Thompson Bush: Abortion Gag Order Circa 1991

It appears there is either another shoe to drop on Fred regarding the latest hit piece, or there may be evidence that it's nothing at all. See the bit about Sununu's records below.

Given this story, that Fred Thompson lobbied against the so-called gag rule, a non-pro-life position, in 1991 ... let's look at what was actually going on at the time. In summary, Bush did make a sort of concession by sending a memo to HHS stating that doctors were not to be prevented from counseling patients fully, but could not refer them, basically, to clinics whose primary purpose was abortion. It's said it was a confusing directive, good thing they didn't have to read his lips, ay? By the time they claim to have engaged Thompson, it looks like things were already firmed up. But, who knows? Sununu's records in the Bush library, I suspect. See below. Evidently Sununu was very active on the issue. But I can't find anything DeSarno would have been pleased with during the relevant time frame.

Minutes from the board's meeting of Sept. 14, 1991 — a copy of which DeSarno gave to The Times — say: "Judy [DeSarno] reported that the association had hired Fred Thompson Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration" on the abortion counseling rule.

"I talked to him while he was doing it, and I talked to [DeSarno] about the fact that she was very pleased with the work that he was doing for her organization," said Barnes. "I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact."

Thompson kept her updated on his progress in telephone conversations and over meals at Washington restaurants, including dinner at Galileo and lunch at the Monocle, she said. At one of the meals, she recalled, Thompson told her that Sununu had just given him tickets for a VIP tour of the White House for one of Thompson's sons and his wife.

First and possibly foremost, were he lobbying Sununu, those records should be available. Sununu's records on the issue should be in the Bush 41 Library:

Right To Life / Abortion 1991 [1] [OA/ID CF00473]
Right To Life / Abortion 1991 [2] [OA/ID CF00473]

Right To Life / Abortion 1991 [1] [OA/ID CF00473]
Right To Life / Abortion 1991 [2] [OA/ID CF00473]
Right To Life / Abortion - Title X 1991 [3] [OA/ID CF00473]
Right To Life / Abortion - Title X 1991 [4] [OA/ID CF00473]
Right To Life / Abortion - Title X 1991 [5] [OA/ID CF00473]

If I'm correct here, the gag rule became an issue only after the Supreme Court upheld it in a May of 1991 decision.

Rust v. Sullivan (89-1391), 500 U.S. 173 (1991)

In an August 5 article, Time Magazine suggested Bush 41 may have been getting wobbly because of his poll numbers, not lobbying efforts. That would have been the time to be lobbying, not a month later in Fall, as is claimed. By then Bush's position appears pretty solid and on record.

President Bush seems to be hearing the doctors' complaints. After initially threatening to slam a fast veto on any attempt to reverse the gag rule, the Administration has started backpedaling. Faced with reports from Bush's own pollsters that his abortion policies were starting to cost him support among Republican and independent women voters, the Administration indicated late last month that it was rethinking its position on the gag rule.

From there, the battle then appeared to be in Congress, not the White House.

here:

PIP: The key November 19th vote in Congress to override the president's veto of HR2707 fell short by 12 votes. The bill contained a provision that would have blocked the Title X gag rule. HR2707 was the $205 billion appropriation bill for Labor-Health and Human Services. The Title X gag rule restricts doctors from referring pregnant women to abortion clinics. The gag rule was challenged in 3 courts but was finally upheld by the Supreme Court in Rust v Sullivan in 1991. From that point the focus shifted to the Congress which would be the only avenue for overturning the gag rule. The president vetoed the bill because of the provision to block the gag rule. The Congress then attempted to override, even though it has been unsuccessful 24 times in the past. Even Speaker Foley appeared in the debate which divided the house not by parties, but by convictions about abortion. Half the Republicans speaking urged their colleagues to vote to override. Rep. Olympia Snowe pointed out in her speech that the gag rule does not apply to men and as such it makes women into 2nd class citizens who do not have the same access to medical care as men. She also pointed out that low income women would be hurt the most by the gag rule. Rep. Jim McDermott, 1 of 2 doctors in the house, was outraged that the doctor-patient relationship was being regulated and that the gag rule undermines the basic foundation of trust in the relationship. Even though the vote failed to override, it did show that some members who usually vote against abortion rights could be persuaded to vote for choice under certain circumstances. President Bush added to the confusion when he sent a memo to Secretary Louis Sullivan that stated that regulations need to allow women to receive complete medical information including referrals to appropriate health care facilities including those that perform abortion, but not to providers whose principal business is providing abortions.

It was, of course, copiously reported in the NY Times. On November 20, Bush 41 vetoed a Congressional attempt to get around the gag order.

