Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3170, Financial Services And General Government Appropriations Act, 2010

Statement

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, Ms. Norton earlier suggested that prohibiting funding for abortion, over which we have constitutional jurisdiction, is none of our affair. I would respectfully submit, Madam Speaker, defending innocent and inconvenient children, protecting them from violence, is always our affair.

Human rights, and the defense of human rights, protecting the weak and the most vulnerable, is always our affair. So I would respectfully ask Members to reject this rule.

Last week, President Obama told, of all people, the Pope, that he wanted to reduce abortion. Oh, really? This week, pursuant to Mr. Obama's 2010 budget policy request, the House is getting ready to reverse a longstanding pro-life policy that prohibits taxpayer funding for abortions except in the rare cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Today's vote isn't just about whether pro-life Americans will be forced to subsidize dismembering unborn children to death, or paying to poison unborn children to death, or delivering premature children to effectuate their destruction, children who are too immature to withstand life outside of the womb. Our vote today is also about government policies that are hurting women, abandoning women to the abortionists. We know that abortion hurts women. The evidence grows every day.

Retaining current law, and that's what the Lincoln Davis, Todd Tiahrt amendment would have done and should do if this rule goes down, actually reduces abortion. Some of my colleagues have already pointed this out. It couldn't be more clear. The evidence is in. When you deny funding for abortion, the numbers go down. So when President Obama says he wants to reduce abortions, the answer is to take away the public subsidy.

My friend on the other side said the bill restricts no Federal funds. We have jurisdiction over all the funds with regard to this issue. If we want to save a life, please don't use that kind of very thin and, I think, very shallow argument. Saving a life in the District of Columbia is no different than saving a life anywhere in the United States of America. These are our children. We need to protect and safeguard those children from the violence of abortion.

If you want to reduce abortion, Madam Speaker, and colleagues, don't subsidize it. The Gutmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, has said that between 20 and 35 percent do not get abortions under the Medicaid program because of the Hyde amendment.

There are millions of children walking in America. There are thousands of children in the District of Columbia who today are enjoying their summer vacation, playing ball, having fun, getting ready to go back to school in late August and early September, because the subsidy was not there to effectuate their very painful demise through abortion.

Abortion is child abuse. It is violence against children. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Skip to top
Back to top