House Votes Civil Rights Expansion : President Vows Veto of Bill Cutting Off Funds to Institutions Over Bias

The House, setting up a major confrontation with the Reagan Administration, voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to restore broad civil rights protections that were greatly narrowed by a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Under the sweeping legislation that now goes to the White House, the government must withhold all federal funds from a private or public institution if any of its agencies are found guilty of discrimination on the grounds of race, age, sex or disability. The vote was 315 to 98.

But, in a controversial amendment designed to win conservative support, sponsors also agreed to exempt hospitals or schools that receive federal aid from any requirement to perform abortions or provide abortion-related services. As a result, such refusal would not be considered a violation of women’s rights.

Reagan Promises Veto

The Senate approved identical legislation on a 75-14 vote last month but President Reagan informed Congress late Wednesday that he will veto the bill. In a letter from Brussels, the President said the measure unfairly expands the sweep of federal civil rights laws.

However, the margin of passage in both houses--exceeding two-thirds of the members--would be enough to override a veto.

During an often heated debate, Democrats and Republicans alike said the so-called Grove City bill, named after the 1984 court case, is the most significant civil rights legislation to come before Congress in many years.

Those institutions “who dip their hands in the public till shouldn’t object if a little democracy sticks to their fingers,” said Rep. Augustus F. Hawkins (D-Los Angeles).

However, opponents charged that the measure would threaten the religious freedom of some church schools that receive federal aid and said it should have been analyzed more carefully by several House committees before coming up for a vote.

‘Deceives People’

“I think this legislation deceives the American people into thinking that it will restore civil rights, when in fact it jeopardizes them,” said Rep. Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-Nev.). “Imagine if a church which accepts federally subsidized cheese is subject to a federal investigation. Imagine them bothering with this when they should be feeding people.”

In his letter to members of Congress from Brussels, Reagan charged that the bill “diminishes the freedom of the private citizen to order his or her life and unnecessarily imposes the heavy burden of compliance with extensive federal regulations and paper work on many elements of American society.”

Sponsors responded that existing federal law allows religious institutions to apply for exemptions from such regulations if they believe compliance would violate their beliefs. They added that no such applications have ever been denied by the U.S. Office of Civil Rights.

The abortion exemption was strongly criticized by some House members and a coalition of feminist groups, who said they fear it could lead to an erosion of abortion rights already guaranteed by the Supreme Court.

“I am troubled by this bill,” said Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.). “It takes young women at their most vulnerable age, the child-bearing years, and they don’t come out of this with the same rights they had before. We are backing off on a commitment that was made before to abortion rights in this country.”

Amendments to Four Laws

The legislation, which technically provides amendments to four separate civil rights laws, seeks to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling four years ago in a case that grew out of a Pennsylvania private school’s refusal to certify that it would not discriminate. The high court held that federal aid could be withheld only from a specific school department found guilty of discrimination, not from the entire institution.

Before that ruling, lower courts had found that an entire institution was ineligible for federal funds if one or several of its departments were guilty of discrimination. That interpretation was widely used to enforce civil rights laws affecting education and racial discrimination, plus bias against the disabled and the elderly.

Civil rights activists charged that the Grove City ruling took the teeth out of federal anti-discrimination laws. Amid mounting protests, the House passed legislation four years ago that would have overturned the decision and restored the broader rule against discrimination.

Senate Never Acted

But the Senate never acted on that bill because of a bitter debate over its potential impact on abortion regulations. Abortion foes contended that the sweeping law would compel private hospitals and schools to offer abortions against their will or run the risk of losing federal funds.

They noted, for example, that federal regulations issued in conjunction with a 1972 law banning discrimination in education required schools receiving federal aid to treat “pregnancy, childbirth and termination of pregnancy” just like they would any other disability, especially where leave, insurance or health services are concerned.

Abortion rights proponents disagreed, saying none of the four federal civil rights laws covered by the bill mentioned abortion. They also noted that existing law permits private hospitals and schools to seek exemptions from such programs on religious grounds.

The Senate, after four years of wrangling, passed its own version of the Grove City bill last month, along with the abortion exemption. The law also prevents such an institution from discriminating against anyone who is requesting or once had an abortion.

In a related provision, the legislation also extends job-related civil rights protections to people with AIDS, unless it can be determined that their disease poses a threat to health and safety of other people, or prevents them from carrying out their jobs.