heads, hearts are being harvested for profit, to say that that’s somehow politicizing it, that’s sickening,” he said.
