[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
AND CIVIL JUSTICE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 7
__________
JANUARY 9, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-208 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
MARK AMODEI, Nevada JOE GARCIA, Florida
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas [Vacant]
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
JASON T. SMITH, Missouri
[Vacant]
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Vice-Chairman
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio JERROLD NADLER, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
STEVE KING, Iowa ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas Virginia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JASON T. SMITH, Missouri TED DEUTCH, Florida
Paul B. Taylor, Chief Counsel
David Lachmann, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
JANUARY 9, 2014
Page
THE BILL
H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act''............. 3
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Civil Justice................................. 1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Civil Justice................................. 15
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciry. 19
The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution and
Civil Justice.................................................. 20
WITNESSES
Helen M. Alvare, Professor of Law, George Mason University School
of Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 27
Prepared Statement............................................. 30
Susan Franklin Wood, Associate Professor of Health Policy,
Director, Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, School of Public
Health and Health Services, George Washington University
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 38
Richard M. Doerflinger, Associate Director, Secretariat of Pro-
Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Oral Testimony................................................. 42
Prepared Statement............................................. 44
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil
Justice
Memo from the National Women's Law Center.................... 17
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, a
Representative in Congress from the District Columbia...... 25
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, Ranking
Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on
the Constitution and Civil Justice............................. 72
Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil
Justice
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil
Justice.................................................... 74
Response to Question for the Record from Susan Franklin Wood,
Associate Professor of Health Policy, Director, Jacobs
Institute of Women's Health, School of Public Health and
Health Services, George Washington University.............. 85
Prepared Statement of Sara Rosenbaum, Lara Cartwright-Smith,
Ross Margulies, Susan Wood, and D. Richard Mauery, School
of Public Health & Health Services, Department of Health
Policy, the George Washington University Medical Center.... 86
Coalition Letter............................................. 100
Letter from Jon O'Brien, President, Catholics for Choice..... 103
Letter from Vincent C. Gray, Mayor, Washington, D.C.......... 106
Prepared Statement of Laura W. Murphy, Director, and Sarah
Lipton-Lubet, Policy Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative
Office, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).......... 107
Prepared Statement of the American Congress of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG)................................... 113
Prepared Statement of the Center for Reproductive Rights..... 114
Prepared Statement of Vicki Saporta, President and CEO,
National Abortion Federal (NAF)............................ 120
Letter from Susan A. Cohen, Acting Vice President for Public
Policy, the Guttmacher Institute........................... 124
Prepared Statement of NARAL Pro-Choice American Foundation... 133
Prepared Statement of Nancy Kaufman, Chief Executive Officer,
the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)................ 142
Letter from Emily Spitzer, Executive Director, the National
Health Law Program (NHeLP)................................. 145
Prepared Statement of the National Asian Pacific American
Women's Forum (NAPAWF)..................................... 148
Prepared Statement of Debra Ness, President, and Andrea
Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs, the
National Partnership for Women & Families.................. 151
Prepared Statement of the Planned Parenthood Federation of
America.................................................... 155
Prepared Statement of Nancy Stanwood, MD, MPH, Board Chair,
Physicians for Reproductive Health......................... 158
Letter from Frank Knapp, Jr., President & CEO, South Carolina
Small Business Chamber of Commerce......................... 161
Prepared Statement of Judy Waxman, Vice President for Health
and Reproductive Rights, the National Women's Law Center
(NWLC)..................................................... 163
NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2014
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution
and Civil Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trent
Franks (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Franks, Jordan, Chabot, Forbes,
King, Gohmert, DeSantis, Smith, Nadler, Scott, Cohen, and
Deutch.
Staff Present: (Majority) Paul Taylor, Subcommittee Chief
Counsel; Tricia White, Clerk; (Minority) Heather Sawyer,
Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member.
Mr. Franks. Committee will come to order. Want to welcome
everyone to the Committee. Happy new year to you all. Welcome
to the panelists, especially. And welcome back to my colleagues
on both sides of this podium.
For well over 30 years, Congress has prevented the Federal
funding of abortions through a patchwork of amendments that are
added to various appropriations bills during each budget cycle
prohibiting the Federal funding of abortions through their
funded programs. Now is the time to pass one piece of
legislation that puts Members on record supporting a
prohibition on any Federal funding of abortion no matter where
in the Federal system that funding might occur.
In poll after poll, the American people have overwhelmingly
expressed their opposition to the Federal funding of abortions.
H.R. 7 will ensure that American taxpayers are not involved in
funding the destruction of innocent human life through abortion
on demand. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will
establish a government-wide statutory prohibition on abortion
funding by making permanent the various policies Congress has
implemented on a case-by-case basis, including: The Hyde
Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion
coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor,
Health and Human Services Appropriations Act; the Helms
Amendment, which prohibits funding for abortions as a method of
family planning overseas; the Smith Amendment, which prohibits
funding for elective abortion coverage for Federal employees;
the Dornan Amendment, which prohibits the use of
Congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District
of Columbia, and other policies such as the restrictions on
elective abortion funding through the Peace Corps and Federal
prisons.
Now, absolutely nothing in the Democrats' unpopular health
care law prevents the Federal funding of abortions under the
program it creates. Representatives Joe Pitts and former
Representative Bart Stupak offered an amendment to the bill
during the 111th Congress that would have prohibited government
funding of abortion, had it been included in the final Health
Care Reform Act. But that provision was stripped out of the
Senate bill the President signed into law.
In the last-minute effort to work a face-saving political
deal, the President said he would sign an executive order that
claimed to limit Federal funding of abortions in some way. Then
in an interview with the Chicago Tribune editorial board,
former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel emphasized that
the executive order signed by President Obama does not carry
the force of law, and as such, was approved by the former House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others who oppose a ban on taxpayer
funding of abortion. Mr. Emanuel said, I quote, ``Came up with
the idea for an executive order to allow the Stupak Amendment
not to exist in law.''
There you have it. In the words of the President's chief of
staff at the time, ``the Obamacare law provides for the Federal
taxpayer funding of abortions.'' Any Member who opposes that
policy must support H.R. 7, which would at last put back into
law the principle of the bipartisan Hyde Amendment and place a
Federal Government-wide ban on the Federal funding of the
destruction of innocent human life.
Now, I am fully aware of the controversy surrounding the
underlying issues here. And throughout history, there has often
been great intensity surrounding the debates over protecting
the innocent lives of those who, through no fault of their own,
find themselves obscured in the shadows of humanity. It
encourages me greatly that in nearly all of those cases, the
collective conscience was finally moved in favor of the
victims. The same thing is beginning to happen in this debate
related to innocent, unborn children. We are beginning to ask
ourselves the real question: Does abortion take the life of a
child? And we are beginning to finally able to realize as a
human family that it does.
Ultrasound technology now demonstrates to all reasonable
observers both the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of
what is being done to them. And we are beginning to realize as
Americans that brutally taking the lives of the innocent unborn
does not liberate anyone, and that 50 million dead children is
enough. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
And I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee,
Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
[The bill, H.R. 7, follows:]
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing
concerns what may be the most difficult and divisive issue we
will have the opportunity to consider: A woman's right to make
decisions about her own body. The right of a woman to decide
whether to become pregnant and whether to continue or terminate
her pregnancy is protected by the Constitution. Whether or not
you think that is a good idea or a fair reading of the
Constitution, it remains the law of the land. The Supreme Court
has also determined that neither Congress nor a State may place
an undue burden on that right.
Now comes H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
Act,'' which is misleading and misnamed because the bill seeks
to burden all women's health care choices in a variety of ways
that have in nothing to do with Federal funds. Contrary to the
assertions of its supporters, H.R. 7 is not the mere
codification of existing law. This bill seeks to extend current
funding restrictions in the Hyde Amendment that are limited in
time and scope and to apply them to all Federal laws without
any effort to determine how such a sweeping and permanent
expansion would impact American women and their families.
If this were all, that would still be enough reason to
oppose it. But H.R. 7 actually goes much further. This bill,
for the first time ever, denies tax deductions and credits for
women who use their own money to pay for an abortion or to
purchase insurance that covers abortion, and in so doing,
increases taxes for women and families with respect to one of
the most personal, private decisions that they may face. So in
effect, it imposes a tax increase on women who choose to use
their own money for abortions, under certain circumstances. In
particular,H.R. 7 denies the itemized tax deduction that
otherwise is available for medical expenses if the expense is
an abortion and treats as taxable income any distribution from
a flexible spending account or health savings account that is
used to pay for abortion expenses.
H.R. 7 denies small employers the ability to use tax
credits to provide health coverage if that coverage includes
abortion. The bill also denies income-eligible women the use of
premium tax credits available under the Affordable Care Act if
selected insurance coverage includes abortion. In first
opposing and then voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act--not
once, not twice, but I think we are up to 47 times now--my
Republican colleagues have complained that government should
not meddle in the private insurance market or in private health
care choices. But this legislation obviously is designed to do
just that.
It seems that many Republicans believe in freedom, provided
no one uses that freedom in a way that they do not approve of.
That is a strange understanding of freedom. Even more stunning,
this bill increases taxes on families, businesses, and the
self-employed if they spend their own money--let me repeat
that, their own money, not Federal money--on abortion coverage
or services. As we know, the power to tax is the power to
destroy. And here the taxing power is being used to destroy the
right of every woman to make private health care decisions free
from government interference. This tax increase is being
championed by Republicans, almost all of whom have taken a
pledge not to raise taxes on individuals or businesses, except
here.
I am equally surprised to find out that my Republican
colleagues think that a tax exemption or a tax credit is a form
of government funding. Should we now consider every tax
exemption or credit as a form of government funding for the
recipient? I am sure there will be many businesses, charities,
and religious denominations that will be alarmed to discover
this.
