BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I thank my good friend Mr. Nugent for yielding and thank him for his leadership.
Madam Speaker, America has changed and today is more pro-life than ever. By ever-increasing majorities, especially among our young people, the megatrend is to protect the child in the womb from the insidious violence of abortion and to protect women from the trauma, often lifelong emotional harm, of procuring an abortion.
This paradigm shift, reflected in all the major polls, is the direct result of pro-life education, pregnancy care centers, pro-life laws, including funding bans, informed consent and parental involvement statutes, the molding of consciences by the faith-based community and advances in ultrasound that have shattered the pernicious pro-abortion myth that the baby in the womb isn't a human person or alive or of innate value.
Even Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director Abby Johnson was shocked into her new pro-life view by witnessing an ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13-week-old baby who was dismembered and pulverized in real time right before her eyes at that Texas clinic.
But perhaps the greatest reason for the huge shift in public opinion in favor of life is the growing number of extraordinarily brave post-abortive women who deeply regret their abortions and today are silent no more.
One post-abortive woman told a group outside the U.S. Supreme Court, and I heard her say it, that as she lay on the operating table, the abortionist laughed as he inserted a sharp knife into her womb and said, ``Oh, it is trying to get away.'' Partially sedated, the woman immediately pleaded with the nurse and doctor to stop the abortion and to spare her child. They told her to shut up. Today she is deeply wounded by that cruel assault, that lethal assault on her baby.
Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, has had two abortions. Today she has joined the growing coalition of women who deeply regret their abortions. Out of deep personal pain and compassion for others, they challenge us to respect, protect and tangibly love both mother and child.
The women of Silent No More give post-abortive women a safe place to grieve and a roadmap to reconciliation. And to society at large, and especially to Congress, these brave women compel us to rethink and to reassess the cheap sophistry of the abortion culture. Reflecting on her famous uncle's speech, the ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. Alveda King asks us: ``How can the dream survive if we murder the children?''
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that ending public funding for abortions saves lives. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute in June of 2009 in a report said ``approximately one-fourth of women who would have had Medicaid-funded abortions if the Hyde amendment didn't exist instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.''
I vividly remember the late Congressman Henry Hyde being moved to tears when he learned that the Hyde amendment had likely saved the lives of more than 1 million children, who today are perhaps in school and getting ready for summer vacation, perhaps playing sports, or, if they are in their twenties or thirties, building their own families.
H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, comprehensively ensures that all programs authorized and appropriated by the Federal Government, including ObamaCare, including the Hyde amendment, do not subsidize the killing of babies except in the rare cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.
H.R. 3 ends the current IRS policy allowing tax-favored treatment for abortions under itemized deductions, HSAs, MSAs and FSAs. H.R. 3 also ends the use of tax credits under ObamaCare to purchase insurance plans that include abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.
Today we seek to end taxpayer complicity in abortion violence. No taxpayer should be coerced to pay, subsidize or facilitate the dismemberment, the chemical poisoning, the starvation--and remember, that is how RU-486 works; it first starves the baby to death, then the other chemical brings on delivery of a dead baby--or the suctioning to death of a child and the harming of women.
Regarding conscience rights, H.R. 3 protects pro-life health care entities by discrimination by State, local and Federal governments and empowers the courts with the authority to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of conscience.
The need for this protection is great. According to the Alliance of Catholic Health Care, which represents California's Catholic health systems and hospitals, ``California's Catholic hospitals operate in a public policy environment that regularly challenges the concept of conscience rights protections by attempting to coerce them and other health care providers to perform, be complicit in or pay for abortions.''
So I urge Members to support this legislation. It is backed by 228 cosponsors.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT