diff --git "a/data/CHRG-112/CHRG-112hhrg64404.txt" "b/data/CHRG-112/CHRG-112hhrg64404.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/CHRG-112/CHRG-112hhrg64404.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,2116 @@
+
+ - NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT
+
+[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
+[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
+
+
+
+ NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT
+
+=======================================================================
+
+ HEARING
+
+ BEFORE THE
+
+ SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
+
+ OF THE
+
+ COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
+ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
+
+ ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
+
+ FIRST SESSION
+
+ ON
+
+ H.R. 3
+
+ __________
+
+ FEBRUARY 8, 2011
+
+ __________
+
+ Serial No. 112-9
+
+ __________
+
+ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
+
+
+ Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
+
+
+
+ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
+64-404 WASHINGTON : 2011
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
+http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
+
+ COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
+
+ LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
+F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
+ Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
+HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
+ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
+BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
+DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
+STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
+DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
+MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
+J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
+STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
+TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
+LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
+JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
+TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
+JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
+TOM REED, New York LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
+TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
+TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania
+TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
+DENNIS ROSS, Florida
+SANDY ADAMS, Florida
+BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
+
+ Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
+ Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
+ ------
+
+ Subcommittee on the Constitution
+
+ TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman
+
+ MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman
+
+STEVE CHABOT, Ohio JERROLD NADLER, New York
+J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
+STEVE KING, Iowa JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
+JIM JORDAN, Ohio ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
+ Virginia
+
+ Paul B. Taylor, Chief Counsel
+
+ David Lachmann, Minority Staff Director
+
+
+ C O N T E N T S
+
+ ----------
+
+ FEBRUARY 8, 2011
+
+ Page
+
+ THE BILL
+
+H.R. 3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act''............. 4
+
+ OPENING STATEMENTS
+
+The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the
+ State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
+ Constitution................................................... 1
+The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from
+ the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the
+ Constitution................................................... 13
+
+ WITNESSES
+
+Richard M. Doerflinger, Associate Director of the Secretariat of
+ Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic
+ Bishops (USCCB)
+ Oral Testimony................................................. 21
+ Prepared Statement............................................. 24
+Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Senior Fellow for Legal Studies, Family
+ Research Council
+ Oral Testimony................................................. 34
+ Prepared Statement............................................. 36
+Sara Rosenbaum, Harold and Jane Hirsh Professor, Health Law and
+ Policy, and Chair, Department of Health Policy, The George
+ Washington University School of Public Health and Health
+ Services
+ Oral Testimony................................................. 45
+ Prepared Statement............................................. 47
+
+ LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
+
+Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a
+ Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
+ Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution............... 16
+Prepared Statement of the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, a
+ Representative in Congress from the District of Columbia....... 18
+Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
+ Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, Ranking
+ Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on
+ the Constitution............................................... 61
+
+ APPENDIX
+ Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
+
+Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mike Quigley, a
+ Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and
+ Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution....................... 71
+Addendum to the Prepared Statement of Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Senior
+ Fellow for Legal Studies, Family Research Council.............. 74
+Letter from Cardinal Danile N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston/
+ Houston, Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities, United
+ States Conferece of Catholic Bishop............................ 75
+Letter from Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, President and CEO, Catholic
+ Health Association of the United States........................ 77
+Prepared Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).. 79
+Prepared Statement of the Center for Reproductive Rights......... 88
+Material submitted by Cory L. Richards, Executive Vice President,
+ and Vice President for Public Policy, the Guttmacher Institute. 101
+Prepared Statement of Douglas Laube, MD, MEd, Board Chair,
+ Physicians for Reroductive Choice and Health................... 112
+Letter from Cassing Hammond, MD, Director, Section of Family
+ Planning & Contraception, Associate Professor of Obstetrics and
+ Gyncology, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, and Chair,
+ National Abortion Federation Board of Director................. 116
+Prepared Statement of the National Abortion Federation........... 119
+Prepared Statement of Silvia Henriquez, Executive Director, the
+ National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.............. 125
+Prepared Statement of Debra Ness, President, and Judith Lichtman,
+ Senior Advisor, the National Partnership for Women & Families.. 128
+Prepared Statement of Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and
+ Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism............. 132
+Prepared Statement of Nancy Keenan, President, NARAL Pro-Choice
+ American Foundation............................................ 134
+Prepared Statement of Nancy Ratzan, President, National Council
+ of Jewish Woman................................................ 143
+Material submitted by the Center for Reproductive Rights......... 146
+Material submitted by DC Vote.................................... 151
+Press Release from the National Abortion Federation (NAF)........ 152
+
+
+ NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT
+
+ ----------
+
+
+ TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011
+
+ House of Representatives,
+ Subcommittee on the Constitution,
+ Committee on the Judiciary,
+ Washington, DC.
+
+ The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:05 p.m., in
+room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trent
+Franks (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
+ Present: Representatives Franks, Pence, Chabot, King,
+Jordan, Nadler, Quigley, Conyers, and Scott.
+ Also Present: Representatives Goodlatte and Jackson Lee.
+ Staff Present: (Majority) Paul Taylor, Subcommittee Chief
+Counsel; Sarah Vance, Clerk; (Minority) Heather Sawyer,
+Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member.
+ Mr. Franks. The Subcommittee will come to order.
+ Good afternoon to all of you. Pursuant to notice, the
+Subcommittee on the Constitution meets today to consider H.R.
+3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This is the
+very first Constitution Subcommittee hearing in this, the new
+112th Congress, and it is such a privilege to be the new
+Chairman of the Subcommittee and to offer a heartfelt welcome
+to all of the Members, the witnesses, and the observers.
+ Let me take a little side note here. Rule XI of the House
+rules provides that the Chairman of the Committee may punish
+breaches of order and decorum by censure and exclusion from the
+hearing. Presently we have people standing and it makes the
+order not in order in the hearing room. So members of the
+audience must behave in an orderly fashion. I say that
+respectfully, but otherwise they will be removed from the
+hearing room. So I hope you all will sit down.
+ Daniel Webster once said, Hold on, my friends, to the
+Constitution and to the Republic for which in stands, for
+miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000
+years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution
+for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be
+anarchy throughout the world.
+ Our Founding Fathers wrote the words of our Constitution
+down for us because they did not want us to forget their true
+meaning, or to otherwise fall prey to those who would
+deliberately undermine or destroy it. This has always been the
+preeminent reason why we write down documents or agreements or
+declarations or constitutions in the first place: To preserve
+their original meaning and intent.
+ Protecting the lives of innocent Americans and their
+constitutional rights is why those of us in this room are all
+here, and indeed this is why Congress itself exists. The
+phrases in the Fifth and 14th Amendments capsulate our entire
+Constitution when they proclaim that no person shall be
+deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
+law.
+ Those words are a crystal clear reflection of the
+Proclamation and the Declaration of Independence that declares
+that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator
+with certain unalienable rights, those being life, liberty, and
+the pursuit of happiness. Those words are the essence of the
+America, and our commitment to them for more than two centuries
+has set America apart as the flagship of human freedom in the
+entire world. And yet unspeakable suffering and tragedy have
+occurred whenever we have strayed from those words.
+ Our own United States Supreme Court ruled that millions of
+men, women, and children were not persons under the
+Constitution because their skin was black. It took a horrible
+Civil War and the deaths of over 600,000 Americans to reverse
+that unspeakable tragedy. And we saw the same arrogance in 1973
+when the Supreme Court said the unborn child was not a person
+under the Constitution. And we have since witnessed the silent
+deaths of now over 50 million innocent little baby boys and
+baby girls who died without the protection the Constitution
+gave them and without the protection this Congress should have
+given them.
+ H.R. 3 is a bipartisan bill that takes a step to turn
+America away from that tragedy. The bill forms part of the new
+majority's pledge to America, codifying the Hyde amendment by
+permanently prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion across all
+Federal programs. In addition, the bill protects health care
+workers' rights of conscience so that they cannot be coerced to
+participate in abortion procedures as a condition their
+employment.
+ The Capitol Police are in the process of restoring order
+here and we are going to go ahead and continue and would ask
+them to continue.
+ The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, directed that this
+bill receive the designation H.R. 3 as ``one of our highest
+legislative priorities.'' H.R. 3 is intended to continue the
+same policy as the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment prohibits
+taxpayer funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest,
+or to save the life of the mother.
+ Contrary to discussion in the press, this bill with not be
+a departure from the decades of implementation of the Hyde
+amendment policy. Sponsors of the bill are reviewing clarifying
+language for amending H.R. 3 to assure lawmakers that funding
+policy as it relates to cases of rape will not be altered by
+this bill.
+ The second part of this bill provides necessary protection
+for health care workers who will not perform or refer for
+abortions as a matter of conscience. Those who believe that a
+pregnancy is a circumstance which presents with two patients,
+the mother and the unborn child, cannot in good conscience do
+harm to that unborn child and therefore should not be coerced
+into performing abortions as would be required under the
+current health care system.
+ Now, it is said that government is what it spends. Planned
+Parenthood alone aborts over a quarter of a million unborn
+babies every year, all the while it receives hundreds of
+millions of dollars in Federal, State or local taxpayer funds.
+This legislation is really about whether the role of America's
+government is to continue to fund a practice that takes the
+lives of over 1 million little Americans every year.
+ Even some of those who do not consider themselves pro-life
+strongly object to their taxpayers going to pay for abortion--
+their dollars.
+ Now I believe the intensity of this debate has something to
+do with our collective conscience. Perhaps it is because
+ultrasound technology has begun to demonstrate to all
+reasonable observers both the humanity of the victim and the
+inhumanity of what is done to them.
+ We are beginning to realize as Americans that somehow we
+are bigger than abortion on demand and that 50 million dead
+children is enough. We are beginning to ask the real question,
+does abortion take the life of a child? If it does not, then
+all of this here today is a non-issue. But if it does, then
+those of us sitting here in the chambers of freedom are in the
+midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of
+humanity.
+ Thomas Jefferson said that the care of human life and its
+happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object
+of good government. And ladies and gentlemen, using taxpayer
+dollars to fund the killing of innocent, unborn children does
+not liberate their mothers. It is not the cause for which those
+lying out under the white stones in Arlington National Cemetery
+died, and it is not good government.
+ Abraham Lincoln called upon all of us to remember America's
+Founding Fathers and, ``Their enlightened belief that nothing
+stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the
+world to be trodden on or degraded and imbruted by its fellows.
+He reminded those he called posterity that when in the distant
+future some man, some factions, some interests should set up a
+doctrine that some were not entitled to life, liberty, and the
+pursuit of happiness that ``their posterity"--that's us, ladies
+and gentlemen--"their posterity might look up again to the
+Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the
+battle which their fathers began.''
+ May that be the commitment of all of us today. I look so
+forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I now recognize the
+Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening
+statement.
+ [The bill, H.R. 3, follows:]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ __________
+ Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to note
+that this is our first Subcommittee hearing of the 112th
+Congress and your first as Chairman. I want to congratulate
+you. Although our jurisdiction includes some of the most
+difficult issues before the Congress, some of which have
+historically been very contentious, I look forward to working
+with you in the spirit of comity to give what we both know are
+strong and sincerely held views the fair hearing that they
+deserve.
+ Having chaired this Subcommittee for two Congresses and
+having served as the Ranking Member for several Congresses
+before that, I appreciate what a challenge this Subcommittee
+can be and I look forward to working with you.
+ Today's hearing concerns what may be the most difficult and
+divisive issue we will have the opportunity to consider: A
+woman's right to make decisions about her own body. Whether to
+become pregnant, whether to continue a pregnancy, or whether to
+terminate it has long been a right protected by the
+Constitution. Whether or not people think that is a good idea
+or a fair reading of the Constitution or morally correct, it
+remains the law of the land.
+ Congress has for more than three decades used economic
+coercion to try to prevent women from exercising their
+constitutionally protected choice by prohibiting use of Federal
+funds for abortions, the only legal health care procedure
+subject to such a ban. Until now that coercion was directed
+against the poor and against women dependent upon the
+government for health care, military personnel and their
+dependents, prison inmates, and Federal employees. We have thus
+developed a two-tiered system in which people with means have
+the right to choose but members of vulnerable populations do
+not.
+ Now comes the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3,
+which is really misnamed, because it has very little to do with
+taxpayer funding for abortions, it goes way beyond that
+question and places government in the middle of private choices
+by families and businesses about how they wish to spend their
+own health care dollars. This legislation represents an
+entirely new front in the war against women and their families.
+ After 2 years of hearing my Republican colleagues complain
+that government should not meddle in the private insurance
+market or in private health care choices, I was stunned to see
+legislation so obviously designed to do exactly that.
+ It seems that many Republicans believe in freedom, provided
+no one uses that freedom in a way they find objectionable. That
+is a strange understanding of freedom. Even more stunning, this
+bill contains a huge tax increase on families, businesses, and
+the self-employed if they spend their own money--let me repeat
+that, their own money on insurance that covers abortions or
+abortion services.
+ The power to tax is the power to destroy and here the
+taxing power is being used quite deliberately to destroy the
+right of every American to make private health care decisions
+free from government interference. A Republican tax increase,
+Republican support for government intrusion into private health
+care choices--I am supposed to say you heard it here first, but
+if you read the bill you saw it there first.
+ I am equally surprised to find out that my Republican
+colleagues think that a tax exemption or credit is a form of
+government funding. What happened to all the about the rhetoric
+about its being our money, or does that apply only in certain
+circumstances? Will we now have to call every tax exemption or
+credit a form of government funding for the recipient? I am
+sure there will be many businesses, charities, and religious
+denominations that will be alarmed to find out that they are
+receiving government subsidies.
+ I also join many other Americans in being absolutely
+horrified--well, before I get to that, let me say that among
+others who should be horrified are all the churches, and
+synagogues and mosques that will now presumably have to give up
+their tax exemptions, because if tax exemptions are government
+subsidies then that is a direct establishment of religion and
+the logic is inexorable. Either a tax exemption is government
+funding, in which case we cannot give tax exemptions to
+churches and synagogues and mosques, or it is not, in which
+case this bill has no claim on anything.
+ I also join many other Americans being absolutely horrified
+that the sponsors of this bill seem not to know what rape and
+incest are. Rape, according to this legislation, is only
+``forcible'' rape. Date rape drugs, sex with minors, with the
+mentally impaired are, at least according to the sponsors of
+this bill, not really rape anymore. Incest also is no longer
+incest. Instead it is now only incest with a minor that we have
+to be concerned about, which means I guess that incest with a
+high school senior doesn't count.
+ Have the extremes really taken such a hold on this debate
+that we cannot even agree to help children and teenagers who
+are the victims of predators? Is there no compassion left in
+this Capitol?
+ I have heard that the rape and incest provisions are going
+to be removed from this bill or modified because of the outcry
+they have raised. But first, we have not seen such an amendment
+yet. And second, what does this provision, even if amended,
+what does the provision in the first place say about the
+mindset and intent of the sponsors of the legislation?
+ There is also a provision in this bill that in the name of
+conscience of health care providers would allow any health care
+provider or institution to refuse to provide an abortion to a
+woman who would die if she doesn't get the abortion. They would
+be allowed to refuse to provide an abortion in the emergency
+room, even if the medical judgment is that without that
+abortion she would die. They would let that woman die right
+there in the emergency room and the government would be
+powerless to do anything to penalize that or to prevent it. In
+fact, if the government, under the provisions of this bill,
+insisted that the hospital not let the woman die, section 311
+of the bill would allow the hospital to sue the government and
+in the case of a State or locality strip that community of all
+Federal funding until the jurisdiction relented and allowed
+women to die if they needed an abortion to prevent the death.
+That is the new definition it seems of pro-life.
+ So, Mr. Chairman, let's start off on the right foot. The No
+Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act is not really about taxpayer
+funding; it is about government interfering with private
+healthcare decisions. It is not about protecting the innocent;
+it is about creating appalling, even life threatening
+situations for women. It is a tax increase of historic
+proportions.
+ Finally, if passed, it would eliminate the private market
+for abortion insurance coverage. The chief sponsor of this
+legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, has been
+very clear about his purpose. When he introduced this bill, he
+cited a study by the Guttmacher Institute that showed a decline
+in the rate of abortions of approximately 25 percent when
+funding is cut off. What that proves, if it proves anything, is
+that economic coercion works, and the remarks we have just
+heard from the Chairman made crystal clear that the unashamed
+purpose of this bill is to use economic coercion to prevent
+women and families from exercising their constitutional right
+to make a choice of abortion even with their own funds.
+ It is an unprecedented attack on women, on families, on
+their rights under the Constitution and, for that matter, on
+the private insurance market. Let's not pretend this bill has
+anything to do with government funding. It does not.
+ I yield back the balance of my time.
+ Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. And without objection,
+other Members' opening statements will be made part of the
+record.
+ Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for a
+unanimous consent request?
+ Mr. Franks. Certainly.
+ Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask
+unanimous consent to place into the record testimony submitted
+by our colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of
+Columbia, Ms. Norton. The gentlewoman had requested that she be
+allowed to present testimony in today's hearing because there
+is a provision in the bill that specifically pertains to her
+district, the District of Columbia, and to no other, but we
+were told that the Chairman of the full Committee has denied
+that request. I am sorry. I regret that she was denied
+permission to testify, and I hope that this has been a
+misunderstanding and that in the future Members of Congress
+will be, as was the practice when I was Chairman of the
+Subcommittee, permitted on request to testify as witnesses,
+especially if it has something to do specifically with their
+own district. So I ask unanimous consent to place her statement
+and my statement in the record.
+ Mr. Franks. Without objection, your statement and hers will
+be placed in the record.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Nadler follows:]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ __________
+ [The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:]
+
+
+
+
+ __________
+
+ Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
+ Mr. Franks. Just to clarify the issue, Mr. Nadler, Chairman
+Smith has decided that as a general policy the Judiciary
+Committee and its Subcommittees will only have one panel of
+witnesses for each hearing and that the panel will consist of
+no more than four witnesses. The minority is able to select a
+witness. And if they would like to invite a Member to testify,
+that is certainly something they can do. The Chairman did not
+refuse Ms. Norton's ability to be here; she just had to be
+chosen as one of the minority witnesses.