I also join many other Americans in being absolutely
horrified that the majority of this Committee seems to not know
what rape is. When this bill was introduced in the last
Congress, its sponsors sought to limit the Hyde Amendment rape
exception to instances of ``forcible'' rape. Many in Congress
and across America were outraged. According to the bill's
champions, date rape drugs, and sex with minors were not really
rape.
In the face of public outcry, the majority removed the term
``forcible'' from the bill before this Committee marked it up
in the last Congress. But let no one misunderstand or be fooled
by that change. My colleagues still seek to narrow the rape
exception, as they made clear in the Committee report
accompanying H.R. 3 in the last Congress, where they explained,
``Reverting to the original Hyde Amendment language should not
change longstanding policy. H.R. 3 with the Hyde Amendment
language would still appropriately not allow the Federal
Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape.
The Hyde Amendment has not been construed to permit Federal
funding of abortion based solely on the youth of the mother,
nor has the Federal funding of abortions in such cases ever
been the practice.''
The majority's assertion, as explained in a memo from the
National Women's Law Center is false. In fact, a 1978
regulation clarified that funding is required for all cases of
rape, whether statutory or forcible. Nothing in the language of
the Hyde Amendment qualifies the term ``rape,'' and Congress
rejected a proposal to limit the amendments to cases of
forcible rape. It rejected it then, but this Committee would
seek to change it now.
I ask unanimous consent that the National Women's Law
Center memo be entered into the record.
Mr. Franks. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Mr. Nadler. In their Committee report, my colleagues
displayed their true intent with regard to the exception for
rape, which is to remove Federal assistance to children and
teenagers who are the victims of predators. They have not been
as transparent about the overall intent behind this bill, but
it is nonetheless clear: it is to end insurance coverage for
medically indicated abortions for all women, whether or not
they obtain their insurance on an exchange, and even if they
use their own money to purchase the insurance.
My colleagues in the majority believe that if you like your
insurance coverage you should get to keep it, unless it is for
choices that they don't like. Then they have no qualms about
taking your coverage away. That is the intended and likely
result of this bill. Currently, the vast majority of insurance
products cover abortion services. But as Professor Sara
Rosenbaum of GWU's School of Public Health testified in the
last Congress, insurance companies will respond to the tax
penalties this bill imposes by dropping coverage for abortions
from all of their plans. This will have a significant effect on
all women, not just lower-income women, who have long felt the
brunt of Federal restrictions on their health care choices.
My colleagues blithely assert that coverage will be
available if in no other way through supplemental insurance
policies. But, as Professor Wood, the witness invited by the
minority, can explain, there is no evidence that such product
lines are being developed. H.R. 7 is not codification of
existing law, nor is it just another attempt to enact the
approach taken in the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the House-
passed Affordable Care Act. H.R. 7 is a radical departure from
current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance
coverage. And it is neither justifiable nor necessary to
prevent Federal funding of abortion.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. And now I yield to the
Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Goodlatte from Virginia, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. However stark Americans' differences of opinion can be
on the matter of abortion generally, there has been long
bipartisan agreement that Federal taxpayer funds should not be
used to destroy innocent life. The Hyde Amendment, named for
its chief sponsor, former House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Henry Hyde, has prohibited the Federal funding of abortion
since 1976, when it passed a House and Senate that was composed
overwhelmingly of Democratic Members. It has been renewed each
appropriations cycle with few changes over the last 38 years,
supported by Congresses controlled by both parties and
presidents from both parties.
It is probably the most bipartisan, pro-life proposal
sustained over a longer period of time than any other. As such,
it warrants codification in the United States Code. H.R. 7, the
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, would do just that by
codifying the two core principles of the Hyde Amendment
throughout the operations of the Federal Government, namely, a
ban on Federal funding for abortions and a ban on the use of
Federal funds for health benefits coverage that includes
coverage of abortion.
During the time the Hyde Amendment has been in place,
probably millions and millions of innocent children and their
mothers have been spared the horrors of abortion. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Hyde
Amendment has led to as many as 675,000 fewer abortions each
year. Let that sink in for a few precious moments. The policy
we are discussing today has likely given America the gift of
millions more children and consequently millions more mothers
and millions more fathers, millions more lifetimes, and
trillions more loving gestures and other human gifts in all
their diverse forms. What a stunningly wondrous legacy.
Thank you, Chairman Franks, for convening this hearing and
thanks also to representative Chris Smith for sponsoring this
vital legislation. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today. However, I wanted to say just one more thing, Mr.
Chairman. The gentleman from New York made reference to it
being a radical departure from insurance policies. But the real
radical departure here is the fact that now we will have, for
the first time, Federal subsidies of health insurance policies
in America. So that is the radical departure that we are
facing, and that is why legislation is needed to address the
fact that this will be a major substantial breach in the Hyde
Amendment, the policy of the United States of America since
1976.
And I thank you and yield back.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman.
Are there any other opening statements?
Then I would now yield to Mr. Chabot, the gentleman from
Ohio, for an opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Franks. When he finishes his opening statement, we will
consider unanimous consent.
Mr. Nadler. I'm sorry.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your
leadership on this issue for many years now.
Protection of the most vulnerable among us, the unborn, is
one of the most important and most solemn duties that we, I
believe, as elected officials, undertake. Since Roe versus Wade
was decided almost 41 years ago, this Subcommittee in
particular has been the focal point in the effort to curb
abortions nationally. Most notably, it was this Subcommittee
that first considered and approved the Partial Birth Abortion
Ban Act of 2003, which I had the honor to introduce, which
later passed both Houses of Congress, was signed into the law
by President Bush, and upheld as constitutional by the United
States Supreme Court. But as thousands of Americans prepare to
head to Washington in about 2 weeks for the annual March for
Life in remembrance of the approximately 50 million American
lives lost to abortions since Roe was decided back on January
22, 1973, much more remains to be done. It is appropriate then
that this Subcommittee again take the lead on legislation that
will further limit the number of abortions performed in this
country, especially with taxpayer dollars.
The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act introduced by our
colleague, Chris Smith of New Jersey, would prevent any Federal
funding of abortion, whether channeled through insurance plans
or paid directly to abortion providers. The bill reaches back
through history and seeks to make the Hyde Amendment, as has
been mentioned a number of times already, and the Hyde/Weldon
Conscience Protection clause and several other pro-life
amendments permanent under Federal law. I would note that this
bill is a legislative effort to actually implement Executive
Order 13535 that President Obama issued back on March 24 of
2010. And that order stated, in part, ``It is necessary to
establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that
Federal funds are not used for abortion services, consistent
with the longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is
commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.''
Mr. Chairman, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
provides that enforcement mechanism and it has overwhelming
public support. 2011 CNN poll found 61 percent of the
respondents opposed public funding for abortion. And a 2010
Quinnipiac poll showed 67 percent of the respondents opposed
Federal funding of abortion.
For these reasons, I would urge my colleagues to support
this legislation. I thank you for holding this hearing today.
Yield back.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman.
And I understand--go ahead.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for a
unanimous consent request?
Mr. Franks. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Subcommittee
received a request from the delegate from the District of
Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, to be allowed to testify on
this bill. I understand that she has been told that her request
would not be accommodated. I ask unanimous consent that our
colleague be given 5 minutes to address the Subcommittee on the
matter that uniquely affects her constituents and only her
constituents. That has been the common practice in the House.
Mr. Franks. I would have to have raise objection.
Mr. Nadler. I regret that the Chairman objects. I would
hope that he would reconsider what is normally a fairly
pedestrian request. This bill contains a provision that singles
out the District of Columbia for additional restrictions on how
it may spend its own local tax funds, not Federal funds. This
is the equivalent of barring a State from making its own
choices about how it wants to spend its own State funds. No
Member would tolerate Congress telling their State or their
town how to spend their own tax dollars, yet this bill would do
just that to the citizens of our Nation's capital.
The exclusion of Delegate Norton, who is relegated to
sitting in the audience today--and I want to welcome her and
apologize for the manner in which she is being treated--is yet
another example of an abuse of power. As I have said in the
past, never in more than 20 years as a Member of this body have
I seen a colleague treated as contemptuously as our colleague
from the District of Columbia is being treated today. The
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is a Member of this
body, and the people she represents are taxpaying American
citizens. And yet this Committee can't be bothered to take 5
minutes to hear our colleague, who will not even be permitted
to vote on the bill. The District of Columbia is not a colony,
it is part of the United States, and its people are entitled to
be treated with the same respect that we demand for the people
we represent.
Now, I know that it will be said by the Chairman, because
he has said it to me, and there is no secret, that while the
Democrats get one witness and if we want Eleanor--or the
delegate from the District of Columbia to be our witness--we
are free to do that. That is true. But that gives us a Hobson's
choice. Because Eleanor's testimony would be only about the
specifics of how this affects her district in a way unique to
that district. And that would leave us no witness on the basic,
broad import of the bill. On the other hand, if we have a
witness on the basic, broad import of the bill, we don't have
the opportunity, or Eleanor doesn't have the opportunity, to
present the specifics of her district.
It is a common courtesy. There is no rule in the House that
prevents this. And again, I ask that this be reconsidered. And
that the common practice that has normally been common practice
in this House that when a matter specifically affects a
Member's district, she or he is given the opportunity to
testify, be implemented here.
Mr. Franks. I would join the gentleman in recognizing and
welcoming Mrs. Norton, Ms. Norton to the audience today. And
would remind the gentleman that it does indeed remain true that
the minority was entirely free to invite Ms. Norton as their
witness. In fact, I extended that invitation personally both to
the Chairman and to the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Nadler. But
they declined. Now, since the bill that is the subject of the
hearing today only mentions the District of Columbia to make
clear that funds appropriated by Congress for the District of
Columbia shall be, of course, considered Federal funds, just
like all other Federal funds, there was no reason for the
majority to call Ms. Norton as a witness. Ms. Norton is, of
course, welcome to submit any materials she would like for the
hearing record, which will be made part of the record without
objection.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. With respect--what
you just said is not completely accurate. This bill applies in
a way that it applies nowhere else, to funds raised locally, by
local tax funds in the District of Columbia. It does not apply
to local tax funds raised in New Jersey, by the State of New
Jersey, or anywhere else. Now, it does that by sleight of hand.