Published: November 20, 1991
President Bush today vetoed legislation that would have allowed doctors and counselors in federally financed family planning clinics to discuss abortion with pregnant women. Despite intense Democratic efforts, the House failed by 12 votes to override the veto.

He said he would do that at a news conference in Rome, Italy on November 8.

Q. Mr. President, those House and Senate leaders you just referred to got a bill passed in both Houses this week which overturns your ban on abortion counseling in family planning clinics. Will you veto that and why?

The President. You know, the argument -- this is a domestic issue here -- the argument was the gag rule, the keeping patients from talking to their doctors about any array of options. That was the argument. That was the debate. You go back and look at the clips and look at some of the stories that were written. It is a patient-doctor relationship that people were arguing about. They were saying, you were gagging doctors from giving patients any solution they wanted. That has been resolved by a directive from me to the Secretary of HHS. So, it is no longer the question.

Now, somebody has some other ideas on that. But I will veto the legislation and get the veto sustained, and I already have taken care of "the gag rule" about which this was about. Now, there are some other aspects of it on abortion where I just have a difference with the Congress, a standing difference with them. But on the gag rule, it is important to note that matter has been resolved. And clearly, under my directive, they can go ahead, patients and doctors can talk about absolutely anything they want, and they should be able to do that.

But let's not lose sight of what the argument was a few months ago when this first came out, was the prohibition of a person to talk to, the alleged prohibition of a person to talk to a doctor about abortion or about having a doctor recommend abortion. That matter has been resolved. So, therefore, with that underway, I will then go ahead and veto the bill and hope that it is sustained.

Additional info here: (Pardon the obviously partisan language, consider the source)

1991
The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Title X gag rule in Rust v. Sullivan, thus permitting government censorship of doctors and women and reestablishing separate and unequal justice in America: quality health care for those who can afford it, second-class care for those who cannot. In the aftermath, Congress votes to overturn the gag rule, but an effort to override President George Herbert Walker Bush's veto fails narrowly.

The Senate voted to overturn the Administration's "gag" rule that bars federally financed family planning clinics from giving women information about abortion. The prohibition against the rule was included in the $205 billion fiscal 1992 appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services that passed 72-25 and was sent to the White House. The Senate vote was five more than would be needed to override an expected veto by President Bush. The 272-156 vote in the House was short of the required two-thirds mark for an override. Bush vetoed the legislation and the House was 12 votes short of the two-thirds needed to override. (08/03/91) (Ed. Note: The August date seems wrong)

Some concise history:

November 3, 1992 marked both the defeat of President Bush in the US presidential elections and the end to a "gag rule" on health professional providing counseling or referral for abortion in federally funded family planning clinics. the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed down the decision in Rust v. Sullivan; the decision was based on procedural grounds only. the history of the "gag rule" is presented. Arguments for restricting abortion counseling were generated in the late 1970s. Policy cemented this position during the 1980s and Republican presidencies. Opposition to the policy decision was mounted by the American Medical Association which considered it "frightening and abhorrent" and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which beseeched Congress to restore the patient's rights to receive full information and the health professional obligation to provide the information. Legislative efforts were made in November, 1991 with HR 2707 to attach an anti-gag rule measure to a massive appropriations bill. President Bush rescinded the "gag rule" for doctors only, knowing that health professionals did most abortion counseling. HR 2707 was passed and vetoed. The override attempt failed by a close margin. In March 19192, Health and Human Services ordered compliance with the President's November 1991 memorandum.

Comments

[jong]

Looks like the honeymoon's over for Fred. And if this lobbying charge is true, and I'm betting it is, it's not a hit piece - it's real journalism. Denying that it ever happened is just going to make it worse and get journalists to dig even deeper - it may be interesting to see who else Fred sold his soul to. Don't these people ever learn?

[Cindi]

Fred Thompson has said he was pro choice at one time or another. Not until he had children of his own did he change his view.

[wirro]

I think the issue here is going to be who's lying, Desarno or Thompson, because only one can be telling the truth. If Thompson is not telling the truth, he's in serious trouble.

[SCSoxFan]

Look at the denials by Thompson and Sununu. They seem pretty definitive to me:

"Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said in an e-mail.

In a telephone interview, he added: "There's no documents to prove it, there's no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn't happen." In a separate interview, John E. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place.

Sununu said in a telephone interview: "I don't recall him ever lobbying me on that at all. I don't think that ever happened. In fact, I know that never happened."

Thompson was "of counsel" at Arent Fox, not an active partner. According to Corallo, Thompson "may have been consulted by one of the firm's partners who represented this group in 1991."

