No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 42 provides for a closed rule allowing consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
Since 1973, at least 52 million children's lives have been tragically taken by abortion in the United States. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate this systematic extermination of an entire generation of the most vulnerable among us.
In the midst of that darkness, there has been one area of consensus, Mr. Speaker: protecting taxpayers from paying for a practice they sincerely oppose. Since 1976, the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the Federal funding of abortions, has been included in relevant appropriations bills. Each year it has been consistently renewed and supported by congressional majorities and Presidents of both parties.
NARAL, an abortion advocacy group, has suggested that prohibiting public funds for abortion reduces abortion rates by roughly 50 percent. That means that half of the women who would have otherwise had a publicly funded abortion end up carrying their baby to term.
In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Hyde amendment prevented as many as 675,000 abortions every single year. That means that millions of Americans are alive today because of the Hyde amendment. After 38 years, it is time for this lifesaving amendment to become permanent law.
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a myriad of long-established laws, including the Hyde amendment, created a mostly uniform policy that Federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health plans that included coverage of abortion, with only narrow exceptions.
Unfortunately, ObamaCare destroyed that longstanding policy, bypassing the Hyde amendment restriction and paving the way for publicly funded abortions. The President's health care law authorized massive Federal subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortions on demand. In other words, Mr. Speaker, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.
H.R. 7 will codify the principles of the Hyde amendment on a permanent, governmentwide basis, which means that it will apply to longstanding Federal health programs such as Medicaid, SCHIP, and Federal employees' health benefits, as well as to new programs created by ObamaCare.
H.R. 7 prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions. It does so by, one, prohibiting all Federal funding for abortions; two, prohibiting Federal subsidies for ACA health care plans that include coverage for abortion; three, prohibiting the use of Federal facilities for abortion; and four, prohibiting Federal employees from performing abortions.
This commonsense measure, which restores a longstanding bipartisan agreement, protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to fund thousands of abortions.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to respect our Nation's consensus on abortion funding and affirm life by voting in favor of this rule and H.R. 7.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, this legislation is identical to H.R. 7, which passed the House last Congress after moving through regular order, including a full committee markup.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the strongest champions of life in this House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, codifies many longstanding pro-life protections that have been passed under both Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses. The majority of taxpayers oppose Federal funding for abortion, as demonstrated in poll after poll:
A recent Marist poll showed that 58 percent of respondents oppose or strongly oppose using any tax dollars for abortions;
During the ObamaCare debate, a 2010 Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 76 percent of Americans said that Federal funds should never pay for an abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother;
A January 2010 Quinnipiac University poll showed that 67 percent of respondents opposed the Federal funding of abortion;
An April 2011 CNN poll showed that 61 percent of respondents opposed public funding for abortion;
A November 2009 Washington Post poll showed that 61 percent of respondents opposed government subsidies for health insurance that include abortion;
A September 2009 International Communications Research poll showed that 67 percent of respondents opposed any measure that would ``require people to pay for abortion coverage with their Federal taxes.''
In other words, Madam Speaker, the American people do not want the government spending their hard-earned tax dollars to destroy innocent human life--period.
Like most taxpayers, employers also prefer plans that preclude abortion coverage. According to the insurance industry's trade association, ``Most insurers offer plans that include abortion coverage, but most employers choose not to offer it as part of their benefits packages.''
Even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has voted numerous times to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. President Obama voted against the taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia twice when he was in the Senate, and since being elected, he has signed appropriations legislation into law that prohibits this funding.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, opposition to taxpayer funding for abortion is bipartisan, bicameral, and is supported by the majority of the American people. It is time to restore the status quo on the government funding of abortion and make this widely supported policy permanent across the Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 7.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to say as forcefully as I can that there is nothing in H.R. 7 that restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. There is nothing in H.R. 7 that restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. Consistent with the Hyde amendment, the bill ensures that Federal dollars--wherever those Federal dollars come from--do not subsidize plans that cover abortion.