It says, ``The term 'Federal government' includes the
government of the District of Columbia,' for the purposes of
this bill. For most purposes, the term 'Federal Government'
never includes the District of Columbia.'' So this bill has the
unique effect of--for the District of Columbia only--telling
them how they may use local funds raised by local sales taxes
or income taxes or property tax in a way that is not done
anywhere else. And, therefore, it is a unique application. And
the common courtesy of the House demands that Ms. Norton be
able to testify--not as our one witness but as a specific
witness with respect to the application to her district. A
courtesy that I have seen granted many, many times in this
House. And in this Committee, for that matter.
Mr. Franks. The gentleman's objection is duly noted. And
would just remind the gentleman that the District of Columbia
is the seat of this government, according to the Constitution,
and not a State. And consequently we will proceed.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Franks. Now let me introduce our witnesses.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, you stated to me that the rules of the House are the
rules of the Committee do not permit the seating of Ms. Norton
as a witness other than our one witness. Could you please point
out to me the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee
that so indicate?
Mr. Goodlatte. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Franks. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. Would I yield?
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
circumstances, and I, too, welcome Ms. Norton's presence here.
But, last year, at the beginning of this Congress, I announced
to the full Committee our policy regarding the participation of
Members who are not a Member of the Judiciary Committee or its
Subcommittees, and here is what I announced.
``I want to take the opportunity of this full Committee
gathering to make Members aware of our new policy regarding
participation in Subcommittee hearings. At the beginning of the
Congress, I was asked whether Members who are not a Member of a
Subcommittee would be allowed to participate in Subcommittee
hearings. After giving it some thought, I have come up with
what I think to be a reasonable solution that will allow our
Members some level of participation without overly burdening
the Subcommittees. A Member of the Judiciary Committee who is
not a Member of a Subcommittee may attend a hearing and sit on
the dais. That Member may also ask questions of the witnesses.
But only if yielded time by an actual Member of the
Subcommittee who is present at the hearing. I would ask that
Members who intend to participate in this fashion let the
majority staff know as far in advance of the hearing as
possible so that we may prepare accordingly. It will remain the
policy of the Committee that we do not allow Members to
participate in our hearings if they are not Members of the
Judiciary Committee.'' Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Franks. Gentleman from New Jersey has the time. There
is really no time. At this point, I think----
Mr. Nadler. Gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. Franks. I'm sorry. Wherever you are from. New York.
Mr. Goodlatte. You mentioned New Jersey a couple times in
your statements.
Mr. Franks. I apologize to people in both the States.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that
that policy statement, A, is not a rule, but, B, refers to
participation as a Member of the Committee or Subcommittee in
asking questions. It does not refer to testifying before the
Committee. And again it has been the practice in the House that
we afford the courtesy--we would have been well finished with
this by now if you had done that, by the way--to a Member whose
district is uniquely affected to testify. We have had panels of
only Members. There is nothing that says you can't do this if
you have the common courtesy to do it.
Mr. Franks. I would just suggest to you to remind the
gentleman, the House rules provide for the participation in
hearings only by Members of that Committee or Subcommittee.
House Rule 11 states, ``Each Committee shall apply the 5-minute
rule during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing until
such time as each Member of the Committee who so desires has
had an opportunity to question each witness.'' Now I feel like
I have----
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, again, that is questions, has
nothing to do with testifying.
Mr. Franks. A UC is required in order to allow non-
Judiciary Member to participate.
Mr. Nadler. No, I'm not talking about participating.
Mr. Franks. I have given the gentleman ample time to state
his point and respectfully----
Mr. Nadler. You are misstating my point. I am not talking
about participating, I am not talking about asking questions. I
am talking about testifying. It is an entirely different
matter.
Mr. Goodlatte. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Franks. Please.
Mr. Goodlatte. I want to reiterate the Committee's
position, and not just in this Congress but in previous
Congresses as well is that non-members of the Committee do not
sit on the dais. That was the gentleman's subsequent request.
His original request was that she be given 5 minutes to
testify.
Mr. Nadler. That is my request.
Mr. Goodlatte. That requires unanimous consent. That was
rejected by the Chairman. And the Chairman made it very plain,
and I will again, that she is very welcome to submit any
materials that she would like to for the hearing record, which
will be made part of the record without objection.
Mr. Franks. Thank you. And now I would like to introduce--
--
Mr. Nadler. Can I ask unanimous consent in view of the
rudeness----
Mr. Franks. Gentleman is not recognized.
Mr. Nadler [continuing]. Ask unanimous consent to----
Mr. Franks. Unanimous consent.
Mr. Nadler. In view of the rudeness of the Committee, I ask
unanimous consent to place the gentlewoman's written statement
into the record. I assume there will be no objection to that.
Mr. Franks. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:]
__________
Mr. Franks. And I will now introduce our witnesses.
Helen Alvare is professor of law at George Mason University
School of Law. Professor Alvare teaches and writes scholarship
and public essays in leading newspapers concerning law and
policy affecting women, children, and the family. She is co-
founder of the grassroots organization, Women Speak for
Themselves, and a regular consultant to the official council
advising Pope Francis on matters considering women in the
church and in the world. We welcome you, Mrs. Alvare.
Ms. Alvare. Thank you.
Mr. Franks. Susan Wood is an associate professor of health
policy at the George Washington University School of Public
Health and Health Services, and the Director of the Jacobs
Institute of Women's Health. Prior to joining George Washington
University, Professor Wood served as Assistant Commissioner for
Women's Health and Director of the Office of Women's Health at
the Federal Drug Administration. Welcome, Ms. Wood.
Richard Doerflinger is the Associate Director of the
Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, where he has worked for 33 years. He is also
Adjunct Fellow in Bioethics and Public Policy at the National
Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. We welcome you, Mr.
Doerflinger.
Each of the witnesses' written statements will be entered
into the record in its entirety. And I ask that each witness
summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help
you stay within that time, there is a timing light in front of
you. The light will switch from green to yellow, indicating
that you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When of the
light turns red, it indicates that the witness's 5 minutes have
expired.
Before I recognize the witnesses, it is the tradition of
the Committee that they be sworn. So if you will please stand
to be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Franks. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
And so I would now recognize our first witness, Ms. Alvare.
And if you would please turn your microphone on before
speaking. Yes, ma'am.
TESTIMONY OF HELEN M. ALVARE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Ms. Alvare. Thank you very much. And I would like to thank
the Committee for holding this hearing, which even 40 years
after Roe versus Wade, is a sign of the power of a human rights
dream that refuses to die. No matter how much abortion is
legal, Americans, including American women especially, have
never and will never make their peace with it. In my remarks
today, I am going to address two points: First that neither
American law makers, or citizens, especially women, understand
abortion as a public good. And second, that abortion is not
part of any women's health agenda, even out of the lips of our
own Federal Government in its own statements.
In my first point, it's understood by lawmakers and
citizens that abortion is different from anything else the
Federal Government might fund. It's unlike the use of the
Federal budget, which is for things that support and promote
human life versus death, versus insecurity and want. Our
Supreme Court has said abortion is not like any other medical
procedure. Perhaps this is because, as Justice Stevens and
Ginsburg have acknowledged, some of these procedures are
``brutal or gruesome,'' or as Justice Kennedy in a majority has
acknowledged, abortion kills. Finally, President Obama has
opined that he wishes abortion to be rare and it's a tragic
matter. The State legislatures recognize the same thing and
have passed a record number of laws restricting abortion in the
last 2 years.
Even the most strenuous supporters of legal abortion,
Planned Parenthood, has acknowledged that there is, in their
words, a baby growing inside a pregnant woman such that
abortion ends her life. How disturbing, then, it is that
supporters of abortion would continue to urge its funding while
acknowledging that it's killing. And the reason they claim is
women's health and rights, which is the 800-pound gorilla in
the room every time abortion is debated, including today, so
let me turn to that.
It's no longer contestable that for decades--and
particularly good RAND Corporation study I've cited shows
this--women have been more pro-life than men, lesser educated,
are more pro-life than the privileged, and the poor are more
pro-life than the wealthy. This translates also to the matter
of abortion funding, where we have the particularly disturbing
data point that the well-off support abortion funding for the
poor more than the poor support it for themselves.
Investigations of women's voting patterns turn up the same
information. Women don't vote because of abortion or in favor
of abortion funding.
Finally, when you look at Federal sources or documents that
are engaging in promoting women's health, you don't find any
mention, let alone promotion, of abortion or abortion funding.
The Centers for Disease Control doesn't even keep regular or
required records on this. The Federal Government seems
decidedly uncurious about abortion and women's health. After
Surgeon General Koop in 1989 said studies on the relationship
between these were insufficient and recommended long-term
studies, the government never did them.
I vividly recall my membership on the NIH council that
addresses women's health and asked for one question about
abortion and women's health to be put on studies and it never
was. Despite the fact that increasingly, European studies,
including meta analyses involving 900,000 women, are showing a
relationship between abortion and mental health outcomes that
are problems for women. In addition to the Federal Government's
having no firm ideas about the numbers for abortions or its
impact on women, or a lack of curiosity about it, if you look
at all the major Federal reports on women's health issued from
HHS, from NIH, from the White House, and they are all detailed
in my testimony, what do you see in these? When the government
is actually dispensing women's health advice? No mention of
abortion or abortion funding. Rather, frank acknowledgment that
a woman is carrying, in their words, unborn babies. You see
them addressing what the CDC identifies as the serious threats
to women's health, heart disease, stroke, cancer; not abortion.
You see them recommending that women avoid substances during
pregnancy that could ``damage your baby.''
In conclusion, the Federal Government has collected no
useful data about the relationship between abortion and women's
health. When it does offer advice, it recommends health care
for women and her ``unborn baby.'' Credible studies are
indicating distress for women following abortion.
By themselves, these facts indicate how H.R. 7 serves
women. But there's another service H.R. 7 might perform.
Regular squabbles over Federal funding for abortion too often
take the place of debates about what women actually need and
say they want. Debates about paid leave or Social Security
benefits for women's care work. Instead of debating ideas about
how to end poor women's cycle of poverty or non-marital
childbearing, we continue to debate abortion in this country.
It's time, once and for all, to settle the matter of abortion
funding across Federal legislation and move on to a real
women's agenda. Thank you.
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Ms. Alvare.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Alvare follows:]
__________
Mr. Franks. And I now recognize our second witness, Ms.
Wood.
TESTIMONY OF SUSAN FRANKLIN WOOD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF HEALTH
POLICY, DIRECTOR, JACOBS INSTITUTE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH, SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Ms. Wood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen of the
Committee. I want to thank you for being able to present
remarks on the bill before us today, H.R. 7. I need to point
out that this sweeping legislation would affect nearly all
women in this country and would do significant harm to many,
especially those women and families who are struggling to make
ends meet. While the bill is cloaked in the language of
taxpayer rights and Federal appropriations, a close examination
of its true impact reveals an attempt to interfere with a
women's personal decision making by denying women insurance
coverage for abortion care. And every woman deserves coverage
for basic health care, including contraception, maternity care,
and abortion coverage, should she need it.
This legislation reaches far beyond the already troublesome
Hyde Amendment, beyond the onerous restrictions that were
proposed in the Stupak Amendment, in the Affordable Care Act,
and beyond the restrictions that actually were enacted into the
ACA by the Nelson Amendment. It would virtually eliminate
abortion coverage from the private insurance market and impose
unprecedented new tax burdens on business that want to offer
abortion coverage to their employees.
Moreover, it would provide exceptions only for rape and
incest, or for conditions that put a woman in danger of death.
Congress should reject this harmful and overreaching piece of
legislation.
Now, those who oppose abortion have tried and failed to
make it illegal. So instead they have worked to make it almost
impossible to obtain. Indeed some object to even insurance
company of contraception, which is the most effective way to
prevent unplanned pregnancy and reduce the need for access to
abortion care. This bill is the most recent attempt. And it is
not enough that they have tried to deny abortion coverage to
the women who qualify for Medicaid. It is not enough that this
denies coverage to veterans, Federal employees, Native American
women, disabled women, and women who participate in other
Federal insurance plans and programs.
No, to cut off access to affordable abortion care for the
rest of the women in the country, we need this bill as the
final piece of the puzzle. If Congress enacts this bill, you
are taking away coverage from women who live in places where
private insurance plans that include abortion coverage are sold
today. And you would take away a woman's ability to use her own
health savings account to cover her medical costs related to
abortion care, an unprecedented insertion of abortion politics
into tax policy.
Historically, the vast majority of insurance plans have
typically covered abortion services. It's no coincidence, it's
where health policy--good health policy meets good financial
policy and meets a woman's health care needs. In our analysis
of both the Stupak and Nelson Amendments, which I would like to
enter into the record, we raise the concern that Congress would
create a chilling effect which would lead many more women to
lose abortion coverage. Further changing the tax benefits for
employees and for employers providing health coverage as
proposed in H.R. 7 could create a tipping point in the nature
of insurance whereby women lose abortion coverage because
insurers may no longer provide plans that include it.
Since approximately 60 percent of women of reproductive
age, 37 million women, get their health care coverage through
private insurance, this legislation could have a far-reaching
effect. It represents more than just meddling in their personal
decisions, by making it unaffordable, it effectively bans
abortion for some women. And while it may not seem like a big
expense to a Member of Congress, in these tough financial times
for many people, abortion care costs more than their monthly
rent, putting it out of reach for their family's pocketbook.
Moreover, cutting off access to abortion has profoundly
harmful effects on the public health. Based on the experience
with the ban that has long been imposed on women who qualify
for Medicaid, we know that some who seek an abortion are forced
to carry a pregnancy to term, due to lack of coverage and cost.
And we also know that births that result from unintended or
closely spaced pregnancies are associated with delayed prenatal
care, premature birth, low birth weight, and other negative
health effects on the children. We know that a woman who wants
to get an abortion but is denied it is less likely to have a
full-time job and twice as likely to be a victim of domestic
violence. Denying abortion care to these women who are least
able to afford out-of-pocket medical expenses will further
exacerbate existing health disparities.
And although most of the women affected by these bans will
still find a way to end their pregnancies. Many are forced to
delay their procedures for 2 or 3 weeks or longer while they
pull together enough money to pay for the care they need. By
banning abortion coverage for even more women through private
insurance, as this bill would do, Congress would expand the
number of women and families struggling with budget dilemmas,
including many middle-class families still recovering from the
great recession. And even with the primary assistant provided
by the Affordable Care Act, families have to stretch their
budgets to pay for health insurance, and women are more likely
to fall into poverty if they are not able to get the abortion
they need.
Importantly, the H.R. 7 also extends very narrow exceptions
for abortion coverage now allowed for Medicaid. If private
plans decided to continue to provide such coverage, both they
and the IRS would need to evaluate coverage decisions to ensure
that they were in compliance. Neither the private market nor
the IRS is suited for such determinations about a woman's risk
of death or determination of rape or incest. Women potentially
could be required to provide evidence of rape or incest to the
insurer or to the IRS as part of a claim.
Furthermore, health conditions, such as diabetes,
hypertension, epilepsy, or others would not necessarily fit the
definition of placing a woman in danger of death, but could
have potentially serious consequences for her health. Health
insurance now routinely covers the range of pregnancy and other
health services that may be needed by the individual woman. But
by denying abortion coverage, it would not only change the
current insurance women have, but would put some women's health
at risk.
In conclusion, this bill would impose a sweeping and
unprecedented ban on abortion coverage with far-reaching and
harmful consequences for women's health and for their economic
security. When it comes to the most important decision in life,
such as whether to become a parent, it is vital that a woman be
able to consider all of her options, no matter what her income
or source of insurance. It makes sense that health insurance
covers the whole spectrum of women's health needs, including
birth control, abortion, maternity care. Because when people
can plan if and when to have children, it's good for them, it's
good for their families, and it's good for society as a whole.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wood follows:]
__________
Mr. Franks. Now recognize our third and final witness, Mr.
Doerflinger. Please turn on your microphone, sir.
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD M. DOERFLINGER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
SECRETARIAT OF PRO-LIFE ACTIVITIES, UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF
CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Mr. Doerflinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
opportunity to voice the support of the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops, for H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion Act.'' This bill will write into permanent law a
policy on which there's been strong popular and Congressional
agreement for over 35 years: the Federal Government should not
use its funding power to support or promote abortion. This
principle has been embodied in the Hyde Amendment, and numerous
other provisions governing a wide range of domestic and foreign
programs. It has consistently had the support of the American
people. Women oppose federally funded or federally mandated
abortion coverage as strongly as men or more so. Low-income
Americans oppose it more strongly than the affluent.
And even courts insisting on a constitutional right to
abortion have said this alleged right ``implies no limitation
on the authority of a State to make a value judgment favoring
childbirth over abortion, and to implement that judgment by the
allocation of public funds.'' In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court
said the Hyde Amendment is an exercise of ``the legitimate
congressional interest in protecting potential life,'' adding:
``Abortion is inherently different from other medical
procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful
termination of a potential life.''
In other words, the Federal Government is perfectly within
its moral and legal rights, to say that abortion is not basic
health care. The only mistake in the quote from the Supreme
Court is its use of the phrase ``potential life.'' That has no
clear biological or medical meaning. In fact, unborn children
are actually alive until they are made actually dead by
abortion. More recently, the Supreme Court has said simply that
the government may express ``profound respect for the life of
the unborn'' by regulating abortion.
So the Supreme Court and the actions of Congress simply
contradict Dr. Wood's testimony. She's talking about the
government ``meddling,'' ``interfering,'' ``denying,'' ``making
women lose'' coverage--setting aside the fact that the vast
majority of women don't want abortion in their coverage, so
saying you are losing the coverage is like saying you're losing
a tumor--``banning'' abortion, ``forcing.'' This is simply a
governmental decision to put its support behind the life-
affirming options for mother and child and not to subsidize the
lethal option.
Congress's policy has been consistent for decades, but its
implementation in practice has been piecemeal, confusing, and
sometimes inadequate. Gaps or loopholes have been discovered in
its patchwork of provisions over the years, highlighting the
need for a permanent and consistent policy across the Federal
Government.
In 2010, Congress passed major health care reform
legislation, which, as has been mentioned, puts Federal funds
into an entirely new part, a much larger part of the health
care system for the first time. And that legislation has, as my
longer statement details, at least four different policies on
abortion funding, ranging from a ban on such funding in one
section, on school-based clinics, to a potential mandate for
such funding in another. These problems have arisen partly
because various sections of the Affordable Care Act not only
authorize but appropriate their own funds, thus bypassing the
Hyde amendment and similar longstanding appropriations
provisions.
Recent developments underscore a need to correct the
abortion funding problems in the Affordable Care Act. In 2010,
the Act was used to approve direct Federal funding of elective
abortion coverage in the State high risk pool program until
that was uncovered by pro-life groups.
