39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–332 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day of JANUARY 21), 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. GOODLATTE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 7] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions, having considered 

the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 8 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 8 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 8 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 16 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 16 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 16 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 17 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 17 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 17 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 18 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 18 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 19 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 25 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1See Testimony of Douglas Johnson before the Subcommittee on Health, U.S. House of Representatives (February 9, 2011) at 16–17, available at http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/ahc/ 

ProtectLifeActDouglasJohnsonTestimony.pdf. 2See National Right to Life Committee, Inc., ‘‘New Polling Shows Strong Support for Prohibiting Abortion on Pain-Capable Unborn Children’’ (April 22, 2013), available at http:// 

www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/04/new-polling-shows-strong-support-for-prohibitingabortion-on-pain-capable-unborn-children/#.UpzbOCemYlQ (press release). 3 International Communications Research, September 16–20, 2009, 1043 adults (margin of 

error: ± 3.0%). 4 Richard Doerflinger, ‘‘Defending Hyde,’’ America: The National Catholic Review (November 

19, 2012), available at http://americamagazine.org/issue/5159/article/defending-hyde. 

Purpose and Summary 

H.R. 7, the ‘‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’’ would prohibit the Federal funding of abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

For over 30 years, a patchwork of policies has regulated Federal 

funding for abortion. Amendments have been added to various appropriations bills (which have been signed into law) that would prohibit the Federal funding of abortions through the programs funded 

by those appropriations bills. But now is the time for Congress to 

pass one piece of legislation that prohibits Federal funding of elective abortion, no matter where in the Federal system that funding 

might occur. H.R. 7, with the exception of a few narrow categories 

that have been accepted for many years, provides that the Federal 

Government should not make taxpayers pay for abortions or insurance coverage that includes abortion. 

The American people overwhelmingly oppose Federal funding of 

abortions. At the height of public debate over what became known 

as the Obamacare law, a 2010 Zogby/O’Leary poll found that 76% 

of Americans said that Federal funds should never pay for abortion 

or should pay only to save the life of the mother.1 Another poll 

found that a strong majority continues to oppose using public funds 

for abortion: 58% opposed using tax dollars to pay for abortion; 

only 35% supported using tax dollars to pay for abortion.2 A September 2009 International Communications Research poll asked, 

‘‘If the choice were up to you, would you want your own insurance 

policy to include abortion,’’ to which 68% of respondents answered 

no and only 24% answered yes.3

Indeed, as Richard Doerflinger has written, the Hyde Amendment is a longstanding bipartisan policy: 

The Hyde Amendment . . . first took effect on Oct. 1, 

1976, sponsored by Republican Henry Hyde of Illinois, but 

passed by a House and Senate that were overwhelmingly 

Democratic. As a rider to the annual appropriations bill 

governing domestic Federal health programs, it has been 

renewed with little change for 36 years, supported by congressional majorities and presidents of both parties as well 

as by public opinion. It would be difficult to name an abortion-related policy that has garnered more bipartisan support over a longer period of time.4


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

5 Robert D. Reischauer, Director, Congressional Budget Office, Letter to the Congressman Vic 

Fazio (D-CA) (July 19, 1993). 6 Julian Gold, MD and Willard Cates, Jr., MD, MPH, ‘‘Restrictions of Federal Funds for Abortion: 18 Months Later,’’ American Journal of Public Health (September 1979) at 929, available 

at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1619219/pdf/amjph00694-0087.pdf. 7Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 475 (1977). 8 ‘‘Discriminatory Restrictions on Abortion Funding Threaten Women’s Health,’’ NARAL ProChoice America Foundation factsheet (January 1, 2010) (citing Rachel K. Jones et al., Patterns 

Continued 

H.R. 7 CONTINUES LONG-STANDING FEDERAL POLICIES

H.R. 7 will make permanent the policies that have previously 

been passed on a case-by-case basis. Provisions that currently rely 

on regular re-approval include: 

the Hyde amendment, which prohibits funding for elective 

abortion coverage through any program funded through 

the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act; 

the Smith FEHBP amendment, which prohibits funding 

for health plans that include elective abortion coverage for 

Federal employees; 

the Dornan amendment, which prohibits use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of 

Columbia; and 

other policies such as the restrictions on elective abortion 

funding through the Peace Corps and Federal prisons. 

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ABORTIONS WOULD LIKELY BE PAID

FOR EACH YEAR BY FEDERAL TAXPAYERS WITHOUT THE POLICIES

THAT H.R. 7 MAKES PERMANENT

In 1993 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Federal Government would pay for as many as 675,000 abortions each 

year without the Hyde Amendment and other measures in place at 

the time to prevent Federal funding of abortion in Federal programs.5 The Alan Guttmacher Institute has also estimated that in 

the Medicaid program alone, the Federal Government was subsidizing 295,000 abortions a year until the Hyde amendment was 

enacted.6 It is axiomatic that when government subsidizes conduct, 

it encourages it. The Supreme Court in Maher v. Roe acknowledged 

the truth of this proposition in the context of abortion when it 

equated government funding of an activity with government encouragement of that activity.7

According to more recent studies, where government funding for 

abortion is not available under Medicaid or the state equivalent 

program, conservative estimates are that at least one-fourth of the 

Medicaid-eligible women carry their babies to term, who would otherwise procure federally funded abortions. One abortion advocacy 

group, NARAL, has claimed that the effect of a denial of public 

funding on abortion reductions is even greater, around 50 percent. 

For example, a 2010 NARAL factsheet contains this statement: 

A study by the Guttmacher Institute shows that Medicaideligible women in states that exclude abortion coverage 

have abortion rates of about half of those of women in 

states that fund abortion care.8


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

in the Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions in 2000–2001, Persp. on. 