+ There may be times when the Committee is not able to
+accommodate every individual who wishes to testify. However,
+the record always remains open for 5 legislative days for
+others to submit testimony if they wish. This is a bright line
+rule that is not meant to discriminate against any particular
+potential witness. It is meant to ensure that hearings are
+succinct enough so that Members are able to hear all of the
+witnesses and participate in a meaningful way.
+ Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
+ Mr. Franks. Mr. Nadler.
+ Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I simply would like to comment on
+that. I have never objected--I mean, some Committees in this
+Congress have three and four panels, I certainly have never
+objected and indeed I sometimes welcome that this Committee
+generally only has one panel. It makes life easier and more
+succinct. I am not objecting to that now.
+ However, when the minority only has only one witness, which
+has been the practice under the Democrats and Republicans and
+certainly that is not a change here, but in certain
+circumstances it presents a quandary. Here we have a bill
+dealing for the most part with a broad issue of taxpayer
+funding of everything that I talked about and a specific
+provision dealing with the District of Columbia. To say that
+the minority could have Ms. Norton as the witness to talk about
+D.C. is to say that we couldn't talk about the basic provisions
+of the bill. And if we choose to have one witness on the basis
+of the provisions of the bill, then Ms. Norton is denied the
+opportunity to talk about the specific application to her
+district. That is why when I was Chairman we--if a Member
+desired to testify, especially if there was something to do
+with his or her district, we would always provide a separate
+panel for that Member, and for partisan purposes you might say,
+all right, if it's a Republican we will have a Democrat testify
+about something, too. But you would allow that flexibility
+under the general rule. And I would hope in the future that
+flexibility would be attended to.
+ Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Nadler.
+ If the witnesses would come forward and be seated. We have
+a very distinguished panel of witnesses today.
+ Each of the witnesses' written statements will be entered
+into the record in its entirety, and I ask that each witness
+summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. Now to
+help you stay within that time there is a timing light on your
+table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you will
+have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns
+red, it signals that the witness' 5 minutes have expired.
+ Our first witness is Mr. Richard M. Doerflinger, associate
+director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, United
+States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he has worked for
+over 30 years. His writings on medical ethics and public policy
+include contributions to the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics,
+Duquesne Law Review, the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal,
+the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, and the American
+Journal of Bioethics. The May 22nd, 2004 issue of National
+Journal featured Mr. Doerflinger as one of the 12 experts whose
+ideas are shaping national debate on the use and abuse of
+biotechnology.
+ Our second witness is Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow for Legal
+Studies at the Family Research Council's offices. Mrs. Ruse
+worked previously as FRC's Legal Director, as well as the Legal
+Counsel and Program Director for the National Center for
+Children and Families. We are proud to note that Mrs. Ruse--Ms.
+Ruse has served as Chief Counsel of this very Subcommittee.
+Wired Magazine has called her one of the most influential
+opinion shapers in the country.
+ Our third witness is Professor Sara Rosenbaum, the Harold
+and Jane Hirsh Professor of Health Law and Policy and Chair of
+the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University
+School of Public Health and Health Services. Professor
+Rosenbaum also directs the Hirsch Health Law and Policy Program
+and the Center for Health Services Research and Policy and
+holds appointments in the Schools of Medicine and Health
+Sciences and Law.
+ Now without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative
+days within which to submit materials for the record.
+ It is the practice of this Subcommittee to swear in the
+witnesses, so if you will all please stand and raise your right
+hand.
+ [Witnesses sworn.]
+ Mr. Franks. Thank you, and please be seated.
+ I now recognize our first witness, Richard Doerflinger, for
+5 minutes.
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Franks. Sir, would you turn on that microphone?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Is this it?
+ Mr. Franks. Yes, sir. Thank you.
+
+TESTIMONY OF RICHARD M. DOERFLINGER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE
+SECRETARIAT OF PRO-LIFE ACTIVITIES, UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF
+ CATHOLIC BISHOPS (USCCB)
+
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
+opportunity to present our views in support of the No Taxpayer
+Funding for Abortion Act. This bill will write into permanent
+law policy on which there has been strong popular and
+congressional agreement for over 35 years: The Federal
+Government should not use tax dollars to support or promote
+elective abortion. That principle has been embodied in the Hyde
+amendment and in numerous other provisions governing a wide
+range of domestic and foreign programs, and has consistently
+had the support of the American people.
+ Even courts insisting on a constitutional right to abortion
+have said that alleged right ``implies no limitation on the
+authority of a State to make a value judgment favoring
+childbirth over abortion and to implement that judgment by the
+allocation of public funds.''
+ In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Hyde amendment is
+an exercise of the ``legitimate congressional interest in
+protecting potential life,'' adding: ``Abortion is inherently
+different from other medical procedures because no other
+procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential
+life.'' In our view the Court's only mistake here was the
+phrase ``potential life.'' In our view, unborn children are
+actually alive, until they are made actually dead by abortion.
+ While Congress's policy has been consistent for decades,
+its implementation in practice has been piecemeal, confusing
+and sometimes sadly inadequate. Gaps or loopholes have been
+discovered in this patchwork of provisions over the years,
+highlighting the need for permanent and consistent policies
+across the Federal Government.
+ Last year, Congress passed major health care reform
+legislation with at least four different policies on abortion
+funding, ranging from a ban on such funding in one section of
+the bill to a potential mandate for such funding in another.
+ If H.R. 3 had been enacted before that debate began, the
+debate would not have been about abortion. A major obstacle to
+support by Catholics and other pro-life Americans would have
+been removed, and the final legislation would not have been so
+badly compromised by provisions that place unborn human lives
+at grave risk.
+ H.R. 3 would prevent problems and confusions on abortion
+funding in future legislation. Federal health bills could be
+debated in terms of their ability to promote the goal of
+universal health care, instead of being mired in debates about
+one lethal procedure that most Americans know is not truly
+health care at all.
+ H.R. 3 would also codify the Hyde-Weldon amendment, a part
+of the annual Labor-HHS appropriations bills since 2004, and I
+would say one of many conscience provisions, beginning with the
+Church amendment in 1973, named after Senator Frank Church of
+Idaho, which has tried to protect the rights of health care
+providers not to be coerced into abortion.
+ The Hyde-Weldon amendment was recently reaffirmed,
+unanimously, as part of the House version of health care reform
+legislation in Congressman Waxman's Health Subcommittee. It was
+approved by voice vote without dissent, but sadly it did not
+survive in the final legislation.
+ Hyde-Weldon ensures that Federal agencies, and State and
+local governments receiving Federal funds, do not discriminate
+against health care providers because they do not take part in
+abortions. And I emphasize that because this is a modest bill
+that has the Federal Government essentially policing itself. It
+is government restraining itself from coercing abortion; it
+does not reach out into private actions.
+ It is long overdue for the Hyde-Weldon policy as well to
+receive a more secure status. Here also Congress's policy has
+been clear for 38 years, but the mechanism for achieving it has
+suffered from drawbacks and loopholes, including a failure even
+to specify where or how providers may go to have their rights
+enforced.
+ H.R. 3 writes this essential civil rights protection into
+permanent law, allows for modest and reasonable remedies to
+ensure compliance, provides for a private right of action, and
+designates the HHS Office for Civil Rights to hear complaints
+as well.
+ The need for more secure protection in this area is clear.
+The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, has been
+urging the Federal Government to force Catholic and other
+hospitals to violate their moral and religious convictions by
+providing what the ACLU calls emergency abortions. By this it
+means all abortions to serve women's life or health, which it
+surely knows has been interpreted by the Federal courts to mean
+social or emotional well-being.
+ This is an obvious threat to access to life affirming
+health care. Catholic hospitals alone care for one in six
+patients in the United States each year and provide a full
+continuum of health care through more than 2,000 sponsors,
+systems, facilities and related organizations. They have been
+shown to provide higher quality and more effective care,
+including care for women, than anyone else in various studies.
+ If Congress wants to expand rather than eliminate access to
+lifesaving health care, including lifesaving health care for
+women and particularly for the poor and the underserved, it
+should be concerned about any effort to attack the rights of
+these providers and undermine their continued ability to serve
+the common good.
+ Just to give short answers to some questions raised about
+H.R. 3, with longer answers in our prepared text, H.R. 3 does
+not eliminate private coverage for abortion but specifically
+allows such coverage when purchased without Federal subsidy. It
+does not create an unprecedented policy of denying tax benefits
+to abortion, but follows the recently enacted Affordable Care
+Act in this regard, which I believe had some Democratic
+support. It is that Act which said use of tax credits for
+abortion is, ``Federal funding of abortion.'' This simply
+follows the precedent.
+ This bill does not depart from precedent by saying that
+Federal law does not compel States to fund any abortions. In
+this regard as well, it follows a policy actively supported by
+the Democratic leadership in the last Congress and stated no
+less than three times in the Affordable Care Act.
+ Finally, its conscience clause does not place women's lives
+at risk. What places women's lives at risk, as we recently
+learned from the story of Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia--but he
+is only the tip of the iceberg--what places women's lives at
+risk is the abortion industry itself as well as that same
+industry's attacks on the continued viability of the most
+effective providers of lifesaving care in the world.
+ My prepared text provides additional details, and I would
+be happy to answer questions. Thank you.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Doerflinger follows:]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ __________
+
+ Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Doerflinger. We now recognize
+Mrs. Ruse for 5 minutes.
