Christ First Forum

House Dems Say They Oppose Hyde Amendment, Support Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

Wednesday, February 09, 2011
By Penny Starr

Diana DeGette

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) (at podium) joined other House Democrats for a press conference on Wednesday to express their opposition to two Republican-sponsored bills that would prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – A group of House Democrats -- asked directly if they support the use of federal (taxpayer) funds to pay for abortion -- said yes, they do.

At press conference on Wednesday, the Democrats also voiced their opposition to two Republican-sponsored bills that would prohibit federal funding of abortion.

CNSNews.com asked if any of the House members at the press conference supported the use of federal funds for abortion.

“There is not one person in this room that would favor -– no, all of us in this room oppose the Hyde Amendment,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said. “All of us in this room oppose restricting federal funds for abortion.”

The Hyde Amendment, created in 1976, is attached each year to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services, and it prevents any program under HHS, such as Medicaid, from paying for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said no one in the room is happy about the Hyde Amendment, including its author, the late Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.). He also said the Republican-sponsored bills barring taxpayer funding of abortion "declare war on women."

“We’re in a tense peace on this issue in that we’re an anti-choice Congress in a pro-choice country. And so we’ve worked out this kind of cold peace treaty that I’m not happy about, and I think none of us are happy about,” Weiner said.

The two bills, H.R. 3 and H.R. 358, are sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), respectively.

Smith’s bill would prohibit federal dollars from being used for any health care plans that include abortion, except in the case of rape, incest or a health issue that endangers the woman’s life. Pitts’ bill also prohibits federal dollars from being used for health care plans that include abortion, and it also protects the rights of health care providers who are morally opposed to abortion from being discriminated against.

Other House Democrats who took part in Wednesday's press conference include Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), Lois Capps (D-Calif.), Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)

The pro-abortion advocacy groups attending the event included the National Abortion Federation, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Catholics for Choice and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Transcript of Q and A:

CNSNews.com: My question is whether anyone here is for use of federal funds for abortion?

Diana DeGette (D-Colo.): There is not one person in this room that would favor – no, all of us in this room oppose the Hyde Amendment. All of us in this room oppose restricting federal funds for abortion.

But that is beside the point because anybody who says that this just simply extends the Hyde Amendment and is not new restrictions it is incorrect. There is no law right now that says that some sort of indirect benefit it tantamount to federal funding.

What the Hyde Amendment says; the Hyde Amendment says in the annual HHS appropriation bill that no federal funds shall be directly used to pay for abortions. That’s what the Hyde Amendment says. This extreme measure goes far, far beyond that.

Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.): We’re in a tense peace on this issue in that we’re an anti-choice Congress in a pro-choice country. And so we’ve worked out this kind of cold peace treaty that I’m not happy about and I think none of us are happy about. But it sustained our proceedings around here for a long time.

I mean this was not a new thing. The Hyde Amendment’s not a new thing. And so what this is (is) an attempt to go beyond what was this compromise, which didn’t please everyone – it doesn’t please Henry Hyde, it probably, it certainly doesn’t please anyone in this room; anyone on this side of us.

But this goes far, far beyond that. And so this is ending the peace and declaring war on women and anyone who knows a woman.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hou ... strictions