What is important to explain is that the Hyde amendment has only in the past applied to annual appropriations bills. As we have done our best to explain to the American people, ObamaCare is not subject to annual appropriations bills but is funded under mandatory spending. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is important that we codify that no Federal funds can be used for abortions. That is what this bill does.
If our colleagues believe it is unnecessary, then they should have no problem voting for it because, then, it is not doing anything that violates what has been done in the past. However, this bill is necessary. Let me say again, Madam Speaker, that H.R. 7 simply codifies the longstanding bipartisan agreement that Federal taxpayer funding should not be used to destroy innocent life.
H.R. 7 does so by establishing a permanent, governmentwide prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage, including cutting off taxpayer funding for plans that include abortion under ObamaCare;
It prevents funding for abortion in government programs like Medicaid, the Federal Health Benefits Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program;
The bill also ensures that subsidies made available in the form of refundable tax credits under the ACA are prevented from flowing to plans that include abortion;
H.R. 7 also explicitly states that private individuals may purchase separate abortion coverage or plans that include abortion as long as no Federal subsidies are used to pay for the abortion coverage. Similarly, H.R. 7 explicitly states that insurance companies may offer abortion coverage as long as the coverage is not paid for by using taxpayer dollars.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The passage of H.R. 7 will be welcome news for the majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars
paying for the grisly business of abortion. This bill will make existing policies like the Hyde amendment permanent and will rid ObamaCare of its massive expansion of public funding for abortion insurance plans.
The President repeatedly assured Americans that ObamaCare would ``maintain current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extend those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that promise didn't pan out. It now joins ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' in President Obama's panoply of broken promises.
Madam Speaker, today, hundreds of thousands of Americans are coming to Washington, D.C., to brave the cold and march for life. Participants hail from all 50 States, have various religions, and are from all different walks of life and ages. But the one thing they have in common is the shared dedication to protecting the unborn.
The March for Life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a powerful message to the Representatives of the people assembled here in Congress. It is heartening that so many Americans of different backgrounds are willing to take a stand for life.
Madam Speaker, this is not a partisan issue and this is not a partisan bill. H.R. 7 reflects the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that our government should not be in the business of subsidizing abortions. This is not a radical idea. It is a commonsense proposal that codifies a longstanding compromise. Therefore, I again urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While it is true that the Hyde amendment and its companion amendments have been renewed every year, recent implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, has ignored these restrictions. Rather than renewing various amendments each year, we should make the prohibition on Federal abortion funding permanent and governmentwide.
Additionally, provisions contained in the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act have been included in H.R. 7. These provisions require the exchanges to prominently display, one, whether a plan provides for abortion coverage; and, two, if it does, the amount of the abortion surcharge that the consumer is required to pay.
Unfortunately, for most consumers, finding out if the plans on their State's exchange or the Federal marketplace covers abortion is nearly impossible because the information is not consistently available.
Knowing whether these plans cover abortion is absolutely critical to many consumers because plans that cover elective abortion are required by law to impose a mandatory monthly abortion surcharge.
These surcharges are not optional. Once you sign up for a plan with abortion coverage, you must pay the surcharge. This means that, potentially, many Americans who strongly oppose elective abortion could be unknowingly contributing to the practice financially.
Madam Speaker, that simply isn't right. H.R. 7 will stop funding for plans that cover elective abortion under ObamaCare and ensure that abortion coverage and the accompanying surcharge are made transparent to the American people.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and H.R. 7, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that it is clear some of our colleagues have not read the bill or have not listened to the debate. This bill does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is sacred and God-given, but millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. That is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a nation, stand for.
One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, ushered in by an unelected court, will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history, but until that day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life.
Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot, and we will continue to pray to the One who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power, who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands.
Madam Speaker, the commonsense measure before us restores an important, longstanding, bipartisan agreement that protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to finance thousands of elective abortions. It reflects the will of the American people and is the product of what has historically been a bipartisan, bicameral consensus in Congress. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 42 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
On page 1, line 4 of the resolution, insert the following after the word ``waived'': ``except those arising under clause 11 of rule XXI''.
--
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. ..... When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source