+
+ TESTIMONY OF CATHY CLEAVER RUSE, SENIOR FELLOW
+ FOR LEGAL STUDIES, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
+
+ Ms. Ruse. Thank you for inviting me to provide testimony
+this morning, this afternoon, on the No Taxpayer Funding for
+Abortion Act. And it is nice to be back, a little less work on
+this side of the dais but not much.
+ Thirty-five years ago something of a consensus was reached
+between those who support legal abortion and those who oppose
+it. Whatever our differences on the underlying question of
+legality, a majority of Americans came together and supported a
+proposition that the Federal Government should not subsidize
+abortions. That consensus took the form of the Hyde amendment
+in 1976, which limited abortion funding appropriated under
+Labor-HHS to cases where an abortion was necessary to save a
+mother's life and later the cases involving rape and incest.
+ The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde
+amendment in Harris v. McCrae and in so doing made a sharp
+distinction between abortions and other medical procedures. In
+the words of the Court, no other procedure involves the
+purposeful termination of a potential life.
+ That abortion is scandalous to many is understandable. That
+it is exceptionally controversial in the United States is
+beyond dispute. For these reasons it is entirely appropriate
+that abortions not be subsidized in any way by the Federal
+Government. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act implements
+this legal and political consensus on a government-wide basis.
+ Over the years the Hyde amendment and others like it have
+been included in various appropriations bills renewed annually
+by Congress. What has been lacking is a single, simple law
+prohibiting government funding of abortion across the board
+wherever Federal dollars are expended.
+ We taxpayers paid for 425 abortions in fiscal year 2008 and
+220 last year. Without the Hyde amendment and the patchwork of
+other appropriations writers, that number could skyrocket to as
+many as 675,000 government-financed abortions every year,
+according to the CBO.
+ Now two measures passed in the last Congress also
+threatened to escalate the number of government-funded
+abortions dramatically. The D.C. appropriations bill opened the
+door for Federal funding of any and every abortion in the
+District of Columbia, and the Patient Protection and Affordable
+Care Act, known popularly as ObamaCare, authorized Federal
+funding for elective abortions directly and through private
+health insurance plans. A detailed accounting of the abortion
+subsidies in ObamaCare is included in my written testimony.
+ Because these programs are directly appropriated and not
+subject to further appropriation under Labor-HHS, they are not
+subject to the Hyde amendment. As for the Executive order
+purporting to nullify abortions in ObamaCare, last month former
+White Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel admitted that he ``came up
+with an idea for an Executive order so that the abortion
+funding restrictions would not exist by law.'' On this he and I
+are in agreement with each other and also with Planned
+Parenthood, who issued a statement calling the Executive order
+a symbolic gesture.
+ It is axiomatic that when government subsidizes conduct, it
+encourages it. Our Tax Code is replete with pertinent examples.
+The Supreme Court in Maher v. Roe acknowledged the truth of
+this proposition in the context of abortion.
+ Most abortions in America are purely elective. Ninety-two
+percent of abortions every year are performed on healthy women
+with healthy babies, according to the Alan Guttmacher
+Institute. In light of this fact the abortion funding question
+is quite literally a matter of life and death for many
+thousands of American children.
+ Now, President Obama has urged Americans to find common
+ground on the controversial issue of abortion. Americans have
+come together, 67 percent of us, in what may be the only truly
+bipartisan agreement possible that whatever our differences on
+the issue of abortion we can agree that the Federal Government
+should not subsidize it. This is the common ground issue on
+abortion in America today. H.R. 3 would make that common ground
+statutory law.
+ Thank you.
+ [The prepared statement of Ms. Ruse follows:]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ __________
+
+ Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mrs. Ruse. We now recognize
+Professor Rosenbaum for 5 minutes.
+
+TESTIMONY OF SARAH ROSENBAUM, HAROLD AND JANE HIRSH PROFESSOR,
+HEALTH LAW AND POLICY, AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH POLICY,
+ THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
+ HEALTH SERVICES
+
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. Thank you very much for inviting me here
+today to appear before you. I would like to make three points
+in my testimony. I have submitted a longer statement for the
+record. The first has to do with the baseline from which we are
+working in considering H.R. 3. The second has to do with the
+changes in the bill. The third has to do with the impact of
+these changes.
+ Insofar as the baseline is concerned, I think it is very
+important to understand what the Affordable Care Act does and
+does not do. The Affordable Care Act, where tax credits are
+concerned, allows women to obtain tax credits, to use those tax
+credits to buy insurance products, and if they choose to do so,
+to use their own money to buy additional coverage for abortion.
+If they make that choice and use their additional funds, their
+own funds, to buy abortion coverage, the tax credits remain
+completely available for the abortion product.
+ I emphasize this because it underscores the unprecedented
+nature of the bill. The bill would actually for the first time
+move the Hyde amendment far beyond where we have known it for
+the past 30 years directly into the Tax Code. Its reach in the
+Tax Code is extremely broad under this bill. It reaches
+deductions, and credits, it reaches advance tax credits even
+when those tax credits have to be repaid at a later date. It
+reaches health savings accounts, it reaches flexible spending
+accounts, it reaches money that we as individuals put aside for
+our medical care needs. It even potentially reaches employers
+and employer deductions for insurance because of a critical
+ambiguity in the drafting of the bill. It is unclear actually
+where the bill stops.
+ The impact of the bill insofar as its tax policies are
+concerned is enormous. The first fallout is on the Internal
+Revenue Service (``IRS''), which heretofore has not played a
+role in implementation of the Hyde amendment. The IRS is going
+to have to implement extremely complex provisions of the Tax
+Code that regulate tax favored health benefit plans and medical
+care payments. The IRS will have to issue a raft of
+implementing policies. The Internal Revenue Service will need
+to define rape, potentially forcible rape, incest, potentially
+incest involving minors as opposed to incest not involving
+minors, physical conditions endangering life and physical
+conditions that don't endanger life. The IRS will have to
+clarify what evidentiary standards will be required for
+individual claimants and employers who choose to buy products
+or make expenditures that wander into any of these areas.
+ There also will have to be a claims reviews process. For
+example, is a spontaneous abortion or a miscarriage an
+allowable expenditure under a flex fund? Does it for some
+reason cross the line? What will be the appeals procedures?How
+will plans be audited to make sure that their coverage stops at
+the allowable points under the statute?
+ The fallout on plans is equally serious. My own analysis,
+both of this bill and previous bills that attempted to do
+similar things in terms of the impact on the insurance
+industry, leads me to conclude that what we will see in fact is
+a complete exodus of health plans from the abortion coverage
+market. I realize that may be the long-term goal here, but of
+course because there are not a lot, but a small number of very
+serious medically indicated abortions, this would be an
+enormous problem.
+ The third fallout of course is on the women themselves, not
+only because they can no longer secure coverage for medically
+indicated abortions, but because the typical practice in a
+health plan is to exclude not only specific procedures required
+under law, but follow-on procedures and treatments that are
+related to the original excluded treatment. So to use an easy
+example, a woman who needs an abortion because she has
+eclampsia, that is, stroke level hypertension, and who then
+needs subsequent treatment for the hypertension could find that
+she in fact is disqualified for the treatment of that
+hypertension because of the hypertension arose as the result of
+a condition that led to an excluded abortion. So there is no
+stopping point.
+ I would finally note that were the conscious clause
+provisions of this law to be enacted, it would begin the first
+great unraveling of EMTALA and the absolute duty on the part of
+hospitals to provide lifesaving treatment regardless of the
+underlying medical condition.
+ [The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenbaum follows:]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ __________
+ Mr. Franks. Thank you, Professor. I thank all of you for
+your testimony. And I will now begin the questioning by
+recognizing myself for 5 minutes. I will start with you, Mr.
+Doerflinger.
+ Absent the enactment of H.R. 3, what does a health care
+provider risk if the provider obeys his or her conscience and
+refuses to perform an abortion?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Well, I don't want to overstate this, Mr.
+Chairman, because in my view H.R. 3 basically codifies and
+makes more permanent protection that has long been in law. The
+problem is that--and this was illustrated in one case in New
+York very recently--the existing conscience laws aren't very
+clear on what it is you do to actually protect your rights. So
+a nurse by the name of DeCarlo at Mount Sinai Medical Center in
+New York recently found that although she was forced to
+participate in a late term abortion, after having her statement
+accepted initially by the hospital staff that she would not be
+required to assist in these abortions, she was forced anyway.
+She was given the job of reassembling the body parts on a table
+in the operating room to make sure they got all of the pieces
+of the baby. She has had nightmares ever since and had a
+terrible time. And she was told that she would be fired if she
+didn't do this. And what she found when she went to court was
+that because the Federal conscience laws don't have anything in
+them that say you have a private right of action to go to
+court, she had no recourse. All she could do is file a
+complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services. And
+a year and a half after the abortion she still has not heard
+from them.
+ The cases in which there continue to be efforts to get
+governmental bodies to discriminate against pro-life health
+care providers occur almost every week. There was a recent case
+here in my hometown, Montgomery County, in which Holy Cross
+Hospital seems to be on course now, approved by the State of
+Maryland, to build a new hospital in northern Montgomery
+County, because it made the best case for being able to provide
+excellent care to the women and men of the county. But there
+was a very serious effort by abortion activists to say you must
+not give this contract to Holy Cross Hospital, you must give it
+to someone else, even if their general health care proposal is
+not as good, because if you give it to Holy Cross, you will not
+have access to abortions through the hospital up there.
+ So these efforts to discriminate against health care
+providers on this basis occur all the time, and we are just
+trying to make sure the protection is actually there and is
+working.
+ Mr. Franks. Mr. Doerflinger, there was a controversy in
+2007 and 2008 concerning the extent of conscience protections
+for health care workers, specifically changes in the ethics
+guidelines propounded by ACOG, American Congress of
+Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and changes in the certifying
+criteria for the certifying agency of OB/GYNs, that is ABOGs.
+There are all these acronyms. American Board of Obstetrics and
+Gynecology. And it caused physicians to question whether
+refusal to perform an abortion can result in decertification,
+ending their career actually. Would you explain this
+controversy and how it led to the conscience regulations put in
+place at the end of the Bush administration?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Yes, the Ethics Committee opinion from the
+American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists came out in
+2007, but despite all the controversy it was reaffirmed by the
+organization in 2010. And what really sent a chill of fear
+across many OB/GYNs throughout the country who do not perform
+abortions is that very often the ethical principles articulated
+by ACOG become standards for certification as an OB/GYN by the
+partner organization, the American Board of OB/GYN.
+ And so this was one of the reasons why the Bush
+administration decided to try to clarify regulations to uphold
+these providers' rights, regulations which the Obama
+administration has proposed to rescind. But the ACOG document
+is breathtaking in its disregard for any OB/GYN whot doesn't
+want to do abortions. They say that these OB/GYNs must
+nonetheless be willing to refer for abortions. If there is no
+one to refer them to, they must do them themselves. And they
+even said that if you are an OB/GYN who does not do abortions,
+you should make sure you locate your practice near an abortion
+provider to make sure that it is easy for everybody to get from
+you to the abortion.
+ So one talks about the tail wagging the dog, this is the
+tick on the tail of the dog wagging the entire health care
+system, saying people have to disrupt their lives and
+livelihoods and change even where they practice to make sure
+they are as close as possible to an abortionist.
+ Mr. Franks. Well, I am not going try to get another
+question in here, my time is about gone. So I am going to yield
+to the distinguished gentleman Mr. Nadler for his questions.
+ Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Ms. Ruse, you take the position that the reduction of
+taxation is a form of government subsidy. Now this is flatly at
+odds with what your organization, the Family Research Council,
+stated about tax credits and deductions in the context of
+tuition for religious schools. If it isn't Federal--where you
+said there is no government spending on religion here, it's
+people's private money that they send to various student
+tuition organizations. If it isn't Federal funding when people
+use their private money to fund religion tuition at a parochial
+school and receive a tax deduction or credit for doing so, how
+is it Federal funding when people use their private money to
+pay for their medical care or insurance coverage?
+ Ms. Ruse. As a general proposition, tax reduction is a form
+of government subsidy.
+ Mr. Nadler. And by tax reduction, you mean like a tax
+credit or something?
+ Ms. Ruse. Correct, that's right. And I would just direct
+you to, and I will get you the citation if you need it, but
+ObamaCare itself makes this distinction. It calls, or makes
+this equation I should say, it calls tax credits for buying
+insurance on State exchanges, it calls those a creature of
+Federal funding. If you have an argument with me----
+ Mr. Nadler. Excuse me. I am asking you.
+ Ms. Ruse. Yeah.
+ Mr. Nadler. It seems inconsistent, either it is or it
+isn't. How can you say that for religious schools it is--it is
+not and for health insurance it is? How do you make that
+distinction?
+ Ms. Ruse. Well, I appreciated your opening statement where
+you said it is our money. And that is what the Republicans
+often say and I think that is accurate.
+ Mr. Nadler. In which case you shouldn't be arguing what you
+are arguing with respect to health care. If it is our money,
+then it is not a government subsidy, as you said in the
+Arizona--or your organization said in the Arizona case. If it
+is not our money and it is a government subsidy, then it is the
+contrary. Both things can't be true.
+ Ms. Ruse. And I would say your argument is with President
+Obama and his health----
+ Mr. Nadler. That may be, but I am asking you how you
+justify saying it is a government subsidy here but not there.
+Which is it and why is it different?
+ Ms. Ruse. As a general proposition tax reduction is a form
+of government subsidy, as a general proposition.
+ Mr. Nadler. But not with respect to religious schools?
+ Mr. Doerflinger, let me ask you. As a general proposition
+government tax exemptions, tax subsidies, or what you call
+government spending, you said it was a tax? What did you say?
+As a general proposition it is a form of government subsidy. If
+tax exemptions are a form of government subsidy, how do we
+justify tax exemptions for the Catholic church, the Jewish
+synagogue, the Protestant church or anybody else or any other
+government----
+ Mr. Doerflinger. I think the first reason churches are not
+taxable is simply that they don't make a profit or are
+nonprofit organizations.
+ Mr. Nadler. Wait a minute. They are exempt from--all right.
+What about the individual who gives money to the church that is
+not taxable?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Right.
+ Mr. Nadler. Under your definition isn't that a government
+subsidy to the church?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. I think the Federal Government has made a
+policy decision a very long time ago that charities and
+churches----
+ Mr. Nadler. Excuse me, it is not a question of a policy
+decision, because if it is a public subsidy to the church, it
+is unconstitutional because of the establishment clause. So
+either if government--a tax credit to the individual
+contributing to the church is not a government subsidy, then
+these things aren't government subsidies. If it is a government
+subsidy, then you have got an establishment problem under the
+First Amendment, have you not?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. It is not unconstitutional to give public
+subsidies to a charitable or church organization, as long as
+you are serving a legitimate secular purpose.
+ Mr. Nadler. Excuse me. But wait a minute. You are--we are
+not talking about that.
+ Our policy, we, if you give a tax--I'm sorry, a
+contribution, when I give a contribution to my synagogue it is
+not for general purposes, it is for religious purposes.
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Right.
+ Mr. Nadler. And I take a tax deduction for that. Now under
+your definition that is a government subsidy of the synagogue
+of the church and it should be therefore a violation of the
+First Amendment.
+ Mr. Doerflinger. That is not my definition, sir. I disagree
+with your basic premise, which is that all of these things are
+the same and it is all one thing.
+ Mr. Nadler. You are just trying to have your cake and eat
+it too, because either a tax exemption is a government subsidy
+or it is not. If it is not a government subsidy the whole point
+of this bill.
+ Mr. Doerflinger. I----
+ Mr. Nadler. Excuse me, I am talking. The point of this bill
+is wrong. If it is a government subsidy, then this bill may be
+right, but then we have to question--not just question but then
+tax subsidies, government subsidies for religious institutions
+are probably unconstitutional as violations of establishment
+clause of the First Amendment.
+ Professor Rosenbaum, do you agree with Ms. Ruse's position
+that H.R. 3 does not affect employer provided plans?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. I do not. For the reasons stated in my
+written testimony I find section 303(2) ambiguous. It
+specifically refers to any deduction covering not only medical
+care but health benefit plans and I think that the ambiguity is
+critical on this point.
+ Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I am told my time has expired.
+ Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. And just to clarify the
+point, both tax preferred status and appropriations have been
+recognized in the courts as being allowed for a public good,
+and I think the consideration here is that abortion is not a
+public good. And so it really doesn't need to reach Mr.
+Nadler's point, which I think he has some elements to his
+point. It doesn't matter if it is a tax preferred status or
+not. The government should still have the right to shape the
+Tax Code in favor of a public good or against something that
+they consider not a public good.
+ With that, I would recognize the distinguish gentleman from
+Indiana, Mr. Pence, for his questions.
+ Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me also join
+the Ranking Member in congratulating you on your appointment.
+As Chairman of the Subcommittee, I think you know that I can
+think of no one in the newly minted majority in Congress that I
+think is more appropriate to lead this Subcommittee than you.
+And I found your opening remarks powerful and eloquent and I
+wish to offer you my congratulations, as I do to all the
+Members in the majority and the minority on this Subcommittee.
+ Thanks for holding this hearing. I appreciate the
+opportunity to participate in a discussion of H.R. 3, and I
+commend Congressman Chris Smith for his leadership on this
+issue. As our witnesses have testified, with the passage of the
+Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the need for a
+permanent government wide prohibition on taxpayer funding for
+abortion has probably never been more important. Sadly,
+Congress last year traded in 30 years of statutory protections
+for taxpayers for a piece of paper signed by the most pro-
+abortion President since Roe v. Wade. The need to pass this
+legislation I believe is self-evident when we think about the
+extraordinary subsidies, both direct and indirect, in the
+``Patient Protection Affordable Care Act'' for abortion across
+government spending.
+ Let me say I also think now is the time to end taxpayer
+funding not only for abortion but also for abortion providers.
+That is why I have authored a bill, the Title X Abortion
+Provider Prohibition Act, that would end all Title X family
+planning funding to abortion providers.
+ Specifically, Planned Parenthood is sadly back in the news
+today. A new undercover video has been released showing
+multiple violations by Planned Parenthood employees in New York
+to go along with scandalous videos from Planned Parenthood
+clinics in New Jersey and Virginia. The videos show Planned
+Parenthood employees presumably advising an undercover sex
+trafficker on how to secure secret abortions, STD testing and
+contraception for child prostitutes. And I just have to tell
+you, Mr. Chairman, as the father of two teenage girls I can not
+be dispassionate about video evidence of individuals
+facilitating the abuse of minor young women in this way.
+ We have introduced this legislation, and along with H.R. 3,
+I hope the Congress will take up the Title X Abortion Provider
+Prohibition Act.
+ Planned Parenthood received over $363 million in taxpayer
+dollars, principally through Title X; and in 2008 alone, they
+performed 324,008 abortions. With more than a million abortions
+performed annually in this country, abortion is a heart-
+breaking billion dollar industry that mostly benefits Planned
+Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is far and away the largest
+abortion provider in America, and they are also the largest
+recipient of Federal funding under Title X. And I believe the
+time has come for that to end.
+ With that said, let me direct a question to Mrs. Ruse whose
+testimony I found compelling, as I do appreciate her leadership
+on this issue across the country. You spoke about the CBO
+projection that without the protections of this legislation,
+there could be as many as 675,000 government-financed abortions
+in this country. With this growing video record of Planned
+Parenthood employees, is there any doubt in your mind that
+Planned Parenthood would be the largest recipient of abortion
+support if H.R. 3 was not enacted into law?
+ And I guess my specific question, Mrs. Ruse, is if we do
+not succeed in passing H.R. 3 and banning public funding of
+abortion across government systems broadly, would that not be a
+windfall specifically for Planned Parenthood?
+ Ms. Ruse. I think the word ``windfall'' is accurate. Last
+year, Planned Parenthood committed 324,008 abortions in the
+United States of America. If you open the doors to Federal
+funding, Federal subsidies of abortion in the way that
+ObamaCare will do it, there is no question that the chief
+recipient of those funds will be Planned Parenthood who is
+showing itself to be internally corrupt and unable to handle
+their finances, at a minimum, given what we know about what is
+happening in California. And more than that, aiding and
+abetting in the abuse of minors as these videos come out one
+after another.
+ And incidentally, those who try to minimize Planned
+Parenthood--the expose' on Planned Parenthood as a single
+situation or one bad egg, I just want to remind this Committee
+that these videos, these undercover videos have been coming out
+for the last 4 years. They have not gotten as much play as
+those recently, and come from over 10 States: Alabama, Indiana,
+New Jersey, New York, Virginia. It suggests there is a system-
+wide problem with Planned Parenthood and they do not deserve
+one million dollars a day of taxpayer dollars.
+ Mr. Pence. I thank you. This hearing is obviously on H.R. 3
+and on the issue of direct public subsidy for abortion, and so
+we will not in this hearing discuss how the hundreds of
+millions of dollars that flow into Planned Parenthood,
+organizations that operate as title 10 indirectly support the
+abortion efforts of Planned Parenthood, but I look forward to
+that hearing, Mr. Chairman, perhaps in another Committee.
+ I commend the members of this panel for your thoughtful
+comments.
+ I yield back the balance of my time.
+ Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman, as always.
+ I now call on Mr. Quigley for 5 minutes.
+ Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on
+your new post.
+ I hate to begin by respectfully disagreeing with you, but I
+would only suggest that the public good that private health
+insurance is providing health insurance, and the incentive is
+to encourage employers to provide health insurance to everyone
+possible. But let me, if I can, Mr. Doerflinger, I guess the
+fair question to your points is how far does this go? And since
+you are the one testifying, I think it is fair, with your
+personal beliefs or any particular church. I would suppose
+that--I know the church, I'm not sure about you, believes that
+the use of modern birth control, the pill, is morally wrong. So
+would you then say that we don't want to use tax subsidies, or
+you call funding, to health insurance companies that provide
+birth control pills for women?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. I think it is a very different moral
+issue, Congressman.
+ Mr. Quigley. It is still the same directive from the
+Catholic Church, isn't it?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Yes, but we are not against Federal
+funding of abortion because Catholic moral teaching is against
+it. We are against abortion because it is a violation of the
+most fundamental right. It is something rejected not only by
+Catholics, and many other religions, but by the Hippocratic
+Oath that gave rise to medicine as a profession.
+ It is against the considered moral judgment of millions of
+Americans who have no particular religious affiliation at all.
+And it has been seen in the past as a crime. Of course today,
+there is at least one abortion procedure that is a Federal
+crime. And it is the killing of children who in any, other
+context, are seen even in Federal law as persons who have a
+right to be protected from lethal harm, the Unborn Victim of
+Violence Act. There is an arbitrary exception for abortion.
+ Mr. Quigley. Let's go to another example, embryonic stem
+cell research. Do you believe Congress should impose tax
+penalties on people who purchase insurance policies that cover
+medical cures derived from such research?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. I think that is a--well, let's say it is a
+very farfetched thing to have happen.
+ Mr. Quigley. Respectfully, you don't think people's lives
+are saved with embryonic stem cell research?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. I'm sorry?
+ Mr. Quigley. You don't think people's lives are saved with
+embryonic stem cell research?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. I don't think that the evidence exists to
+say that embryonic stem cells will ever be used in actual
+clinical treatment. They are far too uncontrollable. They cause
+far too many tumors when used in animals. You can't tell what
+they are going to do once they are in a human body. So I think
+it is an imaginary question. But let me answer that I think
+what we are concerned about here is the use of tax dollars, tax
+subsidies, tax support for something that actually takes life.
+ We are against Federal funding of embryonic stem cell
+research itself when it involves the taking of life of an
+embryonic human being. In some States, Pennsylvania is one, the
+killing of an embryo for experimental purposes is a felony, and
+yet the Federal Government is funding it.
+ Mr. Quigley. Let me turn to the Professor. It appears that
+our issue here is primarily whether or not this is Federal
+funding. Can you elaborate, to a certain extent, on the policy
+implication once it is decided that, I guess it was the Supreme
+Court in Walz versus the Tax Commission, that the court upheld
+property tax exemptions for such property. Once that is
+crossed, what are the other implications legally for not for
+profits, not just religious?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. Well, I think they are, as has already been
+said, most eloquently by Mr. Nadler, the conversion of what has
+been tax advantaged private spending, which is understood in
+society as private spending, it is simply not subjected to
+certain otherwise applicable taxes, into an overt public
+financing of certain activities. It has profound implications.
+ It has profound implications to the extent to which, as has
+been noted, certain recipients of those exemptions are suddenly
+receiving public funding for certain purposes not permitted
+under the Constitution. But also, it has implications for the
+kinds of conditions that can be attached to entities that do
+receive exemptions. It becomes a much more government-intrusive
+process in which government is setting the terms and
+conditions, as in the case of H.R. 3, for the receipt of a tax
+exemption. In this case, an entity can only receive favorable
+tax treatment if it does not seek or provide medically
+necessary care, certain types of medical care.
+ Mr. Quigley. I thank you.
+ Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
+former Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Chabot.
+ Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you
+as Mr. Pence did. I know you are going to be a great Chair of
+this Committee. I did have the honor to serve for 6 years. And
+I wanted to go to a Committee where we knew the problems would
+be a little bit easier to solve. I know this is a controversial
+Committee; it always has been. We are assured of success on the
+Committee that I'm going to be chairing. I am going to be
+chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on the
+Middle East, so that is going to be interesting.
+ Mr. Franks. After this, it will be easy; won't it?
+ Mr. Chabot. I think so. That's right. This hearing itself
+is showing evidence of that.
+ You know, I couldn't help, it was mentioned that--Ms. Ruse
+I think mentioned there were 329,000 abortions a year committed
+by Planned Parenthood. I happen to represent the first district
+of Ohio and the largest entity, governmental entity in that
+district is the city of Cincinnati, and abortions in this
+country almost wipe out the population of Cincinnati every
+year. It is just amazing when you think how many little boys
+and little girls don't ever experience the life that we have
+all had the opportunity to experience because of this procedure
+which is still allowed in this country.
+ I was struck, again, going back to my district, Cincinnati,
+I was reading the story in the Cincinnati Enquirer some weeks
+ago about this doctor, Dr. Kermit Gosnell in west Philadelphia,
+and the headline in there was ``House of Horrors,'' and it
+certainly was. But I would argue that what goes on in these
+abortion clinics all over the country is certainly houses of
+horror and we shouldn't be funding it at all as far as I am
+concerned, but certainly not with tax dollars of people who
+don't want their tax dollars going to carry out that type of
+behavior.
+ Talking about that doctor, Dr. Gosnell, according to the
+grand jury report on the activities that were conducted by him
+at his clinic, and it was called the Women's Medical Society in
+west Philadelphia, on page 4 of the report, it says, and I'm
+quoting this, When you perform late term abortions by inducing
+labor, you get babies--live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24
+weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they
+receive appropriate medical care, but that was not what the
+Women's Medical Society was about. Dr. Gosnell had a simple
+solution for unwanted babies: he killed them. He didn't call it
+that. He called it ensuring fetal demise. The way he ensured
+fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the
+baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that
+snipping. Over the years, there were hundreds of snippings.
+ I would ask you, Professor Rosenbaum, do you think American
+taxpayers should have to pay for this kind of activity?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. Mr. Chabot, I don't really see the
+connection between what is absolutely a terrible, terrible
+story and the tax finance issue here.