Sexual & Reprod. Health 34 (2002)). 9See ‘‘Whose Choice? How the Hyde Amendment Harms Poor Women,’’ Center for Reproductive Rights, 2010, at 4, available at http://reproductiverights.org/en/feature/whose-choicedownload-report (stating that ‘‘[b]ecause of the Hyde Amendment, more than a million women’’ 

have not had abortions they may have had otherwise). See also The Heart of the Matter: Public 

Funding Of Abortion for Poor Women in the United States, by Heather D. Boonstra, Guttmacher 

Policy Review, Volume 10, Number 1 (Winter 2007) (‘‘Studies published over the course of two 

decades looking at a number of states concluded that 18–35% of women who would have had 

an abortion continued their pregnancies after Medicaid funding was cut off.’’). 10 CQ Today (July 15, 2009). 

Using a conservative 25 percent abortion-reduction figure, well 

over one million Americans are alive today because of the Hyde 

Amendment.9

H.R. 7 IS WORKABLE

H.R. 7 will ensure that American taxpayers are not involved in 

funding the destruction of innocent human life through abortion on 

demand. The ‘‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’’ will establish a government-wide statutory prohibition on funding abortion 

or insurance coverage that includes abortion. This comprehensive 

approach will reduce the need for the numerous separate abortion 

funding policies and ensure that no program or agency is exempt 

from this important safeguard. 

This comprehensive approach is clearly administratively workable, as insurers have been operating under the limits of the Hyde 

Amendment and the Hyde-companion policy that applies to the 

Federal Employee Health Benefits program for decades. As CQ has 

reported, ‘‘Most people with employer-sponsored insurance also 

must pay for abortions out of their own pocket. ‘Most insurers offer 

plans that include this coverage, but most employers choose not to 

offer it as part of their benefits package,’ said Robert Zirkelbach, 

a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the insurance 

industry’s trade association.’’ 10

THE OBAMACARE LAW FAILS TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF

TAXPAYER MONEY TO FUND ABORTIONS

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) and former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) offered an amendment to what became the Obamacare law during 

the 111th Congress that would have prohibited government funding of abortion had it been included in the final health care reform 

act. In the House, the Stupak/Pitts amendment passed by a vote 

of 240–194. The Senate then took up another bill (H.R. 3590) which 

did not include the Stupak/Pitts amendment, and that bill was ultimately signed into law by President Obama as P.L. 111–148. That 

law marks a drastic break from longstanding Federal policy. The 

Hyde Amendment has, for over 30 years, prevented programs funded by the annual Health and Human Services Appropriations bill 

from financing abortion. The language of the current Hyde Amendment explicitly prohibits not only direct use of Federal funds for 

abortions, but also Federal subsidies for plans that include abortion 

coverage. As the Hyde Amendment states: 

FY12, Division D, Title V, General Provisions 

SEC. 506. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, 

and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

11P.L. 112–74. 12 Chicago Tribune mayoral debate video (January 14, 2011), formerly available at http:// 

www.wgntv.com/news/elections/mayor/editorial/(Pt. 10). See also David Freddoso, ‘‘Rahm on the 

Stupak Amendment,’’ The San Francisco Examiner (January 18, 2011), available at http:// 

www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/rahm-on-the-stupak-amendment/Content?oid=2168010. 

appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion. 

(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none 

of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits 

coverage that includes coverage of abortion. 

(c) The term ‘‘health benefits coverage’’ means the package 

of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement. 

SEC. 507. (a) The limitations established in the preceding 

section shall not apply to an abortion——— 

(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; 

or 

(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a lifeendangering physical condition caused by or arising from 

the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.11

The Obamacare law passed the House only after a handful of 

Democrats agreed to a deal in which the text of the Senate bill 

would not change, but the President would sign an executive order 

that would allegedly contain a ban on Federal funding of abortion 

coverage. But an executive order cannot trump the text of legislation enacted by Congress. Indeed, in a recent interview with the 

Chicago Tribune editorial board, former White House chief of staff 

Rahm Emanuel emphasized that the Executive Order on abortion 

signed by President Obama in March, 2010, does not carry the 

force of law, and as such, was approved by former House Speaker 

Nancy Pelosi and others who oppose a ban on taxpayer funding of 

abortion. Mr. Emanuel said ‘‘I came up with an idea for an executive order to allow the Stupak amendment not to exist in law.’’ 12

Clearly, then, the substance of the Stupak amendment does not 

now exist in law, according to the person who served as the chief 

of staff to President Obama at the time. Congress needs to pass 

H.R. 7 to put a ban on the Federal funding of abortions back into 

Federal law. 

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ABORTION IN OBAMACARE

Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) [P.L. 111–148] 

specifies the conditions under which abortion can be included in 

federally subsidized insurance plans sold on the exchanges established under the ACA in the following ways. 

State Opt-Out 

1303(a) is a State opt-out that allows states to exclude abortion 

from the plans sold on the exchange in their state. The opt-out can 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

be exercised by all states even those that have refused to set up 

an exchange in their state. 

Insurance Provider Option 

1303(b)(1) specifies that insurance companies selling plans on the 

exchanges may choose whether to include abortion in the plan(s) 

they offer on the exchanges. 

Taxpayer Funding Accounting Procedure 

1303(b)(2) establishes an unprecedented accounting arrangement 

by which the taxpayer subsidies (refundable, advancable tax credits) can be used to buy insurance plans that include elective abortion. Plans that include abortion coverage will comply with this 

part of the law by implementing an abortion surcharge and a secrecy clause: 

Abortion Surcharge 

Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 1303(b)(2) require that plans 

that cover abortion collect abortion surcharges from all enrollees. These surcharges will then go into an abortion account to pay for abortions. Subparagraph (D) specifies how 

the surcharge will be calculated and requires that it be an 

amount of at least $1 per enrollee, per month. Subparagraph (E) addresses compliance. 

Secrecy Clause 

The secrecy clause in 1303(b)(3) states that plans that include abortion may ‘‘only’’ notify enrollees about the coverage (and subsequent abortion surcharge) as a part of the 

‘‘summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the 

time of enrollment . . .’’ Advertising about the plan and 

information available on the exchange about the plan may 

‘‘only’’ list the total amount of the combined payments for 

services, meaning that information about the abortion surcharge may not be made clear in advertising and publications on the exchange. 

