Madam Speaker, I rise today in strongest opposition to H.R. 3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' Not only is this bill taking up valuable floor time, but it is redundant and goes beyond a woman's right to control her body by tinkering with the tax code and private health insurance plans.
It is a mystery to me why we keep wasting time on legislation that addresses abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, and there are established policies that prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion services except in very narrow circumstances. The President has announced he will veto this bill should it actually reach his desk.
Almost 9 percent of Americans are out of work, yet the House of Representatives has not taken one step to address this pressing national concern.
My Republican colleagues--who are strong advocates for less government--consistently want the federal government to oversee a woman's reproductive rights. This legislation jeopardizes the health of pregnant women who may be suffering from cancer or another devastating disease, by limiting their ability to obtain adequate insurance in the private market.
House Republicans are manipulating the tax code to make sure abortions are out of reach for low income and in some cases, even middle class women. This legislation would also take away benefits that women insured in the private market currently have by imposing tax penalties on individuals and small businesses whose insurance plans include any kind of abortion services.
And if all this weren't enough, H.R. 3 would once again tell the District of Columbia how to spend its own money. It would codify policy included in the CR usurping the city council's authority to use locally raised revenue to provide abortion care for its low-income residents, an unfair restriction which Congress lifted in 2009 and reimposed this year.
Why should the District of Columbia be constantly used as a Petri dish for Republican policy experiments. It just isn't right.
Abortion is a hard choice for any woman. It is a decision that should be made by her, her family and her physician--without the federal government restricting access to services.
Let's move on to legislation that will help grow our economy and get people back to work.
I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3