Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (Extensions of Remarks - July 17, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for 2010. This bill passed the House of Representatives on July 16, 2009, over my objection, by a vote of 219-208.

I opposed H.R. 3170 because the bill adopts the Obama Administration's proposal to allow publically funded abortion in the District of Columbia. The ``Dornan Amendment,'' which has been included annually in this appropriations bill since 1996, prevents the use of any congressionally appropriated funds for elective abortions in the District. H.R. 3170 repeals this prohibition and replaces it with a meaningless watered-down restriction that applies only to funds specifically contributed for ``federal'' program purposes. Because ``federal'' and ``local'' funds are commingled in the District, separating them is a mere bookkeeping exercise. By simply designating the funds that pay for abortions as ``local'' funds, D.C. will be able to fund abortion on demand.

Stripping the Dornan Amendment from financial services appropriations bill is unacceptable. Our nation's capital already has one of the highest abortion rates in the country. Removing the Dornan Amendment from the bill will certainly increase those numbers, especially among teenagers.

President Obama has repeatedly vowed that his goal is to reduce the number of abortions in our country. I question how providing taxpayer funding for abortions will somehow reduce the number of abortions. More than 40% of all pregnancies in the District already end in abortion. Even the Guttmacher Institute, an organization founded by a division of Planned Parenthood, reports that when public funding is not available, 30% fewer women in the covered population have abortions. This means that 30% of babies whose mothers receive government subsidized health care survive because of abortion funding restrictions. No administration or lawmaker can support this policy change and still claim to support reducing abortions.

Washington, D.C. has a troubled history when it comes to abortion funding. In the 1980s, when D.C. funded abortion, the District had one of the most permissive policies in the nation. A full D.C. abortion funding ban was enacted in 1989. In 1994, when the funding ban was lifted, D.C. took $1 million away from the Medical Charities fund, which was created to help AIDS patients, to instead pay for abortion. Then, the District needed additional funds to make up for the funds lost to abortion. After that, when the abortion funding ban was reinstated in 1996, the city continued to fund abortions in violation of the law for two more years.

Including the Dornan Amendment in the Financial Services appropriations bill is a logical means to help reduce abortions, a common cause of both the Republican and Democratic parties, and protect our most vulnerable citizens. Directing taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is a clear violation of many Americans' deeply held beliefs and is simply bad public policy. For this reason, I stand in opposition to H.R. 3170.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source