Multi-State Plans 

Section 1334 establishes multi-state plans that will be administered by the Office of Personnel Management and are designed to 

be similar to Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) 

coverage. However, 1334(a)(6) specifies that all but one multi-state 

plan may include elective abortion coverage. Under longstanding 

law, no FEHBP plans include elective abortion. (These plans will 

not include abortion coverage in states that have opted out of such 

coverage.) 

Under the Affordable Care Act, tens of millions of Americans will 

be eligible for Federal subsidies for private health plans. The rollout of the Obamacare exchanges already reveals that many health 

insurance plans will subsidize abortion-on-demand. As the office of 

the sponsor of H.R. 7 has discovered, for example, 103 of the 112 

insurance plans for Members of Congress and congressional staff 

include elective abortion coverage. Only nine plans offered exclude 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

13See document distributed by the office of Rep. Chris Smith, available at http:// 

chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2013l12-02lfloorlflyerlonlmemberlhclplans.pdf. 14See Congressional Budget Office, CBO’s August 2010 Baseline: Health Insurance Exchanges 

(August 25, 2010), available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/ 

ExchangesAugust2010FactSheet.pdf. When the projected $18.9 billion in direct spending on costsharing subsidies (which are not a credit) is added to the $72.2 billion in direct spending for 

premium credit outlays, the resulting $91.1 billion in direct spending equals 77% of the total 

dollars for Exchange subsidies (91.1 / 118.3 = 77%). 15 CBO, ‘‘The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021, at 62–63 (January 

2011). 16Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474 (1977). 

elective abortion.13 Without the enactment of H.R. 7, these Federal 

subsidies will be used to pay for plans that cover abortion on demand, in direct contradiction to the second principle of the Hyde 

Amendment which prohibits the use of Federal funds to pay for 

plans that cover elective abortion. 

Although this Federal assistance is called a ‘‘credit,’’ it is actually 

provided regardless of one’s tax liability, so it is akin to an entitlement program. An August 2010 chart by the Congressional Budget 

Office evidences that 73% of the total cost for the premium assistance credits will be through direct spending in excess of tax liability. CBO projects that in year 2020, there will be $72.2 billion in 

direct spending in premium credit outlays, and $27.2 billion in premium credit revenue reductions. This means that 73% of the total 

premium assistance dollars will be in excess of taxpayers’ liabilities 

(72.2 / 99.4 = 73%).14 In a separate publication, CBO explains: 

‘‘PPACA [the Obamacare law], as amended, establishes new exchanges for the purchase of health insurance and authorizes government subsidies for such purchases for individuals and families 

who meet income and other eligibility criteria. The subsidies for 

health insurance premiums are structured as refundable tax credits; the portions of such credits that exceed taxpayers’ liabilities are 

classified as outlays, while the portions that reduce tax payments 

appear in the budget as reductions in revenues.’’ 15

These subsidies are advancable, meaning that Federal monies 

will be sent by the Secretary of the Treasury on a monthly basis 

directly to the health insurer to pay for the subsidized plan, including plans that cover abortion on demand. 

Congress has the clear authority to enact H.R. 7. The Supreme 

Court has held that the alleged constitutional ‘‘right’’ to an abortion 

‘‘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.’’ 16 As the U.S. Supreme 

Court has said: 

By subsidizing the medical expenses of indigent women 

who carry their pregnancies to term while not subsidizing 

the comparable expenses of women who undergo abortions 

(except those whose lives are threatened), Congress has established incentives that make childbirth a more attractive 

alternative than abortion for persons eligible for Medicaid. 

These incentives bear a direct relationship to the legitimate congressional interest in protecting potential life. Nor 

is it irrational that Congress has authorized Federal reimbursement for medically necessary services generally, but 

not for certain medically necessary abortions. Abortion is 

inherently different from other medical procedures, beVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:39 Jan 24, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR332P1.XXX HR332P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

17 Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980) (footnotes omitted, emphasis added). Note that 

this court decision upheld the original Hyde amendment of Fiscal Year 1977, which allowed Federal abortion funding only in cases of danger to the life of the mother; that policy was also in 

effect from 1981 to 1993. 18 500 U.S. 173 (1991). 19 Id. at 198. 20 Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980). 21Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 475 (1977). 

cause no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.17

As the Supreme Court held in Rust v. Sullivan,18 in upholding 

Federal limits on abortion funding, ‘‘By requiring that the . . . 

grantee engage in abortion-related activity separately from activity 

receiving Federal funding, Congress has, consistent with our teachings . . . not denied it the right to engage in abortion-related activities. Congress has merely refused to fund such activities out of 

the public fisc.’’ 19 And when a challenge to the constitutionality of 

the Hyde Amendment reached the Supreme Court in 1980 in the 

case of Harris v. McRae, the Court ruled that the government may 

distinguish between abortion and other procedures in funding decisions—noting that ‘‘no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life’’—and affirmed that Roe v. Wade had 

created a limitation on government, not a government entitlement.20 Three years earlier the Supreme Court had ruled that the 

government’s refusal to fund abortion placed no restriction on the 

right to choose abortion.21

Hearings 

The Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitition and Civil 

Justice held a hearing on H.R. 7 on January 9, 2014. Testimony 

was received from Helen Alvare, Professor of Law at George Mason 

University School of Law; Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director 

of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference 

of Catholic Bishops; and Susan Franklin Wood, Associate Professor 

of Health Policy and Environmental & Occupational Health, 

George Washington University, with additional material submitted 

by various individuals and organizations. 

Committee Consideration 

On January 15, 2014, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 7 favorably reported without amendment, by a 

rollcall vote of 22 to 12, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

7. 

1. The amendment offered by Mr. Conyers amends section 308 

to treat the District of Columbia as a state for purposes of the provisions of the bill. This amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote 

of 11–19. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ..................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble (NC) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ................................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Forbes (VA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. King (IA) ................................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) .........................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan (OH) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ................................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) .........................................................................................................