As State health exchanges have begun to operate, Americans
are finding it difficult to find plans without abortion
coverage or even to get clear answers as to which plans those
are. And they are discovering that despite public assurances to
the contrary, they may, in fact, be forced by the government to
subsidize other people's abortions as a condition for obtaining
the health care their families need.
Congressional employees and Members of Congress are finding
that if they want a plan without abortion in D.C., they only
have a choice of nine out of 120--more than 120 plans. Members
and staff of Congress, previously assured they are free to
choose from a full range of plans without abortion, are being
deprived of that freedom or having it greatly narrowed--
contrary, in our view, to longstanding Federal law. We have
submitted comments to the Federal Government on that point.
If a bill like H.R. 7 had been enacted before the health
care reform debate began, that debate would not have been about
abortion funding. A major obstacle to support by Catholics and
other pro-life Americans would have been removed, and the
legislation would not have been so badly compromised by
provisions that place unborn human lives at great risk.
H.R. 7 would prevent problems and confusions on abortion
funding in future legislation. Federal health bills--and I
think a lot of us would be relieved at this--could be debated
in terms of their ability to promote the goal of universal
health care, real health care, instead of being mired in
debates about one lethal procedure that most Americans know is
not truly health care at all.
Finally, in our view, and we'd be happy to discuss this,
H.R. 7 does not eliminate private coverage for abortion, but
specifically allows it when purchased without Federal subsidy.
And it does not create an unprecedented policy of denying tax
benefits to abortion. The Affordable Care Act already broke
that precedent by creating a system of tax credit subsidies for
coverage, which the Act itself referred to as Federal funding.
My prepared text provides additional details, and I'd be happy
to answer questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doerflinger follows:]
__________
Mr. Franks. We will now go into the time for questions. And
I would thank each of the witnesses for their testimony. And we
will proceed under the 5-minute rule. And I will begin
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Alvare, I would note that Mr. Doerflinger quoted Harris
versus McRae in the court. And the court said, ``No other
procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential
life.'' And affirmed that Roe versus Wade had created a
limitation on government, not a government entitlement. Three
years earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled that the
government's refusal to fund abortion placed no restriction on
the ``right to choose abortion.''
Your testimony was especially compelling when you mentioned
about women's attitudes toward abortion in the coming days. And
my friends on the left, oftentimes when they are faced with an
indefensible position try to change the issue to something else
entirely. And it is very difficult then to debate the issue in
any effective way.
Can you tell me how both of those stated concerns coincide
with H.R. 7, in your opinion?
Ms. Alvare. If I could clarify, the stated concerns
regarding what is said in Harris versus McRae?
Mr. Franks. The court's decision and also women's attitudes
toward abortion.
Ms. Alvare. Yes. I mean, the court's decision is very
clear. It's established as a matter of law. But I think it also
seems as a matter of common sense to many people in the United
States that refusing to fund something is not a statement that
the government has done away with what is still in this country
a constitutional right, and the court just drew that line very
clearly. It's mystifying to me sometimes when people make this
argument; from the common sense perspective, it seems as if
they're saying that somehow 1.2 million abortions a year isn't
enough. That in order really for us to say we have some robust
right of abortion, we have to have an even higher rate than
3,300 abortions a day. We already know that poor women are
getting a disproportionate number of these, and that they
disfavor abortion more than the well off. Right? We also have
minority and immigrant women disfavoring it more than majority
American women.
And so the idea that it is an interference is problematic.
The other statement that comes to mind in connection with this
is, you know, if you look at Planned Parenthood, the largest
abortion provider's most recent balance sheet, I mean, in
addition to the giant amount of government funds they have,
they have $500 million a year of nongovernmental funding. If
it's so important to them that there be more abortions among
the poorest women in the United States, I would wonder why they
don't follow the example of the over 3,000 crisis pregnancy
centers who are contributing private funding to women, about
$25,000 per woman per year in the residential facilities, and
there are over 350 of those. So that entire argument that
somehow a right has to equal funding it and the funding has to
come from the government, it is neither legally supported, nor
is it supported in common sense, nor would poor women in
particular support that.
Mr. Franks. Yes, ma'am.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Doerflinger, I know some States have made their own
decision on what to do about abortion coverage on their
exchanges. Can you give us an update on what has happened in
that regard?
Mr. Doerflinger. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Since the Affordable
Care Act passed, 24 States have acted to opt out of the
abortion policy on the State exchanges set out by the Federal
Government, the presumptive policy in which Federal funds are
used to subsidize plans that cover elective abortions. Then
there's a little bit of separate bookkeeping, separate
accounting for the funds used for abortion. But everybody in
those plans is forced to pay that surcharge for abortion.
States have looked at that policy and said, no, we're going to
take elective abortions off the exchange altogether in our
State. And that policy goes farther than H.R. 7, which only
removes elective abortion from plans receiving the Federal
subsidies.
Now, of the 13 Members of this Subcommittee, 10 of you are
from States that have made that decision to simply take
abortion off the exchanges, and four of the five Democrats on
this Subcommittee, are from States that have made that
decision. You passed the bill with this abortion policy, and
your own States have said no. That's the trend now. In fact,
more States than ever have taken this opportunity to actually
reach out and say that abortion will not be available in
private plans off the exchanges--except, in most cases by
supplemental riders. Ten States have done that.
So the trend out there in the country is that about half
the States now have said, no, we want a firmer policy against
abortion on these State exchanges.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. And I will now recognize
Mr. Nadler for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Professor Wood, the Affordable Care
Act requires participating insurance plans to segregate monies
for abortion services from all other funds, a measure my anti-
choice colleagues insist was necessary to prevent Federal
funding of abortion. To aid in identifying these funds, both in
terms of premiums being paid for coverage and costs for
services provided, the law requires companies to estimate the
cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 a month. Some have
characterized this segregation of funds as an abortion
surcharge. Is this an accurate description?
Ms. Wood. The short answer to that question is no. As you
have correctly stated, this is a general premium to provide for
all health care services. And because of the Nelson Amendment
to--it both avoids use of Federal funds primarily to avoid the
use of Federal funds, the segregation of the private dollar
contribution of at least $1 a month is to be set aside to pay
directly for those services. And indeed, there are accounting
responsibilities of the insurers to make sure that they can
demonstrate to their State insurance commissioners that they
have indeed complied with the statute.
So I think in this case, it's clearly not a surcharge. It's
a segregation of the premium. And women who or family plans who
choose not to have a plan that does not provide abortion
coverage, the option to purchase that is available to them.
Mr. Nadler. You mean that plans that choose not to have a
plan that covers abortion, don't you?
Ms. Wood. I'm saying aside from the plans that cover
abortion, there will be plans available to choose if that is
such an important issue.
Mr. Nadler. So it would be inaccurate to claim that an
individual that objects to abortion will be forced to
participate in or pay for a plan that covers abortion, or as
Mr. Doerflinger put it, to subsidize someone else's abortion?
Ms. Wood. That is correct.
Mr. Nadler. And that would be inaccurate because?
Ms. Wood. That is because plans in the statute, it does
call--though there is no requirement to cover abortion, sort of
in a balancing way, there is a requirement that there be plans
available that do not cover abortion that an individual can
choose. And, indeed, that information about coverage of
abortion must be made available through the summary of benefits
that would be provided upon purchase.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. So now tell me, how common is it now for
insurance plans to cover abortion services now, and how would
that change if H.R. 7 is enacted?
Ms. Wood. I think this is the crux of the matter. Since the
beginning when people have been measuring this, abortion has
been covered. And I think it is important----
Mr. Nadler. Has been covered by private insurance.
Ms. Wood. Has been covered by private insurance.
Absolutely. And because it has sort of been--and it has not
been called out or controversial. It has been part of the
general medical and surgical benefits that are covered as
needed by any individual. And it is important to remember that
insurance is set up just as that. It is for those anticipated
and unanticipated things that can happen in your life. We will
all need health care at some point. We may not know what it is.
Maternity care hopefully is planned anticipated coverage.
Mr. Nadler. So that has always been included. How would
that change if H.R. 7 is enacted?
Ms. Wood. Okay, sorry. Yes, it would change dramatically, I
think, and this is the analysis we did just in looking at the
Stupak amendment, but we think it applies also even more so to
H.R. 7, which is it will create a change in the insurance
market because if insurers have to tease out not an entire
class of benefit, but specific procedures under specific
circumstances, they will likely, over time, begin to decide
that this is not worth the effort, it is not worth the----
Mr. Nadler. So in other words, this bill would have the
effect of getting private insurance companies that now offer
coverage to not do so?
Ms. Wood. We project that eventually would change, and we
have used the word tipping point. That historically plans have
covered abortion under medical health insurance, and now it
will tip to the norm being non-coverage.
Mr. Nadler. And I would assume that that is really the
point of the bill.
Ms. Wood. Right. And the concern would be regulations that
might be issued by the IRS, having to document, et cetera.
Mr. Nadler. So last year we had concerns given the
unprecedented tax provisions in the bill that this could
require some pretty invasive regulatory enforcement procedures
for women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest and
for women whose lives are endangered if they continue
pregnancy. Is this a concern?
Ms. Wood. Absolutely. Having to make that determination is
not something that either the IRS, insurance companies or
Congress should really be involved in.
Mr. Nadler. And setting aside the privacy concerns, how
might uncertainty over how an expense might be treated by the
IRS impact women and how might it impact insurers?
Ms. Wood. Well, I think impacting women, to have to
document a rape or a condition of incest is traumatic at the
minimum. I think in terms of insurers, they do not want to be
in the place of having to make a determination of which is an
acceptable exception to the ban on coverage, or whether it
needs to be covered by either the woman herself or by this
potential rider that would then need to be coordinated with the
base plan.
