Statement on No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Mister Speaker, Since coming to Congress in 2001, I have strongly supported the longstanding policy that prohibits federal funding of abortion. However, I cannot in good conscience support H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, which goes far beyond current policy by using the tax code to punish families and small businesses for the private insurance that they already have.

The thirty-year precedent to restrict the federal funding of abortion, commonly known as the Hyde Amendment, has rightfully served as a guarantee to citizens that the federal government shall not use tax-payer dollars to pay for abortions beyond the unique exceptions of rape, incest, or life endangerment of the mother. The Hyde Amendment is a common sense measure to prevent the federal funding of something that many oppose on moral or religious grounds. I am certainly one of those people. However, this bill does much more than make this policy permanent federal law.

For the first time ever, H.R. 3 would expand the definition of federal funding to include tax deductions and credits of private income or expenses. In other words, current restrictions on government spending would also be applied to the private dollars families and small businesses decide to spend on health coverage. This is an unparalleled reinterpretation of federal funding that could have far-reaching consequences for families, businesses, and even religious institutions.

This bill explicitly prohibits individuals and small businesses that elect a private insurance plan with abortion coverage from claiming certain tax deductions, credits and exclusions for health care expenses, even if that abortion coverage is never used but happens to be part of a plan that otherwise works best for a particular family. Such a substantial change in federal policy would raise taxes on families and small businesses for private coverage that they are already struggling to afford.

This prohibition is also not equally applied to large employers, who can continue offering abortion coverage, creating an uneven and unjust application of abortion policy within the tax code. Further, since the IRS is charged with enforcing tax-payer compliance, this bill raises serious concerns over how the government might audit "questionable" benefit claims by women who receive an abortion as a result of sexual assault or legitimate life-threatening medical conditions.

It is also important to note that taking the unprecedented step of redefining "federal funding" to include the benefit of a tax exemption could raise political and legal questions for churches and other religious organizations which operate under similar restrictions as current law. Many religious institutions either receive segregated federal funds or tax exemptions to run activities such as adoption services, homeless shelters and food banks. This precedent challenges the very pro-life activities that these churches promote.

Although this bill contains many provisions that I do support, it simply goes too far by redefining the very meaning of federal funding.

Finally, we must not lose focus on the truly urgent priorities of Americans right now, namely economic security and deficit reduction. We are five months into this session and Republicans have yet to offer a single bill to help create jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the current version of this bill, stop allowing divisive social issues to dominate our time, and turn our attention to the true economic and fiscal challenges in front of us.

Source