+ Mr. Chabot. Let me draw the connection then for you. If he
+was doing this outside the womb, if he had snipped those spinal
+cords within the womb, that would be perfectly legal in this
+country; wouldn't it? And should we use tax dollars to pay for
+that type of activity?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. I think your question suggests that this
+bill involves tax dollars.
+ The Hyde amendment is a very clear statement about the use
+of----
+ Mr. Chabot. Reclaiming my time.
+ Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
+ Mr. Chabot. I only have a very short time here, and I have
+a couple of other points I would like to make.
+ Let me ask the other two witnesses, is that legal? Would
+that be legal in the first trimester, second trimester, that
+type of activity in abortion clinics, or are there restrictions
+relative to what they can do to destroy that child in the womb?
+ Ms. Ruse. Very likely, yes. The only procedure that
+currently is not legal is the partial birth abortion procedure.
+So unless he followed the steps outlined in the partial birth
+abortion procedure, and my reading of the grand jury report is
+that he was not taking those steps, then what he was doing
+would be perfectly legal if it was done just before delivering
+the baby.
+ Mr. Chabot. I see my time has expired. I thank you, Mr.
+Chairman. I yield back.
+ Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. It should be noted the
+gentleman was a prime sponsor of the partial birth abortion,
+and will forever be a hero to me because of that.
+ I now yield to Mr. Conyers, the distinguished former
+Chairman of the Committee, and we're going to call him Ranking
+Member for now.
+ Mr. Conyers. I thank you very much. My congratulations. I
+could observe that the view isn't quite as good from this end
+as it used to be when we were on the other side, but I'll get
+use to it again.
+ I also wanted to welcome Mike Pence to the Committee and
+appreciate his coming aboard. What he has got against the
+Planned Parenthood people I have yet to discover. They have
+done, I thought, a pretty good job, but he is bound and
+determined to defund them, and I think do a great disservice to
+a very effective organization that has brought help and
+assistance to women over the years.
+ Now, Mr. Chairman, we talked about the fact that Eleanor
+Holmes Norton was not permitted to testify. Was the author of
+this bill prevented from being a witness here today, too?
+ Mr. Franks. Mr. Conyers, that was discussed earlier. The
+author of the bill could have been the witness here if they had
+been chosen as the Democrat witness. It is the Committee
+structure of the panel for witnesses.
+ Mr. Conyers. You didn't want the author of the bill to
+testify?
+ Mr. Franks. I would have had no problem with that
+whatsoever, sir.
+ Mr. Conyers. Did he ask to testify?
+ Mr. Franks. I'm not sure he asked to testify. I think Ms.
+Norton asked to testify, and if she wanted to be the Democrat
+witness, that would have been all right.
+ Mr. Conyers. But the author of the bill, who I presume is
+here today, we are in the first few weeks of the 112th Session,
+and this is a major piece of legislation, and he is not here.
+ Mr. Franks. Mr. Conyers, I have just been told that the
+author made the decision not to testify. We don't know the
+reasons.
+ Mr. Conyers. Okay.
+ Well, let me ask Ms. Ruse this question: The title of this
+bill is No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. Do you know of
+any Federal funding for abortion that goes on in this country
+presently?
+ Ms. Ruse. The potential funding of abortion and the
+potential subsidies of abortion are numerous. The debate last
+fall over the Burris amendment in the Senate, opening up our
+military facilities to allow elective abortions to be done
+then, that would be impacted by H.R. 3. That is still an open
+question. We may see reversal of that policy. And as you know,
+under the Clinton administration, that policy was reversed and
+opened up to elective abortions on military hospitals. That is
+one example.
+ So these policies, that being just one example----
+ Mr. Conyers. And you would object to that?
+ Ms. Ruse. Yes.
+ Mr. Conyers. And if you knew of any others, you would
+object to them as well?
+ Ms. Ruse. Yes. I would object to the funding of or
+subsidizing of elective abortions with Federal funding,
+absolutely. That's right.
+ Mr. Conyers. So you think this is an appropriate title of a
+bill then, No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act, because women
+in service may be able or might be able to get an abortion?
+ Ms. Ruse. Yes, that is one example.
+ Mr. Conyers. Well, that is the only example that I know of.
+If you know of others, let me know.
+ Ms. Ruse. Well, the District of Columbia appropriations
+bill last Congress also opened up Federal funding for abortions
+in the District of Columbia. So that is currently an area that
+needs to be corrected by H.R. 3 by employing the long-standing
+principal of the Hyde amendment. And the District of Columbia
+often does have that appropriations rider applied. It was just
+taken off just a few months ago. So that would be corrected by
+H.R. 3.
+ Mr. Conyers. All right. It is my impression that this is a
+misleading title of the bill, not Federal funds, D.C. taxpayers
+funds, not funds from Fed Treasury. That is just a staffer.
+You're the expert witness.
+ Let me turn to another consideration. Has my time expired?
+ One final question, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. Section
+311 of this bill protects individuals who refuse to provide
+abortion services. As I read it, Ms. Ruse, this would mean that
+someone who refused to provide life-saving treatment and
+allowed a woman to die as a result might escape any
+consequences if that were to happen; is that your
+understanding?
+ Ms. Ruse. No, not at all. What this section of H.R. 3 does
+is simply codify the long-standing principle of the Church
+amendment which allows health care providers to decline to
+participate in abortions. That has been around for 38 years. In
+that history of the Church amendment, we have never seen a
+situation where women were dying at the hands of outside an
+abortion clinic because they weren't able to have an abortion.
+ Now, I would also like to mention that EMTALA has never
+been used to require an emergency provision of an abortion,
+with is the Emergency Medical Treatment Act. That has come up
+earlier in the meeting. So we have a long history of this
+conscience protection section. The only additional new part of
+it is allowing remedies, allowing someone who has been
+discriminated against, like this nurse, DeCarla, to have a
+cause of action. So that is the new part. But the conscience
+language itself is just codifying this long-standing policy.
+ Mr. Conyers. I would like to have unanimous consent to put
+in some articles from The Nation Magazine, and the New York
+Review of Books as well.
+ Mr. Franks. Without objection.
+ I thank you, Mr. Conyers.
+ [The information referred to follows:]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ __________
+
+
+
+
+ __________
+
+ Mr. Franks. I now recognize for 5 minutes the distinguished
+gentleman from Iowa.
+ Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome you also as
+Chairman of this Committee. I have had the privilege to serve
+on this Committee now starting my 9th year, and I am really
+glad to see you here with the gavel. And I am also delighted to
+see my former colleague and now current colleague, again, Mr.
+Chabot, back on this Committee and back on the subject matter
+that he led so well on. I look back at those debates here in
+this Committee when we were dealing with the terminology called
+``dilation and extraction'' which was a nice term for partial
+birth abortion.
+ And Steve Chabot laid that out in a very good and clear
+way, and it was one significant piece of progress that this
+Congress has made, and there haven't been many over the last
+decade or so. That was dilation and extraction. Now we have
+Federal funding for dilation and evacuation, which I have asked
+them to put this poster up here so we know what we are talking
+about. And I recognize we have experts on the law here, but we
+are dealing with human lives. I would ask if each of you have
+reviewed this process that I will call dismemberment abortion.
+If each of you, and I would ask on the record, starting with
+Mr. Doerflinger, are you familiar with this dismemberment
+abortion?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. From the point of view of a nonmedical
+professional, yes, sir.
+ Mr. King. Ms. Ruse?
+ Ms. Ruse. My answer is the same.
+ Mr. King. And Professor Rosenbaum?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. It would be the same.
+ Mr. King. You all are familiar with this procedure where
+the tool is used to dismember the baby and pull the parts of
+the baby apart, in utero dismemberment, and as they count the
+pieces up piece by piece, if it looks like you get down to the
+point where often the head is so well formed and the bone is so
+well structured that it has to be crushed and then pulled out,
+collapsed and then suctioned to make sure that the bone
+fragments don't bring about a high degree of hemorrhaging. For
+me I can't see much difference between partial birth abortion
+and dismemberment abortion, but we are here talking about
+legalities, talking about a complicated, convoluted tax policy
+that might be prohibitive for us to prohibit Federal funding
+for a procedure like this, this dismemberment abortion.
+ I know the positions of Mr. Doerflinger and Mrs. Ruse, but
+Professor Rosenbaum, you have not addressed this from a
+standpoint other the complications of the taxes. I would just
+ask: Should government fund a procedure like this?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. Again, I would have to respond that I am not
+prepared today to answer this question. I was focused on a bill
+that is dealing with what I don't consider to be government
+funding.
+ Mr. King. But Professor, you understand that----
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. If I could just finish. As far as I can
+tell, there is no public funding for this procedure right now,
+except in those situations in which one of the three very
+limited categories has been satisfied under Federal law. So my
+answer would be we are not publicly funding these procedures
+now, and the bill before us is not a public funding bill.
+ Mr. King. I have before me data that shows about 142,800 of
+these dismemberment abortions taking place in America just last
+year by the Guttmacher Institute. We could go into the
+disagreement we might have, but I would ask you, you are aware
+that if your testimony has impact here, then it might bring
+about this procedure that we are looking at now, and more of it
+funded by Federal tax dollars. So I am going to ask you then:
+Do you have a moral position on this or is it just a legal one
+on taxes?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. I prefer actually to keep my moral positions
+out of this hearing. I have very strongly held religious and
+moral views on many things.
+ In terms of today's hearing, as I said, I don't think I see
+any example of public financing for this procedure except in
+the excepted circumstances.
+ Mr. King. Since you don't, if we could resolve that there
+is Federal funding for abortions in this country, and there has
+been testimony to that effect by Mr. Doerflinger in particular,
+and I think also by Ms. Ruse, if we establish that point, are
+you in a position to change your position?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. I truly am having trouble following the
+question.
+ Mr. King. Let me go another route. You have reviewed this
+procedure. Could you step into an operating room and witness
+it?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. I am a law professor, so I presume I would
+never be in an operating room to see it.
+ Mr. King. You can't answer that question then whether you
+could observe it or not. I'm going to also understand that if I
+asked you if you could actually conduct that procedure, you
+would answer the same way. But I won't ask you that question,
+Professor. I just make this point, that this is a ghastly,
+gruesome and ghoulish procedure, and it is dismemberment
+abortion. And I have known people who could not vote for a
+death penalty because they couldn't conduct it themselves, and
+they take that moral position. I understand that psychology.
+ But when we look at something we are asking taxpayers to
+fund against their will that is so ghastly, so gruesome and so
+ghoulish that we can't abide even looking at it or watching it,
+or watching a full video of it or listening to the sounds that
+go on there, and we are funding it and compelling taxpayers to
+fund this kind of a dismemberment abortion, I think that
+illustrates what we are up to here, and we should go to all
+steps to stop Federal dollars from going to abortion.
+ I thank you, and I yield back.
+ Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman.
+ I would now yield to Mr. Scott of Virginia.
+ Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join the others
+in congratulating you on your new position and look forward to
+working with you.
+ Mr. Doerflinger, Professor Rosenbaum talked about the tax
+deduction and the wording seems a little unclear. Is it your
+belief that the tax deduction should still go to the health
+policy but just not that portion that pertains to abortion? Or
+should the entire policy lose its deductibility if it includes
+abortion coverage?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Congressman, this is one of the problems I
+had with trying to be helpful to Mr. Nadler. I think there are
+a lot of different ways in which the Tax Code gets implicated
+in this, and there are some cases that are much more
+straightforward than others. I think with regard to the premium
+tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, the policy that was put
+in place was that premium tax credits will not go directly to
+an abortion procedure itself, but they will go to an overall
+health plan that includes such abortions without limit. And
+then there will be a little accounting procedure within the
+plan to try to keep the Federal and private funds separate. My
+problem with that is that----
+ Mr. Scott. Just in terms of the bill, is it your intent
+that the entire, if someone has a policy that includes abortion
+coverage, should the employer lose the entire deductibility of
+the whole policy or just that portion that pertains to the
+abortion coverage?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Congressman, my understanding from the
+analysis of this bill by the Congressional Research Service is
+that it does not cover the employer deduction.
+ Mr. Scott. Well, whatever deduction we are talking about,
+tax benefits, credits, are we just talking about the abortion
+portion or the entire policy?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. There are two questions: One is whether
+this is Federal funding, and somebody has to draw a
+nonarbitrary line.
+ Mr. Scott. The answer is it is not clear.
+ Mr. Doerflinger. The second question is whether, if we
+consider that it does cross the line into being a subsidy,
+whether you ban the subsidy just for abortion itself or for a
+plan that includes it. That policy decision was made many years
+ago in the Hyde amendment. The Federal employees health
+benefit----
+ Mr. Scott. We are here talking about the legislation.
+Professor Rosenbaum, you mention that there is a lack of
+clarity as to whether the whole policy would lose its
+deductibility, or whether just the portion attributable to
+abortion coverage would not be deductible; is that right? You
+said it is unclear?
+ Ms. Rosenbaum. No, actually I think it is very clear that
+the entire policy, whatever is affected under this bill, the
+entirety would lose its deductibility, its tax advantage. What
+is not completely clear to me because of the term ``any
+deduction'' is whether the deductibility applies only to
+individual taxpayer deductions, or in fact, could at some point
+be interpreted to reach employer deductions. But I do believe
+that the deduction would be struck in its entirety if the
+product sold is a product that includes one of the prohibited
+abortion procedures, hence the extraordinarily difficult
+problems for the IRS in determining when the deductibility
+standard would be met.
+ Mr. Scott. The question I had was whether that was the
+intent and we couldn't get an answer, so it must be unclear.
+ Mr. Doerflinger, should government funds be used for
+capital punishment?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. My organization is against capital
+punishment. I think if you are going to have capital
+punishment, it pretty much has to be tax funded. But we are
+against that. We believe in the abolition of the death penalty.
+ Mr. Scott. Good. Should we work together, you and me, to
+prohibit government funds to be used for capital punishment?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Unless the intent is to put it out into
+the private sector, yes.
+ Mr. Scott. Could you explain the exception for rape, why
+that is there?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. This recent debate about rape and forcible
+rape?
+ Mr. Scott. No. Why there is an exception?
+ Mr. Doerflinger. Why there is an exception? I think you
+would have to get that answer from someone who supports it. I
+can understand why some people want that exception. They want
+to be able to say that if the woman had no part in the decision
+to have sex, to get pregnant, then she should not have to bear
+this child that was part of no decision by her. My problem with
+that is, although that is a horrible thing, and there are a lot
+of things that the health care system and the government should
+do for women who have been victims of rape. I can't help
+thinking that there is another person involved now who has also
+has a right to live. I have met some kids who were conceived in
+rape. They and their mothers are great people and they are glad
+it was not an abortion.
+ But I think the recent debate about forcible rape was
+simply an effort on the part of the sponsors to prevent the
+opening of a very broad loophole for federally funded abortions
+for any teenager. The objection to that, which I thought was
+very interesting and helpful and clarifying, the objection to
+that was by people saying it doesn't mean that. Rape already
+means forcible. So if you say forcible rape, that is redundant
+and courts are going to read that as requiring some level of
+violence or brutality that goes beyond rape itself.
+ When Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz objected to the phrase
+``forcible rape,'' she said: ``Rape is when a woman is forced
+to have sex against her will. That is whether she is conscious,
+unconscious, mentally stable, not mentally stable.''
+ I think that is a pretty good definition, and I think that
+the Subcommittee could sort of stipulate in legislative history
+that is what we all mean. We are talking about cases where
+force is used or women have been subjected to this against
+their will, and move on.
+ Mr. Chabot. I would like to thank Mr. Scott and thank all
+of our witnesses for their testimony today on this very crucial
+issue to humanity itself.
+ Mr. Quigley. Mr. Chairman, a procedural question, if I
+could?
+ Mr. Franks. Yes.
+ Mr. Quigley. In your opening statement, I believe you
+talked about perspective changes that you intended for the
+legislation. I believe you talked about what was just
+mentioned, that was rape. If I missed it, I'm apologizing, as
+it relates to incest as well?
+ Mr. Franks. I know that there are ongoing deliberations and
+they are trying to deal with at least the rape question. I
+can't speak to the incest question, but I am sure that will be
+part of their thought process. And I would invite you to be
+involved in that process.
+ Mr. Quigley. Absolutely.
+ Mr. Franks. Without objection, all Members will have 5
+legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written
+questions for the witnesses, and we will forward and ask the
+witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so that their
+answers may be made part of the record.
+ Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
+within which to submit any additional materials for inclusion
+in the record.
+ With that, again, I thank the witnesses and I thank the
+Members and observers. This hearing is adjourned.
+ [Whereupon, at 5:36 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
+
+
+ A P P E N D I X
+
+ ----------
+
+
+ Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
+
+ Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mike Quigley, a Representative in
+ Congress from the State of Illinois, and Member, Subcommittee on the
+ Constitution
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Addendum to the Prepared Statement of Cathy Cleaver Ruse,
+ Senior Fellow for Legal Studies, Family Research Council
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Letter from Cardinal Danile N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston/
+ Houston, Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities, United States
+ Conferece of Catholic Bishop
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Letter from Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, President and CEO,
+ Catholic Health Association of the United States
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Prepared Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Prepared Statement of the Center for Reproductive Rights
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Material submitted by Cory L. Richards, Executive Vice President,
+ and ice President for Public Policy, the Guttmacher Institute
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Prepared Statement of Douglas Laube, MD, MEd, Board Chair,
+ Physicians for Reroductive Choice and Health
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Letter from Cassing Hammond, MD, Director, Section of Family Planning &
+ Contraception, Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gyncology,
+Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, and Chair, National Abortion
+ Federation Board of Director
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Prepared Statement of the National Abortion Federation
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Prepared Statement of Silvia Henriquez, Executive Director,
+ the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Prepared Statement of Debra Ness, President, and Judith Lichtman,
+ Senior Advisor, the National Partnership for Women & Families
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Prepared Statement of Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel,
+ Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Prepared Statement of Nancy Keenan, President,
+ NARAL Pro-Choice American Foundation
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Prepared Statement of Nancy Ratzan, President, National Council of
+ Jewish Woman
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Material submitted by the Center for Reproductive Rights
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ __________
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Material submitted by DC Vote
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Press Release from the National Abortion Federation (NAF)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+