This raises a lot of regulatory and oversight and
implementation concerns that insurers have traditionally never
been involved in and would--in their traditional way would be
to just cut out that entire set of coverage entirely and not
want to go into making those determination, leaving all
abortions uncovered.
Mr. Nadler. My time has expired. I thank you.
Mr. Franks. We will now recognize the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doerflinger, let
me begin with you, if I can. Can you explain the stance that
the Catholic Bishops Conference took on the Affordable Care Act
and why that organization ended up opposing final passage of
the bill?
Mr. Doerflinger. Yes, sir. The bishops have been in favor
of government involvement in ensuring people's access to health
coverage since 1919, when they made a statement after World War
I about social reconstruction. We were very much in favor of
pursuing health care reform, and we put out a great many
materials saying basically that we hope Congress will address
this problem, we want to move to universal health coverage, but
there are moral principles that that should respect.
The coverage should be affordable and fair, it should
extend to everyone-- and in that respect, the final bill, in
our view, and I know I will disagree with some of the majority
Members of this Committee on this, we felt it should fully
cover immigrants, regardless of their legal status. We felt it
should respect the existing longstanding policies in all of
these other programs, that Federal funds do not get used for
abortion or any part of a health plan that covers abortion.
That is current law now in the Hyde Amendment, in Federal
Employees Health Insurance, in the SCHIP program. And, thirdly,
we felt that it should have strong protections for rights of
conscience, which of course, it does not, as witness two cases
that are going up to the Supreme Court now.
So in the end, we were very encouraged by the House bill.
The Stupak amendment was approved with the support of 64
Democrats, including House Appropriations Committee Chair David
Obey. We had a bipartisan agreement that we are going to set
this abortion issue aside and talk about health care. And then
the Senate changed it back.
I don't know why we are talking about a Nelson amendment. I
think Mr. Nelson convinced Harry Reid to put in some additional
accounting procedures, but what is in the bill now is basically
the Lois Capps amendment that was prepared by----
Mr. Chabot. Let me stop you there, if I can, just because
we have got limited time. Despite claims from the
Administration that the Affordable Care Act abides by the
principles of the Hyde amendment, we know that health care,
Federal tax subsidies are paying for health care plans, or
will, including elective abortions.
Is it your belief that additional tax subsidies like this
to individuals to pay for health care plans which could have
elective abortions will, in all likelihood, increase the number
of abortions performed in this country?
Mr. Doerflinger. Of course. You know, Dr. Wood said that
most plans have abortion, and that is true, but that is not
because people want it. Sixty-eight percent of women, in the
last poll we did on this, are against having abortion in their
coverage. And so those decisions are being made largely by the
for-profit insurance companies because abortion is cheaper than
a live baby. Wow. Imagine that. Live babies are more expensive
than dead ones. So the insurance companies have an economic
incentive to promote abortion coverage and they include it.
Mr. Chabot. Let me cut you off there if I can at this time.
Mr. Doerflinger. But what this bill says is we are not
going to put Federal funds into encouraging that bias.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Ms. Wood, let me turn to you real
quickly. Why did President Obama issue his executive order
which purported to curb abortion funding or stop funding?
Ms. Wood. I think it is clear that the Affordable Care Act
already through the Nelson amendment ensures that no Federal
dollars are going toward abortion. And that certainly is a
conversation we can have about, you know, my opinion that those
bans are not appropriate, but that that is, in fact, what is in
the Affordable Care Act. And his memo merely confirmed what was
already in the statute.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Ms. Alvare, let me turn to you if I
can here. You had stated in your testimony that, and I am
putting this in my words, you said that women really don't
support abortion overall, even though we sort of think
politicians think that, the press kind of says women are for it
and men are against it, you know. Would you clarify that a
little bit?
Ms. Alvare. Yes. The best study I have seen on this with
really great cross-tabs, very detailed on women at every income
level, women of different racial and educational background,
was the RAND Corporation in cooperation, I think it was with
the Packard Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation. You know, these
are groups that are supportive of population control policies
generally, including often abortion.
But what you see, and you see this in not only the
quantitative but also the qualitative studies of poor women,
the best book ever on this, Promises I Can Keep, Why Poor Women
Put Motherhood Before Marriage, that there is this disapproval
particularly among poor women, of abortion, just a moral
disapproval of it and a desire that it not be normalized or
encouraged. If you look at the ratio of unintended or out-of-
wedlock births among the poor, they abort a lower ratio of
those than do people who are better off.
So not only is it that women are not supportive of this. I
mean, this is a top-down sort of groups claiming to represent
women sort of proposal. It is a political thing, it is not a
health care thing, and it certainly does not speak for
grassroots women, particularly poor women in America.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Mr.
Cohen for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Alvare, let me ask you a question. Do you believe this
bill, H.R. 7, would include birth control in making it illegal?
Ms. Alvare. No. My understanding is that it addresses
abortion.
Mr. Cohen. Only abortion. Okay. Let me ask you this too.
Does this bill ban a State like Arizona from spending its local
funds on abortion?
Ms. Alvare. It is my understanding that if a State wants to
spend its own money on abortion, that a State can do that.
States already do that.
Mr. Cohen. So it doesn't ban a State like Arizona from
doing that, or Arizona hospitals from performing abortions. It
doesn't ban that either?
Ms. Alvare. The question in this bill is taking Federal
funds out of it. If you are really--you have to be speaking,
and I am sure a particular hospital, a particular locale would
be able to give you, sort of an Arizona expert would be able to
give you statements about whether their hospitals, their
locales, et cetera, how or how much or in what way they
interact with Federal funding. But, again, the purpose of this
is to draw the lines between Federal funding for abortion----
Mr. Cohen. How about D.C.? Would it affect D.C. hospitals
and D.C. from spending its local funds on abortion?
Ms. Alvare. It is my understanding because of the
definition of D.C. for the purposes of this bill and obviously
in connection with a longstanding relationship between the
Federal Government and D.C., that, yes, it would prevent D.C.
from spending money that it wished to spend, which is a good
thing.
Mr. Cohen. I know you were not a Member of Congress and you
weren't here during the Republican shutdown, but during that
shutdown, the Republicans almost were unanimous in favor of
letting D.C. spend its local funds, even during the shutdown.
So there seemed to be kind of a bright chink in the armor of
D.C. being a Federal----
Ms. Alvare. I am not actually political on these question.
I try to take a principled or a legal or empirical view. I am
not about recognizing the political----
Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you a question. You mentioned a lot
of polls about lower income people and pro-life----
Ms. Alvare. I am sorry, I couldn't hear you, sir.
Mr. Cohen. You mentioned a lot of polls about low income
people and their positions on pro-life.
Ms. Alvare. On abortion and abortion funding.
Mr. Cohen. And that most low income people you said, poor
people, were pro-life. And you talked about pro-life and the
Federal Government, and because it was death and it was
gruesome and it was ugly and all those things. Most polls, and
there are more polls that I can name, show that most pro-life
people, women, are also in favor of the death penalty. How do
you reconcile that, because that type of death is gruesome?
Ms. Alvare. Two things. Number one, I could not personally
or principally reconcile it myself and that is why I have been
publicly on record against any Federal support for killing,
whether it is the death penalty or abortion.
Mr. Cohen. How about war? How are you on war?
Ms. Alvare. Number two, I guess I haven't written anything
on it outright. Because of my background, which is an overlap
of both philosophy, theology and law in the area, I am--I guess
you would say my general position would be, in case this
matters to you or would help shape your opinion on the bill, I
am not sure how it relates to anyone else's opinion around
here, I am in favor of life. And in my knowledge of the church,
its just war theory in particular, which I think is a very good
outline of the theory, would probably be an explanation of my
position, if that is influential to you. I hope it would be.
Mr. Cohen. Right. Just for time limits. Mr., is it----
Mr. Doerflinger. Doerflinger.
Mr. Cohen. Doerflinger. You work for the church, is that
correct, for the bishops?
Mr. Doerflinger. That is correct.
Mr. Cohen. And Ms. Alvare is a consultant. Now, the Pope
has been real good on saying that these issues concerning gays
and abortion are part of the Catholic history, but that they
should be kind of lessened in terms of the real big issues,
which is the great disparity in wealth between the wealthy and
the poor, and we need to do more things about taking care.
I wonder what you or either of you all are doing to try to
influence my colleagues to do things about unemployment
insurance, to do things about food stamps support and Meals on
Wheels and things like that, and maybe tax policy that kind of
levels the playing field out so you can do the Pope's work here
in the United States Congress? I am a big fan of the Pope's new
positions. I am just wondering what you were doing to move
those forward.
Mr. Doerflinger. I have to begin by differing with you on
the interpretation of what Pope Francis has said, because what
he has said is that all of these issues are important, but it
is better to put them in a deeper context as a consistent
message about the dignity of all human beings than to treat
them as individual political positions. What he said about
abortion is that----
Mr. Cohen. Let me ask first, what did he say about the
disparity in wealth?
Mr. Doerflinger. He said there is a huge problem in the
disparity of wealth. And I would say this. Yesterday was the
50th anniversary of President Johnson's announcement of the War
on Poverty. That is an issue that is very close to the bishops'
hearts. The bishops just yesterday sent up a letter encouraging
Congress to increase the minimum wage. We are celebrating
Poverty Awareness Month--January is Poverty Awareness Month--by
educating Catholics about the need to fight poverty. Our
Catholic Charities, our Campaign for Human Development, our
Catholic Relief Services are out there providing help to
millions of people in poverty, and I think doing--no offense
intended--doing so more effectively than many government
programs do.
We are very much in favor of the War on Poverty. But we
also insist, and so does Pope Francis, that the War on Poverty
must never become a war on the children of the poor. Pope
Francis has said it is not progressive to try to solve our
problems by eliminating a human life.
Mr. Franks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman be granted an additional 30 seconds and I
would ask the gentleman to yield to me if he would.
