Can You Feel the Excitement? Kamala Is Back and in the Lead!
The AI Race Needs a Little More ‘I’ in It
Dana Bash Recalibrates Both Sides of ICE Protest, and Sen. Cruz Is Guilty...
A Republican Who Wants to Raise Taxes
Welcome to the Old World Order
The Midterms: It's Not About 'Affordability' -- It's About Trump Hatred
Trump’s First Year Delivered the Most Meaningful Education Reforms in Decades
Pro-Abortion James Talarico's Factless Campaign for the Senate
How America First Policies Can Lead to Even More Growth in 2026
If You Own It, You Should Be Able to Fix It
Minnesota Malfeasance Is a Preview of Biden-Era Fraud and Waste
Why Children Under 13 Should Be Banned From Social Media
A Refreshing Year for LGBT Conservatives
Jury Convicts Alleged Minneapolis Gang Member in Fatal Gas Station Attack
Former TD Bank Worker Helped Launder $26 Million Through Shell Accounts, Prosecutors Say
OPINION

Bills would bar federal funds for abortion

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
WASHINGTON (BP)--Pro-life members of Congress reinforced Jan. 20 their intention to prohibit federal funding of abortion by introducing two bills, one that would accomplish the feat across the board and one that would do so in last year's health-care law.
Advertisement

The introduction of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3, and Protect Life Act, H.R. 358, came one day after the House of Representatives voted 245-189 to repeal the health-care measure dubbed "Obamacare" by its critics. One of the reasons for the effort to rescind the 2010 law was its authorization of subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith, R.-N.J., with 161 cosponsors, would institute a permanent, government-wide ban on federal funds and subsidies for abortion. It would serve to standardize bans on abortion funding that now exist in various federal programs, many of which have to be approved each year, and make certain the prohibition extends to all agencies.

The Protect Life Act, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts, R.-Pa., with 89 cosponsors, would amend last year's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to bar federal money from paying for abortion or abortion coverage.

Speaker of the House John Boehner called Smith's bill "one of our highest legislative priorities" and designated it as H.R. 3 to demonstrate its importance.

"A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the people and ought to be the law of the land," Boehner said at a Jan. 20 news conference announcing its introduction.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) urged about 90 House members to sign on as original cosponsors of the government-wide funding ban.

"We find it unconscionable that a single taxpayer dollar be funneled for abortion," ERLC President Richard Land said in a Jan. 19 letter to the House members. "With the adoption of the bill, concerns on abortion funding would be significantly abated."

Advertisement

If approved by the House, both legislative pieces face unpromising prospects in the Senate, which is not as pro-life as the House. In addition, President Obama would be expected to veto either bill that reached his desk.

Smith and Pitts both appealed to Obama regarding their proposed bans.

"President Obama said he wants abortions to be rare," Smith said. "To Mr. Obama I say, 'Here is a bill for you.'"

Smith cited a report by the Guttmacher Institute -- a pro-choice research organization -- that a ban on government funding of abortion reduces the number of procedures by 25 percent.

Pitts said Obama agreed with the goals of the bills and demonstrated it by issuing an executive order "trying to prove his support for prohibiting federal funding for abortion" after he signed health-care reform into law in March. "If he chooses to stand by his word, he should have no problem signing both bills into law," Pitts said of the president.

Pro-life advocates inside and outside the House reject Obama's executive order as ineffective. They point out the president could rescind his order at any time and contend the federal courts would rule in favor of the language in the law, not that in the executive order.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) also challenged Obama.

"If President Obama seeks to obstruct these bills, that will provide additional glaring evidence that his professions of opposition to public funding of abortion are phony," NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said in a written statement.

Advertisement

Johnson also said, "Public opinion is strongly against federal subsidies for abortion, and any member of Congress who is truly opposed to federal funding of abortion will vote for both of these bills."

Smith's bill also would institute conscience clause protections for pro-life, health-care workers.

Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois is the lead Democratic cosponsor on both Smith and Pitts' bills.

In another pro-life effort to halt abortion-related funding, Rep. Mike Pence, R.-Ind., introduced Jan. 7 the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, H.R. 217. Pence's bill would bar Title X family planning money from going to organizations that perform abortions. That would include Planned Parenthood, the leading Title X recipient and the country's No. 1 abortion provider. As of Jan. 21, Pence's bill had 149 cosponsors.

--30—

Tom Strode is Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press.

Copyright (c) 2011 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press www.BPNews.net

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement