U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–404 PDF 2011

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 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM REED, New York 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

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 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

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 

Page

IV 

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 

(1) 

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. 

2 

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. 

3 

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:] 

4 


HR3-1.eps
5 


HR3-2.eps
6 


HR3-3.eps
7 


HR3-4.eps
8 


HR3-5.eps
9 


HR3-6.eps
10 


HR3-7.eps
11 


HR3-8.eps
12 


HR3-9.eps
13 

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 selfemployed 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. 

14 

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 

15 

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:] 

16 


64404A-1.eps
17 


64404A-2.eps
18 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:] 


64404B-1.eps
19 

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 abilVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:25 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\020811\64404.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

64404B-2.eps
20 

ity 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 

21 

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 

22 

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 

23 

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:] 

24 


RMD-1.eps
25 


RMD-2.eps
26 


RMD-3.eps
27 


RMD-4.eps
28 


RMD-5.eps
29 


RMD-6.eps
30 


RMD-7.eps
31 


RMD-8.eps
32 


RMD-9.eps
33 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Doerflinger. We now recognize Mrs. 

Ruse for 5 minutes. 


RMD-10.eps
34 

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. 

35 

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:] 

36 


Ruse-1.eps
37 


Ruse-2.eps
38 


Ruse-3.eps
39 


Ruse-4.eps
40 


Ruse-5.eps
41 


Ruse-6.eps
42 


Ruse-7.eps
43 


Ruse-8.eps
44 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mrs. Ruse. We now recognize Professor 

Rosenbaum for 5 minutes. 


Ruse-9.eps
45 

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 

46 

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 followon 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:] 

47 


SR-1.eps
48 


SR-2.eps
49 


SR-3.eps
50 


SR-4.eps
51 

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? 

52 

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? 

53 

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 

54 

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. 

55 

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 

56 

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? 

57 

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 AfVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:25 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\020811\64404.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
58 

fairs 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. 

59 

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 

60 

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. 

61 

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:] 


64404C1-1.eps
62 


64404C1-2.eps
63 


64404C1-3.eps
64 


64404C2-1.eps
65 

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 


64404C2-2.eps
66 

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 

67 

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 AfVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:25 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\020811\64404.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
68 

fordable 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? 

69 

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. 

70 

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.] 

(71) 

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 


64404D-1.eps
72 


64404D-2.eps
73 

f 


64404D-3.eps
74 

Addendum to the Prepared Statement of Cathy Cleaver Ruse, 

Senior Fellow for Legal Studies, Family Research Council 

f 


64404E.eps
75 

Letter from Cardinal Danile N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston/Houston, Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities, United States Conferece of Catholic 

Bishop 


64404F-1.eps
76 

f 


64404F-2.eps
77 

Letter from Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, President and CEO, 

Catholic Health Association of the United States 


64404G-1.eps
78 

f 


64404G-2.eps
79 

Prepared Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 


64404H-1.eps
80 


64404H-2.eps
81 


64404H-3.eps
82 


64404H-4.eps
83 


64404H-5.eps
84 


64404H-6.eps
85 


64404H-7.eps
86 


64404H-8.eps
87 

f 


64404H-9.eps
88 

Prepared Statement of the Center for Reproductive Rights 


64404I-1.eps
89 


64404I-2.eps
90 


64404I-3.eps
91 


64404I-4.eps
92 


64404I-5.eps
93 


64404I-6.eps
94 


64404I-7.eps
95 


64404I-8.eps
96 


64404I-9.eps
97 


64404I-10.eps
98 


64404I-11.eps
99 


64404I-12.eps
100 

f 


64404I-13.eps
101 

Material submitted by Cory L. Richards, Executive Vice President, 

and ice President for Public Policy, the Guttmacher Institute 


64404J-1.eps
102 


64404J-2.eps
103 


64404J-3.eps
104 


64404J-4.eps
105 


64404J-5.eps
106 


64404J-6.eps
107 


64404J-7.eps
108 


64404J-8.eps
109 


64404J-9.eps
110 


64404J-10.eps
111 

f 


64404J-11.eps
112 

Prepared Statement of Douglas Laube, MD, MEd, Board Chair, 

Physicians for Reroductive Choice and Health 


64404K-1.eps
113 


64404K-2.eps
114 


64404K-3.eps
115 

f 


64404K-4.eps
116 

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 


64404L-1.eps
117 


64404L-2.eps
118 

f 


64404L-3.eps
119 

Prepared Statement of the National Abortion Federation 


64404M-1.eps
120 


64404M-2.eps
121 


64404M-3.eps
122 


64404M-4.eps
123 


64404M-5.eps
124 

f 


64404M-6.eps
125 

Prepared Statement of Silvia Henriquez, Executive Director, 

the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health 


64404N-1.eps
126 


64404N-2.eps
127 

f 


64404N-3.eps
128 

Prepared Statement of Debra Ness, President, and Judith Lichtman, Senior Advisor, 

the National Partnership for Women & Families 


64404O-1.eps
129 


64404O-2.eps
130 


64404O-3.eps
131 

f 


64404O-4.eps
132 

Prepared Statement of Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel, 

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism 


64404P-1.eps
133 

f 


64404P-2.eps
134 

Prepared Statement of Nancy Keenan, President, 

NARAL Pro-Choice American Foundation 


64404Q-1.eps
135 


64404Q-2.eps
136 


64404Q-3.eps
137 


64404Q-4.eps
138 


64404Q-5.eps
139 


64404Q-6.eps
140 


64404Q-7.eps
141 


64404Q-8.eps
142 

f 


64404Q-9.eps
143 

Prepared Statement of Nancy Ratzan, President, National Council of Jewish Woman 


64404R-1.eps
144 


64404R-2.eps
145 

f 


64404R-3.eps
146 

Material submitted by the Center for Reproductive Rights 


64404S1-1.eps
147 


64404S1-2.eps
148 


64404S2-1.eps
149 


64404S2-2.eps
150 

f 


64404S2-3.eps
151 

Material submitted by DC Vote 

f 


64404T.eps
152 

Press Release from the National Abortion Federation (NAF) 


64404U-1.eps
153 


64404U-2.eps
154 

Æ 


64404U-3.eps