Mr. Franks. Without objection.
Mr. Cohen. I don't have a problem. I yield.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My only
point was he was just about to say on abortion the Pope said,
and then you cut him off and we never heard, and I would be
interested to hear what the Pope said on abortion.
Mr. Doerflinger. Oh, I am sorry. Just that this dignity of
life, even from the very beginning, is so intimately linked
with all our other human rights, that if you take a wrong turn
on that, it undermines the basis of all the other rights we are
trying to fight for. That has been said by Pope John Paul II
and Pope Benedict and it has been said by Pope Francis as well.
He said the church is not going to change its position on this.
If it changes its position on this, its whole moral logic about
the dignity and rights of every human being falls down.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Franks. I would now recognize the gentleman from Ohio--
I am sorry, the gentleman from Iowa, I am getting the folks
mixed up here, Mr. King. I am sorry, we have got the list here.
I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of
our witnesses for being here. I know you are all incredibly
good people, smart people, passionate about your issues. These
are complex issues. Sometimes in these hearings, we do truly
the forest for the trees when we get off on poverty, war,
peace, death penalty, those kinds of things, and we have to
keep trying to bring it back to something we can get our hands
around.
Ms. Wood, I would just like to ask you a question if I
could to try to get at that core. I had someone the other day
that is a friend of mine and they showed me a small video of
this new baby they were going to have that is going to be their
grandchild. And it was only a few weeks old and they were just
amazed at what they could see.
What do you call that? And I want to use the nomenclature
you want so that I am not offensive to you. But before that
entity is born, which I would call an unborn baby, but what
would be the vernacular that I should use that would be
appropriate?
Ms. Wood. Depending on the stage, it would be an embryo or
a fetus.
Mr. Forbes. Okay. In that embryo, and I will use that
terminology because it is the one that you pick, or we could
use fetus, either one, is there no procedure, no action that
could be taken against that embryo, no harm committed, no
matter how horrendous it might be, that you would feel should
be prohibited?
Ms. Wood. I think the key perspective we have to take here,
and this is, again, one of the unknowables, is what is the
circumstance of the individual woman that is trying to decide
whether to become a parent, what is her circumstances, what is
her health needs. And therefore, I think there is real--taking
it from that thinking where I don't stand in her shoes and none
of us can really know what is going on in any particular----
Mr. Forbes. And I appreciate that. I am sorry, I think my
volume----
Ms. Wood. And those decisions are made based on her health
needs and that of her physician----
Mr. Forbes. And I fully understand that. I am not arguing
with you. I am just saying it would be your position, as I
understand it, that there would be no procedure, no action
taken, no harm committed to that embryo by your definition,
that would be so egregious or so bad that we would prohibit it
so long as that mother or that woman said it was okay to do it.
Is that a fair interpretation?
Ms. Wood. I don't think it is a really relevant--I mean, I
don't fully grasp the question, because I think it is important
to say that there are--things need to be done with good medical
care in the context of high quality medical care.
Mr. Forbes. But that is not where we are. Where we are at
is trying to, one, get the baseline and then determine the
continuum and then determine what Federal dollars can be spent
on it. But as I understand your position, there is no
procedure, there is nothing that we could do to that embryo, in
your vernacular, as long as that mother or that lady said it
was okay, there is nothing we could do that you would feel
would be a bridge too far that should be prohibited?
Ms. Wood. I think I would still say that it would be
something within the determination of the woman and her health
professional, and if they came up to some--and I am not a
medical professional. I don't want to say what medical
procedures are correct or incorrect.
Mr. Forbes. I understand. But I am just saying that as I
understand you, there is no procedure, nothing, that would----
Ms. Wood. I think you are misconstruing my testimony.
Mr. Forbes. Then please clarify that for me. Tell me what
procedures you think would be too egregious to that embryo,
that even if the mother or the wife said it is okay that you
would think would be too far and shouldn't be allowed?
Ms. Wood. I think if the woman is getting unsafe abortion
care, that is egregious. I think there are medical procedures
which are not acknowledged or shown by evidence to be safe and
effective. And I think those need to be----
Mr. Forbes. But nothing as far as that embryo is concerned?
Ms. Wood. I think you don't separate in this case the
embryo and the mother. They are--the woman is in the
circumstance with her health care provider to make those
determinations.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, since my time is running out, I
would simply allow Mrs. Wood, if she has such procedures, such
actions that could be taken to the embryo that she thinks
should be prohibited, even if the mother says it is okay to do
it, if she would submit those for the record. But at this point
in time, through all my questioning, I have heard none. And so
if the record could just state that. And then if she would like
to supplement that, we would love to give her that opportunity.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Franks. Without objection, we would ask Ms. Wood to
provide us with that answer.
I would now recognize Mr. Deutch for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am struggling some to figure out why we are
here today. As the Ranking Member pointed out earlier, Federal
funds haven't been used for abortion in 30 years. Federal funds
have not been used for abortion in 30 years. So if the problem
that we are truly trying to solve is to keep taxpayers from
footing the bills for abortions, mission accomplished. However
you feel about it, mission accomplished.
But keeping taxpayer funds away from abortion isn't why we
are here. Instead, this Committee, on a regular basis, seems
intent on picking away at a constitutionally protected right
with misleading backdoor legislation. Whatever your personal
feelings about abortion, and whether you would want a woman in
your family to make that choice or not, we must all recognize
that that woman has a constitutionally protected choice to make
about her own body. To create new restrictions on the coverage
of abortion by private insurance companies in the guise of
taxpayer protection I think is outrageous, and I have some
questions for the witnesses that I just would like to probe.
Mr. Doerflinger, starting with you, I respect entirely your
belief based on sincere and strongly held religious tenants
that abortion is wrong, and I have the same respect for my
colleagues, for so many of my colleagues on this Committee. But
here is where we disagree. America is a multicultural society.
We don't all subscribe to same religion. I don't believe that
one religious view should be imposed on others, and using the
massive power of the Federal Government to force others to
share your religious views or penalize those who view
differently is a dangerous approach. So I just would like to
explore that with you, some.
If a majority in Congress had strongly held religious
belief that blood transfusions were immoral, would it be
appropriate for that majority to ban blood transfusions?
Mr. Doerflinger. We are not talking about banning anything,
sir.
Mr. Deutch. Would that be appropriate for the majority to
do that? That is the question I am asking you. We are just
engaging in some hypothetical situations, Mr. Doerflinger?
Mr. Doerflinger. No.
Mr. Deutch. And what about vaccinations? Some have strongly
held beliefs on the matter of vaccinations. In your view, would
it similarly be permissible for a majority in this Congress to
ban vaccinations?
Mr. Doerflinger. No.
Mr. Deutch. And for people who hold religious objections to
alcohol and tobacco, there is insurance, maybe this one gets
more at this issue that we are talking about today, there are
insurance plans that provide coverage for smoking cessation and
treatment of diseases borne out of alcohol and tobacco use. If
a majority of this Congress felt that there is no reason
taxpayer dollars should be used to support treating disease
borne out of alcohol addiction, should we be able to take that
action akin to what this legislation does with respect to
abortion?
Mr. Doerflinger. No, nor should the government force people
to fund those addictions.
Mr. Deutch. And let me just go on because I have a few more
and only limited time. I am sorry.
Mr. Doerflinger. But this is all irrelevant to the bill at
hand.
Mr. Deutch. It is not irrelevant. Ultimately, sir----
Mr. Doerflinger. You are making a fundamental----
Mr. Deutch. No, no, let me explain my own position, which I
thought I had already done but I will do it again. The
suggestion in this bill, what this legislation does is despite
the argument that we are protecting people from the Federal
Government, it says that the massive power of the Federal
Government can be used to shut down a constitutionally
protected right.
Mr. Doerflinger. That is absolutely false.
Mr. Deutch. That is what this legislation does.
Mr. Doerflinger. Have you read the bill, sir?
Mr. Deutch. I had, indeed, read the bill, Mr. Doerflinger.
Mr. Doerflinger. Section 304 says you are wrong.
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate your asking. And the other thing
that is so troubling to me, I have one more question, it is on
the same topic, just to finish out the list, embryonic stem
cell research. Now, I know that embryonic stem cell research,
despite its potential lifesaving revelations, is controversial
in some parts. Should Congress be able to impose tax penalties
on people who purchase insurance policies that cover cures that
were devised from embryonic stem cell research?
Mr. Doerflinger. There aren't going to be any cures from
embryonic stem cell research, and this is not about penalizing
it.
Mr. Deutch. Mr. Doerflinger, I don't have the time to
engage in that debate, but I would respectfully suggest to you
that perhaps as you have encouraged me to take another look at
the book, that you might well take a look at the research that
is being done right now in research centers across the country
before you suggest that there will be no treatments or cures to
come from embryonic stem cell research, and for all of the
people, for all the advances which have been made and the
people whose lives could be improved by it, I would ask you to
reconsider.
And, finally, I would just suggest to Professor Alvare that
she is exactly right, exactly right, when she says that what we
ought to be doing is focusing on a real women's agenda. I
agree. And my hope is, Mr. Chairman, that as we go forward in
this Congress, we might focus on a women's agenda that
acknowledges that women earn 70 cents on every dollar earned by
men, and that minimum wage increases is a women's issues
because two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, and that
if we raise the minimum wage, which is 30 lower than what it
was in 1968, that we will see an immediate reduction in poverty
among women, and that workers in 145 countries in the world
have earned paid sick days, and the U.S. has no mandatory paid
family medical leave policy. We are one of three counties in
the world and the only industrialized country to not have
mandated maternity leave.
This is an agenda for women that this House of
Representatives ought to take up. I appreciate your making that
point, Professor Alvare, and I yield back.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. And just for the record,
this bill does not cause the massive power of the Federal
Government to force people to make any decision. It simply
prevents the massive power of the Federal Government to force
taxpayers to pay for the killing of innocent unborn children.