Corallo said it was "not unusual for one lawyer on one side of an issue to be asked to give advice to colleagues for clients who engage in conduct or activities with which they personally disagree." I suspect that Thompson
had some peripheral discussions with peole at Arent Fox but never took any active role in the lobbying. The sources are some pretty hard left-wing people. They most likely have taken this and made it sound more than it was. Technically, they wouldn't be lying, "just inflating the truth."

[Garbo]

As The Atlantic's political blogger, Marc Ambinder, points out just today, " The NYT and the LAT have the same story on the same day..... which means that, yes, one of Thompson's opponents peddled the story."

By the way, Marc notes that Riehl World View is waiting until they see the Sununu papers.

[daveinboca]

These two LAT & NYT hit pieces come on the heels of Keith-O's "Nixon's Mole" charge and of course, Joe Skankborough's idiotic remark about "working the pole." [Joe himself was caught trying to work an intern, but since he's turned DNC evidence, he's now exempt] Thompson isn't going to drag his wife and mother of his daughter into the mud-pits that skanks and sweat mamas like Elizabeth Edwards enjoy sloshing around in.

Mike Rowe should take a stint as a DNC fecal-snuffer nosing through the garbage heaps of slander and innuendo---beats most of the Dirty Jobs he's done on his Discovery show!

Fred Thompson reeks integrity, and Clinton Inc has a thousand skeletons buried, in closets, & in plain sight. Can you imagine the shrieks & twittering if B. Hussein Obama gets a closer look in his childhood madrasa in Indonesia?

Not to mention Hair-and-Makeup candidate Mr.Elizabeth Edwards.

[jong]

They aren't hit pieces if it's the truth.

They've claim to have documentation and corroboration. Arent Fox - the firm Thompaon worked for and supposedly did the alleged lobbying for - could pretty much settle the matter by revealing their billing records, but they've weighed in with a no comment.

"Minutes from the board's meeting of Sept. 14, 1991 — a copy of which DeSarno gave to The Times — say: "Judy [DeSarno] reported that the association had hired Fred Thompson Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration" on the abortion counseling rule."

There's apparently five other people as well that say Thompson did the lobbying.

And you can read about Thompson's Watergate record here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_el_pr/thompson_watergate

[Jan]

Is this actually the sort of political discourse that Fred Thompson supporters allow to go unaddressed?!!?

(see comments above if you don't believe a white Christian male is capable of sounding just like Christ):

"... that skanks and sweat mamas like Elizabeth Edwards enjoy sloshing around in. Mike Rowe should take a stint as a DNC fecal-snuffer nosing through the garbage heaps of slander and innuendo---beats most of the Dirty Jobs he's done on his Discovery show! Fred Thompson reeks integrity, and Clinton Inc has a thousand skeletons buried, in closets, & in plain sight. Can you imagine the shrieks & twittering if B. Hussein Obama gets a closer look in his childhood madrasa in Indonesia? Not to mention Hair-and-Makeup candidate Mr.Elizabeth Edwards."

Gosh, that rant is like something out of a third-graders's mouth.
Gag.

The last campaign slogan that handed the GOP their 2006 Thumpin' was:
"Nancy Pelosi is very. very scarey."
What's it gonna be this time?
"Don't vote for Hillary Clinton. She has big thighs."

Pitiful. Seriously pitiful.

[jong]

Looks like Fred isn't even doing an outright denial anymore. Sounds to me like he did the work and just can't bring himself to admit it for fear of angering his base before he even gets into the race.

"Thompson gave an oblique response when asked about the matter, first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

"I'd just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing," said Thompson, who is considering running for president as a social conservative. He refused comment on whether he recalled doing the work."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_el_pr/young_republicans;_ylt=As5VLGXeGC8ZEFOGNVQjKybMWM0F

[Bill Adkins]

Nixon thought Thompson is dumb as hell -- I think he is, too.

[Random Numbers]

jong - How many denials must he make? The one he made is adequate for the purpose. Constant denials lead to later headlines about the story "haunting his campaign" and Thompson's too savvy in politics to fall into that trap.

What we have is two fringe leftists saying "trust us" and Fred Thompson's campaign saying it didn't happen. The only other person involved, Sununu, also says it didn't happen. The accusers have no documentary evidence except their claimed minutes from a board meeting that cannot be confirmed one way or the other.

[jong]

Fred's staff denied it then Fred said "no comment". There's also five people that remember Fred doing the lobbying plus the copy of the minutes you mention.

********

Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.), Thompson's former law-firm colleague, helped connect Thompson to the family-planning group in the first place, and said it was "absolutely bizarre" for Thompson to deny his lobbying work.

"I talked to him while he was doing it, and I talked to [DeSarno] about the fact that she was very pleased with the work that he was doing for her organization," Barnes said. "I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact."