ASHCROFT LIED TO CHAIRMAN LEAHY YESTERDAY
From http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/16/se.06.html LEAHY: Thank you. Now,
Dr. Satcher -- David Satcher -- you opposed his nomination to be our surgeon
general even though the Senate eventually approved him. In your speech, you
said, "Dr. Satcher says he has a mainstream approach; he's going to pursue
consensus." But then you went on to say that you didn't believe that. You
told the Senate that he was, "a person of incredibly strong medical
credentials, in terms of his expertise and his capacity, but you said the
United States has participated in confirming nominations or ratifying
proposals without looking carefully at the ethics involved of the guys that
are being challenged." So the opposition to Dr. Satcher, by your own
statement, was not based on his professional qualifications. Indeed, is it
fair to say that applying an Ashcroft standard you were articulating as a
SEN. that you are going to oppose a nominee who you believed to be out of
step with the mainstream of America, to use the words you used in your speech.
ASHCROFT: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to express my
concerns here. Dr. David Satcher supported a number of activities that I
thought were inconsistent with the ethical obligations of a medical doctor
and a physician, particularly the surgeon general, because I think the
surgeon general is an individual to whom America must look for guidance in
terms of not just technical expertise, but the kind of ethics that ought to
accompany people who have life-and-death decision-making in their hands. We
all know how important the medical profession is.
LEAHY: And you disagreed with those ethics and values.
ASHCROFT: Yes, for example, he supported an AIDS study on pregnant women in
Africa where some patients were given placebos, even though a treatment
existed to limit transmission of AIDS from the mother to the child. In my
understanding, this would not be an acceptable strategy for a study in the
United States, but he was willing to support the study under those terms in
Africa. That was a matter of deep concern to me. Let me -- if I might -- he
lobbied Congress to continue an anonymous study testing newborn infants'
blood for the AIDS virus, without informing the mother if the test was
positive. Now, I have real problems with a situation where someone wants to
be the surgeon general of the United States, wants to learn about whether or
not there's AIDS present in a medical situation, and not tell the people
involved about the AIDS virus. This is a matter of deep concern to me. The
idea of sending fatally infected babies home with their unwitting mothers,
even after a treatment had been identified for AIDS, to me was an idea that
was unacceptable for an individual who wanted to be the leader in terms of
the medical community and a role model in the United States. It was on those
grounds that I made the decision. Now, it's my decision and I'm not trying to
duck responsibility for the decision. But those are the facts as I understood
them, and that's the reason I made the decision.
LEAHY: So it'd be fair to say you disagreed with his ethical choices and his
values, and you felt you should vote against him because of that.
ASHCROFT: I think it's fair to say that I believed he violated the ethical
values that are characteristic..
. LEAHY: I'm not trying to parse words, and I just want to make sure I
understand, because I'm trying to get this...
(CROSSTALK)
ASHCROFT: It was a shortfall in his adherence to ethical values of the
American medical community that I think were...
LEAHY: And because you disagreed with what you saw as his ethics and values,
you voted against him. I'm not trying to place words in your mouth, I want to
make sure I understand.
ASHCROFT: Well, then maybe...
LEAHY: Trying to give you the fairest...
ASHCROFT: Well, maybe if you will let me state my words...
LEAHY: Sure.
ASHCROFT: ... then you don't have to worry about placing words in my mouth.
(LAUGHTER)
I believed that his willingness to accept a standard for medical research in
Africa, on African women, that would not be acceptable in the United States
was an ethical lapse that was very important. I, secondly, believed his
willingness to send AIDS-infected babies home with their mothers without
telling their mothers about the infection of the children was another ethical
problem that was very serious. Based on those standards, which I believe are
less than acceptable standards in the medical community in this country, I
voted against him.
LEAHY: That's what I was trying to get you to say. Thank you.
ASHCROFT: I'm sorry.
LEAHY: Maybe we were speaking past each other. But thank you. And from
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/16/cf.00.html PRESS: Senator Specter,
Senator Ashcroft was also asked today, in addition to Bill Lann Lee, about
his opposition to David Satcher as attorney general. I was surprised, he made
a very serious charge. He said he voted against him because General Satcher
was guilty -- he said, I've got it written down here...
SPECTER: Because he hadn't...
PRESS: ... of sending AIDS infected babies home without telling their
mothers. There's the surgeon general there on the screen. Now, I checked
today after the hearing. That program was not begun by David Satcher. It was
actually done under Ronald Reagan in 1988 to test the spread of AIDS in this
country, and it was ended by Doctor Satcher in 1995, two years before he was
nominated as surgeon general. Again, wasn't that a bogus, and unfair charge
on Ashcroft's part?
SPECTER: Well, Bill, nobody challenged him at the hearing. John Ashcroft...
PRESS: I am now.
SPECTER: Well, where is John Ashcroft? Let's see if he can respond to it. The
issue was raised about Doctor Satcher's nomination, and Senator Ashcroft gave
very specific reasons, saying that on this testing, if they found the child
was infected with AIDS, they did not tell the parents. And he had very
specific reasons that what -- at least according to his representation -- and
I don't know if he was right, wrong, or indifferent. But I do know Doctor
Satcher's nomination was brought up by a questioner, and Ashcroft answered,
and that was the end of it.
PRESS: But here's what I find troubling, is -- and by the way, at the time,
Bill Frist, the only...
SPECTER: Listen, if you're right Bill, they can come back tomorrow...
PRESS: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: ... and...
CHAVEZ: Correct the record.
PRESS: Well, they might...
(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: ... and push him on it...
PRESS: ... but at the time...
SPECTER: ... and that would be fair, if you're correct.
PRESS: At the time, Bill Frist, the only physician in the Senate, and a
Republican, said that what Doctor Satcher did was ethically correct, that the
charges were bogus, and it was pure politics, had nothing to do with the real
issue. And so, you get with David Satcher, and with Ronnie White, and with
Bill Lann Lee -- you always get these far-reaching reasons that Ashcroft
comes up with for opposing some minority nominee. Doesn't that -- isn't that
troubling? 1/17/01
http://www.bushwatch.com/ashcroft2.htm
- Re: [CTRL] ASHCROFT LIED TO CHAIRMAN LEAHY YESTERDAY William Shannon