Mr. Marino (PA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) .....................................................................................................

Mr. Holding (NC) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (MO) ............................................................................................................ X 

[Vacant].

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ....................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott (VA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ...................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen (TN) .............................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson (GA) ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant].

Total ........................................................................................................... 11 19 

2. Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair by Mr. 

Sensenbrenner was approved by a rollcall vote of 18–12. This motion occurred during debate on an amendment offered by Mr. Nadler that was ultimately ruled not germane. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ..................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble (NC) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ............................................................................................................. X 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ................................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. King (IA) ................................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Poe (TX) .................................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) .........................................................................................................

Mr. Marino (PA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) .....................................................................................................

Mr. Holding (NC) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (MO) ............................................................................................................ X 

[Vacant].

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ....................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott (VA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant].

Total ........................................................................................................... 18 12 

3. The amendment offered by Mr. Johnson adds a new section 

310 to provide that the bill shall not take effect unless the Attorney 

General submits a report to Congress setting forth the bill’s effect 

on women’s access to abortion and insurance that covers abortion. 

The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 14–17. 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ..................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble (NC) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ................................................................................................................


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

ROLLCALL NO. 3—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Forbes (VA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. King (IA) ................................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ............................................................................................................

Mr. Poe (TX) .................................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) .....................................................................................................

Mr. Holding (NC) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) .........................................................................................................

Mr. Smith (MO) ............................................................................................................ X 

[Vacant].

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ....................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott (VA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ...................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen (TN) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Bass (CA) ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant].

Total ........................................................................................................... 14 17 

4. The amendment offered by Ms. Chu adds a new section 310 

to provide that the bill shall not (1) restrict the ability of health 

care providers to disclose all relevant information to patients; or (2) 

allow violations of principles of informed consent and ethical standards of care. This amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 15– 

19. 

ROLLCALL NO. 4 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ..................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble (NC) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ................................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. King (IA) ................................................................................................................ X 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Franks (AZ) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Poe (TX) .................................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) .....................................................................................................

Mr. Holding (NC) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (MO) ............................................................................................................ X 

[Vacant].

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ....................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler (NY) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott (VA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Bass (CA) ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant].

Total ........................................................................................................... 15 19 

5. The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee amends section 

308 to lift funding restrictions where continuing a pregnancy could 

result in severe and long-lasting damage to a woman’s health. This 

amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 12–20. 

ROLLCALL NO. 5 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ..................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble (NC) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ................................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. King (IA) ................................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ................................................................................................................. X 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

ROLLCALL NO. 5—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) .........................................................................................................

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Holding (NC) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (MO) ............................................................................................................ X 

[Vacant].

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member .......................................................................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott (VA) ..............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren (CA) .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant].

Total ........................................................................................................... 12 20 

6. The amendment offered by Mr. Deutch adds the phrase ‘‘even 

though women have the Constitutionally protected right to choose’’ 

after the word abortion in the bill. This amendment was defeated 

by a rollcall vote of 12–21. 

ROLLCALL NO. 6 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ..................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble (NC) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ................................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. King (IA) ................................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ................................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ......................................................................................................... X 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

ROLLCALL NO. 6—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Holding (NC) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (MO) ............................................................................................................ X 

[Vacant].

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member .......................................................................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott (VA) ..............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren (CA) .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant].

Total ........................................................................................................... 12 21 

7. The amendment offered by Ms. DelBene amends section 308 

to lift funding restrictions where a woman with cancer needs lifesaving treatment incompatible with continuing the pregnancy. This 

amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 13–21. 

ROLLCALL NO. 7 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ..................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble (NC) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ................................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. King (IA) ................................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ................................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Holding (NC) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ......................................................................................................... X 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

ROLLCALL NO. 7—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith (MO) ............................................................................................................ X 

[Vacant].

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member .......................................................................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott (VA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant].

Total ........................................................................................................... 13 21 

8. The bill was favorably reported, without amendment, by a 

rollcall vote of 22–12, a quorum being present. 

ROLLCALL NO. 8 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ..................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ......................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble (NC) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Smith (TX) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus (AL) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa (CA) ................................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes (VA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. King (IA) ................................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks (AZ) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan (OH) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Poe (TX) ................................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino (PA) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Labrador (ID) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Farenthold (TX) ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Holding (NC) .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (MO) ............................................................................................................ X 

[Vacant].

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member .......................................................................

Mr. Nadler (NY) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott (VA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren (CA) .......................................................................................................... X 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

ROLLCALL NO. 8—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen (TN) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Johnson (GA) ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi (PR) ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch (FL) ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Bass (CA) .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Richmond (LA) ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. DelBene (WA) ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Garcia (FL) ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................................................................... X 

[Vacant].

Total ........................................................................................................... 22 12 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 7, the following estimate and comparison prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, January 17, 2014. 

Hon. BOB GOODLATTE, CHAIRMAN, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 7, the ‘‘No Taxpayer 

Funding for Abortion Act.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. 

Sincerely, DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

H.R. 7—No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 

on January 15, 2014. 

H.R. 7 would amend Title 1 of the United States Code to prohibit 

the use of Federal funds provided under Federal law to pay for 

abortion services or for any health plan that provides abortion services, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger. 

H.R. 7 also would amend the Internal Revenue Code to disallow 

the application of certain health coverage tax benefits to coverage 

of abortion services, other than under the excepted circumstances 

mentioned above. The bill would not allow the costs of abortion 

services to count as a deductible medical expense in determining 

income tax liability. It would change the definition of a ‘‘qualified 

health plan’’ to exclude plans that offer coverage of abortion services, other than under the excepted circumstances. In addition, 

health insurance tax credits for small employers would not be 

available for health insurance plans that include such coverage. 

The bill also would require any reimbursements from health flexible spending arrangements and distributions by Archer medical 

savings accounts and health savings accounts for abortion services 

to be included as gross income. 

Enacting H.R. 7 could affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. According to the staff of the 

Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the bill would have negligible 

effects on tax revenues. Similarly, CBO estimates that any effects 

on direct spending would be negligible for each year and over the 

2014–2024 period. 

CBO and JCT have determined that H.R. 7 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or 

tribal governments. 

Duplication of Federal Programs 

No provision of H.R. 7 establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings 

The Committee estimates that H.R. 7 specifically directs to be 

completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 

551. 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 7 would prohibit 

the taxpayer funding of abortion, with certain exceptions. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 7 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the provisions of the bill within the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction as reported by the Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title. Section 1 provides the short title of the bill. 

Sec. 101. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions. Section 101 adds 

the following provisions as sections of a newly created Chapter 4 

of Title 1 of the U.S. Code prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions: 

Sec. 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions. Section 301 prohibits Federal funding for abortion. 

Sec. 302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that 

cover abortion. Section 302 prohibits funding for health benefits 

coverage that includes coverage of abortion. 

Sec. 303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees. Section 

303 prohibits abortion in Federal health facilities (such as Department of Defense, Indian Health, and Veterans Affairs hospitals) 

and ensures abortion is not included in the services provided by individuals as a part of their employment by the Federal Government. Under current law these facilities do not provided abortions 

except in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. 

Section 303 codifies that policy. 

Sec. 304. Construction relating to separate coverage. Section 304 

clarifies that the bill does not prohibit individuals, entities, States 

or localities from purchasing separate non-federally funded coverage that includes abortion. Such coverage must be purchased 

using non-Federal funds and may not be purchased using matching 

funds required for a federally subsidized program. For example, 

States may provide abortion coverage to Medicaid participants, but 

may not do so using Federal funds or State Medicaid matching 

funds, as is the case under the Hyde Amendment today. 

Sec. 305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal funds for 

health coverage. Section 305 clarifies that non-Federal health insurance providers may sell abortion coverage consistent with the policies described in Section 304. Section 305 provides that ‘‘Nothing 

in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the ability of any 

non-Federal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage, so long as only funds 

not authorized or appropriated by Federal law are used and such 

coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for 

a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.’’ Section 305 makes clear 

that the insurance industry may continue to provide abortion coverage to those who purchase such coverage using their own private 

money. 

Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws. Section 306 clarifies that the bill preserves any stronger abortion funding restrictions in law. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

Sec. 307. Construction relating to complications arising from 

abortion. Section 307 makes clear that the bill’s restrictions on the 

use of Federal funds for abortion do not apply to the treatment of 

complications from abortion, regardless of whether the abortion 

itself was illegal or ineligible for Federal funds. 

Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, and preserving the life of the mother. Section 308 establishes an exception 

to the prohibitions on abortion funding for cases of rape and incest, 

and when necessary to save the life of the mother. This section 

uses the same language that appears in the Hyde Amendment. 

Sec. 309. Application to the District of Columbia. Section 309 

clarifies that the term ‘‘funds appropriated by Federal law’’ includes funds appropriated by Congress for the District of Columbia, 

and that standards set for the Federal Government include the 

government of the District of Columbia. Because H.R. 7 codifies the 

Hyde Amendment principle as a matter of Federal law, it will affect funding in the District of Columbia. Article I, Section 8, clause 

17 of the Constitution grants Congress ultimate authority over all 

District legislation, including funding. 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 1, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

1 Rules of construction ............................................................................. 1 

* * * * * * * 

4. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions .............................................. 301 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 4—PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED 

ABORTIONS 

301. Prohibition on funding for abortions. 

302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that cover abortion. 

303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees. 

304. Construction relating to separate coverage. 

305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal funds for health coverage. 

306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws. 

307. Construction relating to complications arising from abortion. 

308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother. 

309. Application to District of Columbia. 

§ 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions 

No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none 

of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

§ 302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that 

cover abortion 

None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, 

and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health 

benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. 

§ 303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees 

No health care service furnished— 

(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by the 

Federal Government; or 

(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the 

Federal Government to provide health care services within the 

scope of the physician’s or individual’s employment, 

may include abortion. 

§ 304. Construction relating to separate coverage 

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting any 

individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing separate 

abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion 

so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using only funds not 

authorized or appropriated by Federal law and such coverage shall 

not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of 

Medicaid matching funds. 

§ 305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal funds 

for health coverage 

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the 

ability of any non-Federal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage, so long as 

only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law are used 

and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds. 

§ 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws 

Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any effect 

on any other Federal law to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage 

that includes coverage of abortion,beyond the limitations set forth in 

this chapter. 

§ 307. Construction relating to complications arising from 

abortion 

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to the treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or disorder that has been 

caused by or exacerbated by the performance of an abortion. This 

rule of construction shall be applicable without regard to whether 

the abortion was performed in accord with Federal or State law, 

and without regard to whether funding for the abortion is permissible under section 308. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

§ 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother 

The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall 

not apply to an abortion— 

(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; 

or 

(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering 

physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy 

itself. 

§ 309. Application to District of Columbia 

In this chapter: 

(1) Any reference to funds appropriated by Federal law 

shall be treated as including any amounts within the budget of 

the District of Columbia that have been approved by Act of Congress pursuant to section 446 of the District of Columbia Home 

Rule Act (or any applicable successor Federal law). 

(2) The term ‘‘Federal Government’’ includes the government of the District of Columbia. 

* * * * * * * 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 

Subtitle A—Income Taxes 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 1—NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter A—Determination of Tax Liability 

* * * * * * * 

PART IV—CREDITS AGAINST TAX 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart C—Refundable Credits 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 36B. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED 

HEALTH PLAN. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) DEFINITION AND RULES RELATING TO APPLICABLE TAXPAYERS, COVERAGE MONTHS, AND QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.—For 

purposes of this section— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) DEFINITIONS AND OTHER RULES.— 

(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘qualified 

health plan’’ has the meaning given such term by section 

1301(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 

except that such term shall not include a qualified health 

plan which is a catastrophic plan described in section 

1302(e) of such Act or any health plan that includes coverage for abortions (other than any abortion or treatment 

described in section 213(g)(2)). 

