House Democrats Fight GOP's "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"
Tuesday 08 February 2011
by: Nadia Prupis, t r u t h o u t | Report

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal speaks to the press the day after he was elected on November 3, 2010. On Monday, Senators Blumenthal and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) published a letter on EMILY's List stating their opposition to the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." (Photo: Ruth Fremson / The New York Times)
House Judiciary Democrats held a meeting Tuesday to fight the Republican-backed "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill that seeks to ban federal coverage of abortion in certain cases of rape or incest.
Ranking member John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan) joined Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) and several other House Judiciary Democrats to fight the bill they call "an unacceptable attack on a woman's right to choose and a distraction from the economic relief that Americans expect from Congress," according to a statement from Nadler's office. California Democrat Reps. Maxine Waters, Judy Chu and Linda Sanchez also took part in the meeting, along with Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Mike Quigley (D-Illinois) and Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Florida).
The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would prohibit the use of federal funds on abortions and on medical insurance plans that include abortion as a covered procedure. Employers who offer health benefits with abortion coverage would not receive tax credits. Individuals who work at government-owned or -operated health care facilities, including licensed physicians, would be barred entirely from performing the procedure.
Exceptions would be made for women who are raped or minors under 18 years of age who are the victims of incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey), who introduced the bill on January 20 with Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois), originally intended for stricter exemptions that would only provide federal abortion coverage in cases of "forcible rape," but backtracked on the language after strong opposition from some members of Congress and advocacy groups like MoveOn.org and EMILY's List. Smith replaced "forcible rape" with the language from the Hyde Amendment, which has prevented government funding of abortions since 1976.
Smith called the bill a "comprehensive policy prohibiting public funding for elective abortion in all federal programs."
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards disagreed. "Under the fig leaf of prohibiting federal funding of abortion, which is already banned, Representative Smith's bill would take comprehensive private health insurance coverage for abortion away from millions of American women, even those who face serious health problems from a pregnancy," Richards said in a statement. "Simply put, the now discarded 'forcible rape' provision is just the beginning of what's wrong with Representative Smith's bill."
On Monday, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) published a letter on EMILY's List stating their opposition to the bill. "We know a woman's right to make her own health decisions must be protected," Gillibrand and Blumenthal wrote. "But this is about even more than choice, this is about making sure women and families can get the care they need when they need it.... When we talk about access to health care facilities and services, we're talking about the health and safety and stability of all American families."
Don’t miss a beat - get Truthout Daily Email Updates. Click here to sign up for free.
Gillibrand and Blumenthal's letter marked the first time that EMILY's List featured a male author.
Representatives of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood were also in attendance at Tuesday's hearing.
"Anti-choice politicians have gone from redefining rape to denying abortion care to women who will die without it," Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a press release.
"When it comes to attacking women's freedom and privacy, these politicians know no bounds," Keenan stated. "This debate is just getting started. Any member of Congress who has signed his or her name to this agenda must be held accountable for such extreme attacks against women's reproductive-health services."
Tuesday's hearing follows the introduction of a second abortion-focused bill in the House. The "Protect Life Act," sponsored by Lipinski and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), would ensure that hospitals or physicians who refuse to perform abortions, even to save a mother's life, would continue to receive federal funding. The hearing included testimony from a woman whose insurance plan was able to cover the abortion she needed when her pregnancy became medically complicated.
Richards said that House members are becoming involved in unhelpful legislation and forgetting their campaign promises. "We urge the House leadership to drop the misleading Smith bill entirely, and do what the American people elected them to do - focus on jobs and the economy," Richards said.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
OK, here's the deal. IF
Tue, 02/08/2011 - 15:18 — T. Lassiter Jones (not verified)OK, here's the deal. IF you, as an elected official, truly believe that life begins at conception, and that abortion is murder, THEN you must support legislation that will charge pregnant women seeking abortions and any doctors agreeing to perform them with conspiracy to commit infanticide, with the proportionate legal penalties. Otherwise, you are merely a wanking hypocrite who does not believe your own BS, and should shut up and leave women and doctors alone.
20:18 + right, of course,
Tue, 02/08/2011 - 15:57 — Anonarcmous (not verified)20:18 + right, of course, not covered by insurance for these procedures should ensure premiums rates decreasing.They should also insure healthcare for the child from 0-18 years.I mean--that is the point right?We would not want more people illegally signing papers just so their kids can go to good schools??
Misogyny, pure and
Tue, 02/08/2011 - 17:46 — Anonymous (not verified)Misogyny, pure and simple!
IF you boys really wanted to save money, you wouldn't deny women the rights to their own bodies, you would stop being hypocrites and 1) give up your own -overgenerous- health care payed for by the taxpayers, 2) Cut wasteful, unnecessary defense spending, 3) end subsidies for the greedy oil, gas, and agriculture corporations, 3) make sure all corporations PAID TAXES (instead or high0priced loophole lawyers), 4) gave up wasteful, anti-ecological perks like BOTTLED water for congress, 5) actually allowed whistleblowers to tell the truth in congress of waste instead of burying them......
All the rest is self-serving male hoopla! based on hypocritical (and UnAmerican, unconstitutional) imposition of your own personal, religious beliefs on others. Honey, if you don't need or want an abortion , by all means.... don't have one!
Oh, and yes, I forgot, you
Tue, 02/08/2011 - 17:51 — Anonymous (not verified)Oh, and yes, I forgot, you could also save money on healthcare by outlawing the coverage of Viagra, Cialis, and other MALE-entertainment drugs as non-essential!
And every congressman or Senator who denied abortion coverage would be required to contribute to the care and education of the unwanted child they forced a woman to carry in her body... which apparently no longer would belong to her, but to the government.
I agree with Anonymous
Tue, 02/08/2011 - 22:37 — An (not verified)I agree with Anonymous 22:51- if congress wants to prevent aborting unwanted fetuses, they must provide the funding for raising them educating them and finding them jobs. No woman should be forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy, and a birth process and then be forced to spend her life taking care of this product. And certainly taxpayers should not have to pay for men to show their virility by taking Viagra and impregnating a woman who may not want that child. Rape should be punishable by death- make a life, take a life. Sure, some of this sounds ridiculous, but no more so than forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy, and to go through the birth process, which could be fatal, and is certainly very painful.
And everyone of the
Wed, 02/09/2011 - 02:55 — Anonymous (not verified)And everyone of the hypocrites that are fighting against a women's choice, have this in the golden insurance that we are paying for! For the rest of their lives!! A free ride! No co-pays! Like Cheney, new plumbing that nobody knew existed! If you need it, oops! Sorry! Ex privilege!
Good info
Sun, 04/10/2011 - 23:57 — Pharma960 (not verified)Hello! efccddd interesting efccddd site!
lv outlet online
Wed, 10/24/2012 - 22:37 — Hamsgage (not verified)must check authentic louis vuitton online for gift EqLAIGec http://louisvuittononlineshop.metroblog.com/
hermes outlet
Sat, 10/27/2012 - 13:06 — beemCymn (not verified)you will like hermes outlet online online OpKVwRDc http://www.hermes--outlet.net/
hermes handbags outlet
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 03:53 — Redpoike (not verified)purchase outlet hermes for gift loFXBrNK http://www.hermes--outlet.net/
burberry men
Thu, 11/08/2012 - 21:34 — Patvieva (not verified)click to view burberry outlet online ZkrFSeDN http://www.burberry-outlet--online.com/
Jeremy Scott Leopard
Mon, 01/21/2013 - 14:56 — Jeremy Scott Leopard (not verified)"http://www.blessingchrist.org--www.blessingchrist.org/album/pictures.php?level=picture&id=32"|"--"|"1675.0"|"Blessing Christ Photo Gallery"|"--"|"--"
www.montblancpens.ias3.com/
Fri, 04/12/2013 - 20:33 — www.montblancpens.ias3.com/ (not verified)It's actually superb to uncover the proportionalities to test a superb high caliberstate by using
heel lift
Sat, 05/18/2013 - 15:29 — heel lift (not verified)I think this web site has very excellent indited articles content.
bottega veneta outlet
Mon, 05/20/2013 - 19:09 — bottega veneta outlet (not verified)Try these guys out
custom orthotic insoles
Mon, 06/03/2013 - 03:32 — custom orthotic insoles (not verified)Here are some of the internet sites we advocate for our visitors