• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Trusting but Verifying on Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

    On the subject of arms treaties with the Soviet Union, President Reagan famously said, “Trust, but verify.” Now many Members of Congress want to do the same with public funding of elective abortion under Obamacare, but they are meeting new resistance from congressional Democrats, some of whom, nonetheless, insist they have the same goal.

    The battle dates back to 2009, when the abortion funding issue held up the passage of the massive health care bill known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). In March 2010, the PPACA was finally adopted when a small group of House Democrats backed away from a proposal known as Stupak–Pitts, which would have plugged the abortion funding loopholes in the PPACA and established a strict standard governing the use of the new affordability tax credits created by the bill.

    The House Democrats voted for the PPACA after receiving assurances that President Obama would issue an executive order that would plug the loopholes, or, as the President put it, impose “strict compliance with prohibitions on abortion funding in health insurance exchanges” and apply the fund restrictions to separate categories like community health centers.

    Today, a House Committee led by Rep. Joe Pitts (R–PA) will begin mark-up of the Protect Life Act, which would codify the Stupak–Pitts measure and put the weight of Congress behind what the Obama executive order purports to do. The bill, H.R. 358, which is also sponsored by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D–IL), has 118 cosponsors.

    The reaction of certain Members of Congress to these developments has varied over time. In 2010, during a campaign debate, Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA) said of the Hyde Amendment limiting public funds for abortion, “I think it’s a good compromise right now. So that’s my position, and that’s why, in the health care debate, not one pro-choice senator or a member of the House that I know tried to overturn Hyde.”

    Now, Boxer is leading the fight against the Protect Life Act, claiming that “it tells women they can’t use their private money to purchase insurance that covers a full range of health care.” Section 2(c)(2) of the bill, in fact, tells women that they can use only their private money—and not government funds authorized or appropriated under the PPACA, including affordability tax credits—to purchase insurance with elective abortion coverage.

    Moreover, the Hyde Amendment itself both denies payments for elective abortions and payments to “any trust fund” from which funds could be drawn to provide “health benefits coverage that includes abortions.” When Boxer said to an audience in 2010 that she supported the Hyde Amendment, she was apparently referring to only part of the amendment. The Protect Life Act would address the entire scope of that amendment and make clear that the PPACA’s distinctly new feature, the affordability tax credit, operates in the same manner as the Hyde Amendment. It would turn the fig leaf of the Obama executive order into a firewall.

    Congress has many good reasons to maintain the separation of public funds from the practice of abortion, including the lack of public health oversight and the controversial practices of prominent agencies that deal with minors.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Trusting but Verifying on Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

    1. Adolph Evangelista, says:

      None of this information is new, nor are the responses of Democrats to the Act. What is needed is the Republican/Independent takeover of the Senate, and the defeat of President Obama, in 2012.

      I believe that these are thoroughly possible politically, because the economy is not improving to the extent jobs are created in the private sector- the Democratic controlled Labor Department has actually removed two million jobs from the number which existed before the current economic crash in order to bring down the unemployment number to 9%. None of this bodes well for Democrats.

    2. Bobbie says:

      This is a private matter regarding personal choice, pertaining to a personal act, the government has no right to be funding. If women choose to murder their babies then it's their business and I want nothing to do with it. If they choose to give birth to their babies, that is also their business and responsibility government shouldn't be involved with! People become responsible when they have themselves to count on.

    3. Pingback: » Financial News Update – 02/11/11 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter

    4. Pingback: Tweets that mention Trusting but Verifying on Taxpayer Funding of Abortion | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    5. Pingback: Frank Fights to Fund Abortion | Katy Pundit

    6. perelwll says:

      Many existing laws and regulations apply specifically to pregnant women. Several provisions of the Affordable Care Act offer new benefits for expecting mothers. Search online for "Wise Health Insurance" if you need affordable insurance for yourself or your wife.

    7. Granny Lizzy, Long I says:

      in cases or rape, incest and when to carry the child full term will kill the mother, no government should tell a woman she cannot have an abortion with public funds.

      Are women so under valued in this country that we will send them back to coat hanger kitchen table abortions ?

      The idea that its only rape if the woman fights almost to the death, makes no provision for date rape drugs.

      Incest, happens all to frequently, is a 12yo going to fight off her dad, or brother, or uncle ?

      This country has a moral delema, are we going to honor and respect a woman's right to govern her own body, or will we go back to the 1950's and let men decide what happens to woman, and there unborn children.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.