* * * * * * * 

(C) SEPARATE ABORTION COVERAGE OR PLAN AL- LOWED.— 

(i) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR

PLAN.—Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed as prohibiting any individual from purchasing 

separate coverage for abortions described in such subparagraph, or a health plan that includes such abortions, so long as no credit is allowed under this section 

with respect to the premiums for such coverage or plan. 

(ii) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall restrict any non-Federal 

health insurance issuer offering a health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions described in such 

subparagraph, or a plan that includes such abortions, 

so long as premiums for such separate coverage or plan 

are not paid for with any amount attributable to the 

credit allowed under this section (or the amount of any 

advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart D—Business Related Credits 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 45R. EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSES OF SMALL EMPLOYERS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) INSURANCE DEFINITIONS.— øAny term¿ 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Any term used in this section which is 

also used in the Public Health Service Act or subtitle A of title 

I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shall have 

the meaning given such term by such Act or subtitle. 

(2) EXCLUSION OF HEALTH PLANS INCLUDING COVERAGE FOR

ABORTION.—The terms ‘‘qualified health plan’’ and ‘‘health insurance coverage’’ shall not include any health plan or benefit 

that includes coverage for abortions (other than any abortion or 

treatment described in section 213(g)(2)). 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

Subchapter B—Computation of Taxable Income 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—ITEMS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM 

GROSS INCOME 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 125. CAFETERIA PLANS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(k) ABORTION REIMBURSEMENT FROM FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGEMENT INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME.—Notwithstanding section 

105(b), gross income shall include any reimbursement for expenses 

incurred for an abortion (other than any abortion or treatment described in section 213(g)(2)) from a health flexible spending arrangement provided under a cafeteria plan. Such reimbursement 

shall not fail to be a qualified benefit for purposes of this section 

merely as a result of such inclusion in gross income. 

ø(k)¿ (l) CROSS REFERENCE.—For reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, see section 6039D. 

ø(l)¿ (m) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall prescribe such 

regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 

section. 

* * * * * * * 

PART VII—ADDITIONAL ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR 

INDIVIDUALS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 213. MEDICAL, DENTAL, ETC., EXPENSES. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) AMOUNTS PAID FOR ABORTION NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—An amount paid during the taxable year 

for an abortion shall not be taken into account under subsection 

(a). 

(2) EXCEPTIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to— 

(A) an abortion— 

(i) in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of 

an act of rape or incest, or 

(ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that 

would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in 

danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused 

by or arising from the pregnancy, and 

(B) the treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or 

disorder that has been caused by or exacerbated by the performance of an abortion. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

SEC. 220. ARCHER MSAS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) TAX TREATMENT OF DISTRIBUTIONS.— (1) AMOUNTS USED FOR QUALIFIED MEDICAL EXPENSES.— Any amount paid or distributed out of an Archer MSA which 

is used exclusively to pay qualified medical expenses of any account holder shall not be includible in gross income, except that 

any such amount used to pay for an abortion (other than any 

abortion or treatment described in section 213(g)(2)) shall be included in the gross income of such holder. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 223. HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) TAX TREATMENT OF DISTRIBUTIONS.— 

(1) AMOUNTS USED FOR QUALIFIED MEDICAL EXPENSES.— 

Any amount paid or distributed out of a health savings account 

which is used exclusively to pay qualified medical expenses of 

any account beneficiary shall not be includible in gross income, 

except that any such amount used to pay for an abortion (other 

than any abortion or treatment described in section 213(g)(2)) 

shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(25) 

1Pub. L. No. 111–148, 124 Stat. 120 (2010); Pub. L. No. 111–152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010). 

2Pub. L. No. 111–148, §§ 1303 & 1334(a)(6) (2010). 

3 H.R. 3962, 111th Cong., § 265 (as passed by House, Nov. 7, 2009). 

4 Advocates for Youth, American Association of University Women (AAUW), American Civil 

Liberties Union, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Public Health 

Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asian & Pacific Islander American 

Health Forum, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP), Black Women’s Health 

Imperative, Catholics for Choice, Center for Reproductive Rights, Choice USA, Feminist Majority, Guttmacher Institute, Hadassah: The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc., Jewish 

Women International, Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs, Methodist Federation for SoContinued 

Dissenting Views 

H.R. 7, the ‘‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’’ changes existing law in ways that will endanger the health of women and deprive them of their constitutionally-protected right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. The proponents of this bill seek 

to substantially restrict the existing Hyde Amendment exception 

that permits funding in cases of rape to exclude assistance for children and teenagers who are the victims of statutory rape. H.R. 7 

also extends current funding restrictions that are limited in time 

and scope and applies them to all Federal laws, without any effort 

to determine how such a sweeping and permanent expansion would 

impact American women and their families. And, contrary to the 

misleading title of the bill, this legislation is not needed to achieve 

what has already long been accomplished: Congress has prohibited 

the use of Federal funds for abortion for more than three decades. 

Although proponents of this legislation claim that it merely codifies existing restrictions on Federal funding for abortion, H.R. 7 

goes well beyond any existing law and would interfere with both 

public and private funding. For the first time, privately-funded 

health expenses that receive preferential tax treatment would be 

made equivalent with Federal spending under this bill in order to 

raise taxes on women, families, and small business employers who 

use their own money to pay for abortion or purchase insurance that 

covers abortion. The intent of this legislation is clear: to make 

abortion completely unavailable even when paid for with purely 

private, non-Federal funds. 

Contrary to proponents’ assertions, H.R. 7 is not necessary to 

prevent Federal funding of abortion under the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).1 This is because the 

Affordable Care Act fully preserves the ban on Federal funding of 

abortion.2 H.R. 7’s radical departure from current tax treatment of 

medical expenses and insurance coverage—which goes well beyond 

the approach taken in the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the Housepassed Affordable Health Care for America Act 3—is not justifiable 

nor necessary to prevent Federal funding of abortion. 