I would now recognize Mr. King for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses.
And I would first disagree with Mr. Deutch on the statement
that the Federal Government hasn't funded abortions for 30
years, and I would ask Mr. Doerflinger if he could speak to
that.
Mr. Doerflinger. Yes, sir. It is for 35 years that the
Federal Government has been barred from using Federal funds for
the vast majority of abortions. What has changed, what is new,
and it is not a new effort by a cabal of mean-spirited
conspirators as Dr. Wood would like to say, is that Federal
funds have now moved into a vastly broader arena of the health
care system. We are no longer talking about Medicaid just for
the poor, we are talking about tax subsidies for the middle
class--who, by the way, are presumably far more able than the
poor to use their own money for abortion if they are not
getting Federal funds.
Mr. King. But I would ask you----
Mr. Doerflinger. Now we are beginning to get into this
arena----
Mr. King. I would take you back 30-35 years and speak to
Medicaid funding of abortions for rape and incest, and funding
for Planned Parenthood while we are at it.
Mr. Doerflinger. I am sorry, I didn't understand the
question.
Mr. King. Okay. First of all, has the Federal Government
funded abortion through Medicaid funding in the cases of rape
and incest over the last 30 years?
Mr. Doerflinger. Yes, for many years.
Mr. King. So those would be exceptions to Mr. Deutch's
statement----
Mr. Doerflinger. Certainly.
Mr. King. As the Federal Government, I don't want to say
``we'' in this case, the Federal Government has consistently
funded abortion.
Mr. Doerflinger. Since 1993.
Mr. King. Under Medicaid funding for the cases of rape and
incest?
Mr. Doerflinger. Yes.
Mr. King. I thank you. And then we look at something like,
I am pulling this number out of my head, I will say in the
upper $300-plus million a year that goes into Planned
Parenthood, is there a way that one could contrive, make the
argument that none of that funding goes to abortion that funds
Planned Parenthood?
Mr. Doerflinger. Well, the Title X family planning program
says that none of those funds can go to a program where
abortion is a method of family planning. I don't have evidence
that those funds are being directed toward abortion. I think
what Planned Parenthood usually does is have its Title X
program on family planning done at one clinic and then that
clinic refers women for abortions to another Planned Parenthood
clinic that is not a Title X clinic, and it does the abortions.
So there is some separation.
But even a Title X program, 1970 it dates from, put the
funding ban broader than just the procedure of abortion itself:
We don't want to put Federal funds into a program where these
are done. So the idea that by just not funding the abortion
procedure itself and taking that dollar out and switching it
around, that that respects the history of American law in this
area, is not true.
Mr. King. And you wouldn't have to have a Ph.D. in money
fungibility in order to figure out that $370-some million, some
of that spills over into funding abortion through Planned
Parenthood, even if it goes into administrative funds that in a
broader perspective administer the upper side of that program.
Mr. Doerflinger. Well, I don't want to get into funding
Planned Parenthood. I think that is a different issue.
Mr. King. I am happy to change the subject and I thank you
for your response.
Mr. Doerflinger. It is a little relevant. It is relevant to
this extent, that by giving all this money to Planned
Parenthood, we are giving money to the organization that does
hundreds of thousands of abortions a year, more than any other,
and I, for one, would like to see those funds devoted to
organizations that are more clearly committed to the needs of
women as well as their children.
Mr. King. I agree, and I thank you. And I would turn to Ms.
Wood and thinking back on your testimony, and part of your
testimony was the statement to the effect that in the case of
some women, abortion care costs more than their monthly rent. I
have trouble calculating that equation. Could you explain that
statement to the Committee?
Ms. Wood. Yes. Particularly because of the nature of the
very narrow exceptions that are allowed under H.R. 7, which is
life endangerment, rape or incest, those women who have health
concerns or fetal abnormalities may be facing later term
abortions which can cost in the thousands of dollars.
Mr. King. So you answer, then, would be, I think, in
exceptional cases, it may cost a woman more for a single
abortion than it does for her 1 month of rent check. Is that an
accurate way to depict what you said?
Ms. Wood. That is correct.
Mr. King. Okay. I wonder how many abortions a month does
she need at the going rate to keep up with the rent check?
Ms. Wood. I do know that it pushes women into poverty.
Mr. King. I accept your answer and I think it is fine. I
want to, in the seconds I have left, speak to this issue
because I have an opportunity to speak to it from the
perspective of the church. And I am a Roman Catholic, I believe
in good standing with the church and a faithful follower of
much of the teachings. I was very concerned about the Catholic
Church's involvement in the ObamaCare legislation as it moved
through this Congress and the accepting of the Stupak
amendment.
Here in the middle of this political arena, I believe that
the church was operating in a legislative arena that they
didn't quite understand; that they didn't see that there was
going to be a bait-and-switch on the Stupak amendment. That is
what happened. And I think the Church's desire on the principle
of trying to serve people and trying to get more people covered
by health insurance, the things that you talked about, Mr.
Doerflinger, about the dignity of every human person, which I
believe, I think they got too far ahead of themselves on this
and failed to understand that abortion was going to be part of
this package and that Rahm Emanuel was the person that came up
with the executive order that was going to amend ObamaCare
after the fact.
So I wanted to make this point in this hearing that I would
ask the Church to come talk to some of us on the inside of
these Chambers when these things come up and understand that we
should first put the principle, it is the church's principle,
of life first, and remember there is a principle of
subsidiarity too. And we can serve people better many times the
closer to the individuals that we can get those services than
going broadly with a national policy that turns this over to a
pro-abortion president.
My heart is sick at what happened with ObamaCare. The
conscience protection, the litigation with the conscience
protection is a result of this desire as is the abortion
questions before us today. And I think if we would reassert the
principle of subsidiarity, we would better protect the
principle of human life.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Franks. I would like to thank all of the individuals
for their questions----
Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could yield just
10 seconds for Mr. King to clarify that it is his position that
the Federal Government through Medicaid should not spend any
dollars on an abortion in the case of rape, incest or to
protect the life of the mother. Is that correct?
Mr. King. I didn't state a position.
Mr. Franks. So I would thank the witnesses for their
answers. I would thank the Members here for their questions. I
would suggest that the two most important questions asked today
here is does abortion take the life of a child, and, if so,
should taxpayers be forced to pay for it. And with that,
without objection, all Members--I am sorry, we have been joined
by Mr. Gohmert. I will now yield to him for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, and I appreciate the time and I
appreciate the witnesses' patience. I was at another hearing.
But I want to make sure that when my colleagues were bringing
up the Supreme Court mandated authority to abortion, that
people don't misunderstand. This hearing is not about the
elimination of abortion, but as the Supreme Court said in Rust
v. Sullivan, that in upholding Federal limits on abortion
funding, they said, ``By requiring that the grantee engage in
abortion-related activity separately from activity receiving
Federal funding, Congress has, consistent with our teachings,''
which I don't appreciate teachings from the court, they are
supposed to make decisions, not be teaching, especially being
lectured from people that are so duplicitous at times, but
separately from this Congress consistent with our teachings,
``not denied it the right to engage in abortion-related
activities. Congress has merely refused to fund such activities
out of the public fisc.''
And that is what we are talking about. And I hear people
across America that have been--they have had the wool pulled
over their eyes and they have been led to believe that some of
us are moving laws that will end the ability to get an
abortion, when actually what we are talking about here today is
the right of religious beliefs, the right of conscience.
And I know all three of our witnesses, from what I have
been hearing, has come over the television, you know, you are
all three very sympathetic to the plight of women, and nobody
is more so than I am. I have three daughters, and when my first
one I held in my hands, I could have held her in one but I
didn't want to risk, she was so premature, I would do anything
to keep her alive. And it is hard for me to fathom someone
wanting to kill what I call a child, what some may call an
embryo, when she is living in my hand at the same time a child
of the same age is living in someone's womb.
So I have been married for 35 years. I have three
daughters. There is no war on women. But when I hear of
countries around the world, and it seems to be creeping, the
thought creeping into America, that we could give a woman the
right to destroy a child in her womb because it happens to be a
female. It is happening all over the world, China especially,
babies being killed because they are a female? How long before
some who support abortion with all of their heart, mind, and
soul will say, wait a minute, wait a minute; the war on women
has become a war on women in the womb, and at some point, at
least please don't make people who see that as killing a child
pay for others to kill that child. That is what we are talking
about.
Legislation, we talk about Supreme Court rights, my friends
across the aisle about you can't go against Supreme Court
rights. The Supreme Court has said over and over and over that
forcing somebody to pay, against their religious beliefs,
against their heartfelt beliefs, to pay for someone else's
abortion is where the problem is. So I just think that hasn't
been made clearly enough from what I had been hearing.
And with regard to the Stupak amendment, Bart Stupak is my
friend, I haven't seen him in a long time, but what he didn't
know is what Mr. Rahm Emanuel said. ``I came up with an idea
for an executive order to allow the Stupak amendment not to
exist in law.'' Mary Poppins, a fictional character that I
never saw until I had kids said that is something easily made
and easily broken. It is not in law. We are trying to get it in
the law. And I appreciate all of you being here today. Thank
you.
Mr. Franks. Once again, there is always tremendous
intensities related to this debate, and sometimes people on
both sides want to suggest that the one side doesn't care about
the mother or the other side suggests that the one side doesn't
care about the child. But ultimately it is my belief that
history and time will point out that abortion on demand has
been the ultimate war on women and America is better than this.
With that, it concludes today's hearing. I want to thank
our witnesses for attending. Without objection, all Members
will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written
questions for the witnesses and additional materials for the
record.
I thank the witnesses and I thank the Members and the
audience, and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on the Constitution and Civil Justice
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________