On February 8, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3). The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health approved a similar measure, the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), on February 9 (see The Source, 2/11/11).
The measure, sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), permanently would prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion services, except in cases of forcible rape, incest victims who are minors, or to protect the life and health of the mother. Current law, also known as the Hyde Amendment, prohibits federal funding for abortions, but is not permanent and must be attached to appropriations legislation each year. The Hyde Amendment permits federal funding for abortions in all cases of rape and incest; Rep. Smith has indicated that the provisions of H.R. 3 would be modified to mirror the current law.
The bill also would prohibit discrimination against health care providers who do not to provide abortion services.
Richard M. Doerflinger, associate director, Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) spoke in favor of H.R. 3 and explained that “The fact is that Congress’s policy [on federal funding of abortion] has been remarkably consistent for decades, but the implementation of that policy in practice has been piecemeal, confusing, and sometimes sadly inadequate. Federal funds are prevented now from funding abortion by riders to a number of annual appropriations bills, as well as by provisions incorporated into specific authorizing legislation for programs such as the Department of Defense, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Title X family planning, and foreign assistance. On occasion a gap or loophole has been discovered that does not seem to be addressed by this patchwork of provisions, highlighting the need for a permanent and consistent policy to be applied across the federal government.” Mr. Doerflinger then provided several examples of such “loopholes” and said, “Obviously the current patchwork of almost a dozen legislative provisions, most of which must be reapproved each fiscal year, has not always adequately served the will of Congress or the American people in preventing all forms of federal subsidy for abortion. However, at least until last year, Congress has always acted to address the immediate problem once it has understood that problem and had an opportunity to address it. It should do no less today. In fact, it should finally put a stop to this ungainly mechanism and simply apply the principle of the Hyde amendment across the federal government once and for all. If a bill like H.R. 3 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 final legislation would not have been so badly compromised by provisions that place unborn human lives at grave risk.”
Sara Rosenbaum, chair, Department of Health Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, focused her testimony on “the provisions of H.R. 3 that relate to the tax treatment of health insurance and health care expenditures and to its non-discrimination provision.” She argued that “For more than 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has focused on public spending by the federal government, including expenditures through appropriated funds as well as the government’s expenditures for health benefits offered to federal employees. If enacted into law, H.R. 3 would dramatically expand the concept of public expenditure in order to reach laws governing tax treatment of private health expenditures.” Ms. Rosenbaum added, “A separate matter is how the private insurance and health benefits industries would react to this federal health coverage exclusion…The vast majority of typical products sold in the employer market appear to cover medically indicated abortion services. Because products that violate the exclusion would no longer qualify for favorable tax treatment, the industry can be expected to scramble quickly to come into compliance. Where the exclusion is as complex and fact-driven as that laid out in H.R. 3, compliance poses great difficulties. What evidence would be needed to document a rape, for example? Would the IRS provide guidance on allowable – versus excluded – procedures related to rape? What evidence would be required to justify coverage related to incest? What information would a claimant have to submit? What information would be relevant during the review or an appeal of a coverage denial? What evidence would justify an abortion involving a ‘physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death’?”
Cathy Cleaver Ruse, senior fellow for Legal Studies, Family Research Council, also testified.