Not surprisingly, H.R. 7 is strenuously opposed by a broad crosssection of women’s rights, religious, civil liberties, small business, 

and health organizations.4 The Administration, in issuing a veto 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

cial Action, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Abortion Federation, National Asian Pacific 

American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of 

Jewish Women, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, National 

Health Law Program, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National Organization 

for Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women’s Health Network, 

National Women’s Law Center, People For the American Way, Physicians for Reproductive 

Health, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Population Connection Action Fund, Population Institute, Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need, Religious Coalition for 

Reproductive Choice, Religious Institute, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, Sexuality 

Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS), South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, Unitarian Universalist Association, Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation, United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries. See, e.g., Coalition Letter to 

Members of the House of Representatives (Jan. 15, 2014) (expressing the view that H.R. 7 ‘‘jeopardizes women’s health by directly banning abortion coverage, by raising taxes on families and 

small businesses that purchase comprehensive insurance coverage, and by putting women who 

have survived sexual violence through intrusive tax audits’’) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary Democratic staff). 5 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3—the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (May 2, 2011), available 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr3rl20110502.pdf. 

threat with regard to H.R. 7’s predecessor in the last Congress, 

aptly observed that the legislation ‘‘intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care; increases the tax burden on 

many Americans; unnecessarily restricts the private insurance 

choices that consumers have today; and restricts the District of Columbia’s use of local funds, which undermines home rule.’’ 5

In sum, H.R. 7 is not necessary and is an unbridled attack on 

the health of women and their constitutionally-protected right to 

decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. For these reasons and 

those described below, we must respectfully dissent and adamantly 

urge our colleagues to reject this seriously flawed bill. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

Title I of H.R. 7 adds new provisions to title I of the United 

States Code that would alter existing law and superimpose funding 

restrictions that are similar—but not identical to—restrictions that 

have been enacted as part of various appropriations bills. H.R. 7 

would make these modified restrictions permanent and applicable 

to all Federal laws. Title II of the bill imposes an unprecedented 

tax penalty on the use of purely private funds to pay for abortion 

or for insurance that will cover abortion. During the Judiciary 

Committee Markup of H.R. 7, Chairman Goodlatte informed members that the Committee’s jurisdiction is limited only to title I of 

the bill. Accordingly, the following section by section analysis does 

not include title II of the bill. 

Section 101 of H.R. 7 amends title I of the United States Code 

by adding a new chapter at the end titled ‘‘Prohibiting Taxpayer 

Funded Abortions’’ consisting of nine separate provisions that seek 

to extend and make permanent existing funding restrictions that 

currently are limited in time and scope. A detailed section-by-section explanation of these new provisions as added by section 101 

follows. 

New section 301 mandates that no Federal funds shall be used 

to pay for any abortion, unless, by virtue of section 308, the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where continuing a pregnancy 

places a woman in danger of death. 

New section 302 prohibits any Federal funds from being used to 

purchase health benefits coverage (i.e., insurance) that includes 

abortion, unless, by virtue of section 308, the pregnancy results 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

from rape or incest, or where continuing a pregnancy places a 

woman in danger of death. 

New section 303 prohibits the performance of an abortion in any 

health care facility owned or operated by the Federal Government 

or by any person employed by the Federal Government to provide 

health care services while acting in the scope of that employment. 

By virtue of section 308, section 303’s prohibition does not apply in 

cases of rape, incest, or where continuing a pregnancy places a 

woman in danger of death. 

New section 304 preserves the right of any individual, entity, or 

state or locality to use their own funds to purchase separate abortion or health benefits coverage that includes abortion. Section 304 

further provides that such coverage shall not be purchased using 

matching funds required for a Federal program, including Medicaid 

matching funds. 

New section 305 preserves the right of non-Federal health benefits coverage providers (i.e., insurers) to offer abortion coverage, 

and the right of states and localities to purchase such coverage 

with their own funds. Section 305 further provides that such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a 

Federal program, including Medicaid matching funds. 

New section 306 protects any Federal law that imposes greater 

limitations on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits 

coverage that includes abortion. 

New section 307 clarifies that title I does not apply to the treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or disorder that is caused or 

exacerbated by the performance of an abortion. 

New section 308 includes an exception to the restrictions imposed 

by sections 301, 302, and 303 where pregnancy results from an act 

of rape or incest, or where a physician certifies that continuing a 

pregnancy is life threatening. 

New section 309 specifies that the term ‘‘funds appropriated by 

Federal law’’ applies to funds within the budget of the District of 

Columbia and that the term ‘‘Federal Government’’ includes the 

government of the District of Columbia. Section 309 effectively prohibits the use of local funds for abortion. 

CONCERNS WITH H.R. 7

I. H.R. 7 IS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY AS FEDERAL FUNDING OF

ABORTION ALREADY IS PROHIBITED

Although H.R. 7’s proponents assert that the bill merely codifies 

existing funding restrictions, and that passage of the Affordable 

Care Act necessitates additional restrictions to ensure that the current policy of banning Federal funds for abortion is continued, this 

is not the case. 

The Affordable Care Act addresses the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans available through health benefit exchanges. The Act clearly distinguishes between abortions for which 

Federal funding is allowed and for which such funding is prohibited ‘‘as based on the law as in effect,’’ thus incorporating the Hyde 

Amendment distinctions, which allow Federal funding only in cases 

of rape, incest, or possible death of the mother. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

6 Unofficial Tr. of No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: Hearing on H.R. 7 Before the 

Subcomm. on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 

(2014), at 39 [hereinafter H.R. 7 Hearing]. 7 H.R. 7 Hearing at 40 (testimony of Susan Wood). 

8 Exec. Order No. 13535, 75 Fed. Reg. 15,599 (Mar. 29, 2010), available at http://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-03-29/pdf/2010-7154.pdf. 

As is true under the Hyde Amendment, the Affordable Care Act 

allows for the purchase or provision of supplemental coverage for 

abortion services or a plan that provides broader abortion coverage. 

To ensure that only non-Federal funds are used for such coverage, 

the Act requires plan providers to segregate from the funds used 

to purchase broader abortion coverage an amount equal to the portion of the premium to be paid directly by the enrollee (i.e., not 

paid for by the amount attributable to the tax credit or cost-sharing 

reduction) for the broader abortion coverage. Similarly, individuals 

may purchase plans that qualify for tax credits under the Affordable Care Act that include broader coverage for abortion, but payments for the additional coverage must come exclusively from nonFederal sources and remain segregated from other funds. 

H.R. 7’s proponents assert that this required segregation effectively amounts to an ‘‘abortion surcharge’’ that must be borne by 

all individuals enrolled in a health plan that covers abortion.6 As 

Professor Wood explained in the following exchange with Constitution Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) during 

the hearing on the bill, this claim is inaccurate: 

Mr. NADLER. Professor Wood, the Affordable Care Act 

requires participating insurance plans to segregate monies 

for abortion services from all other funds, a measure my 

anti-choice colleagues insist was necessary to prevent Federal funding of abortion. To aid in identifying these funds, 

both in terms of premiums being paid for coverage and 

costs for services provided, the law requires companies to 

estimate the cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 

a month. Some have characterized this segregation of 

funds as an abortion surcharge. Is this an accurate description? 

Ms. WOOD. The short answer to that question is no. As 

you have correctly stated, this is a general premium to 

provide for all health care services. . . . [T]he segregation 

of the private dollar contribution of at least $1 a month is 

to be set aside to pay directly for [abortion] services . . . 

[I]t’s clearly not a surcharge. It’s a segregation of the premium.’’ 7

In addition, President Obama, following enactment of the Affordable Care Act, issued Executive Order 13535 confirming that ‘‘the 

Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing 

abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created 

health insurance exchanges.’’ 8 The Executive Order further proposed pre-regulatory model guidelines establishing standards for 

the segregation of funds for private health plans that elect to cover 

abortion services. The guidelines ensure that funds used for abortion coverage are segregated and that Federal funds are not used 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

9Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Establishment of Exchanges and Qualified 

Health Plans; Exchange Standards for Employers, Final Rule and Interim Final Rule. 77 Fed. 

Reg. 18,472 (Mar. 27, 2012) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 156). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: Hearing on H.R. 3 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 69 (2011) (testimony 

of Richard Doerflinger). 

for abortion services, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the 

life of the woman is endangered. 

Further, the Department of Health and Human Services promulgated regulations that reinforce the prohibition on the use of Federal funds for abortion services, providing that health plans that 

opt to cover abortion services ‘‘must not use any amount attributable to’’ either the advance payment of premium tax credits 

available under section 1412 of the Affordable Care Act or the reduced cost-sharing for individuals enrolling in Qualified Health 

Plans under section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act.9 To implement this directive, the final regulation further instructs health 

plans that opt to cover abortion services to establish separate allocation accounts in which to deposit and thus segregate the premium payments collected directly from private consumers from the 

premium tax credits available under section 1412 of the Affordable 

Care Act.10 The regulation provides that allocation accounts holding funds attributable to the premium tax credits must be ‘‘used 

exclusively to pay for services other than [abortion services],’’ consistent with existing prohibition on the use of Federal funding for 

abortion services as well as Executive Order 13535.11

As this makes clear and contrary to the claims of its proponents, 

H.R. 7 is not needed to prevent Federal funding of abortion. Nor 

is the bill a mere codification of existing funding bans. 

II. H.R. 7 PLACES WOMEN AT RISK

H.R. 7 adds several new provisions to title 1 of the United States 

Code that will modify and extend funding restrictions in numerous 

respects that will harm women’s health and place their lives at 

risk. 

First, section 308(1) will be used to further limit the Hyde Amendment’s existing exception for cases of rape to ‘‘forcible’’ rape. This 

provision adopts the Hyde Amendment exception, which allows 

funding where pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. As originally introduced last Congress, the legislation would have narrowed the Hyde Amendment rape exception and allowed funding 

only in cases of ‘‘forcible’’ rape. As explained by Majority witness 

Richard Doerflinger from the United States Conference of Catholic 

Bishops at the Constitution Subcommittee hearing in the last Congress, the intent was to close ‘‘a very broad loophole for federally 

funded abortions for any teenager,’’ 12 making clear that the change 

was not inadvertent and was intended (possibly among other 

things) to limit access to abortion for teenagers, who might otherwise fall within the exception for statutory rape. 

Following public outrage over this proposed change, the bill’s 

sponsors claimed that they had no intent to change existing law on 

this issue and removed the word ‘‘forcible.’’ Yet the Committee Majority made clear in their Committee report accompanying the bill 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

13 H.R. Rep. No. 112–38, pt. I, at 28 (2011) (‘‘Reverting to the original Hyde Amendment language should not change longstanding policy. H.R. 3, with the Hyde Amendment language, will 

still appropriately not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory 

rape. The Hyde Amendment has not been construed to permit Federal funding of abortion based 

solely on the youth of the mother, nor has the Federal funding of abortions in such cases ever 

been the practice.’’) 14Federal Financial Participation in State Claims for Abortions, 43 Fed. Reg. 31,873 (July 21, 

1978). 15 Id.; see also Memorandum of National Women’s Law Center, The House Judiciary Committee Report on H.R. 3 Reflect an Attempt to Narrow the Rape Exception Even Though the 

Statutory Term ‘‘Forcible’’ Was Removed and Misrepresents Longstanding Policy on the Rape 

Exception, available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/hrl3lrapellanguagel 

memo.pdf. 16 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973). 17 505 U.S. 833, 879 (1992) (quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, at 164–165). 

that their intent was still to not allow funding in cases of statutory 

rape.13 The report incorrectly stated that the Hyde Amendment 

never had been construed to permit funding in cases of statutory 

rape and, therefore, this would remain the practice (refusing such 

funding) under the legislation. 

A 1978 regulation implementing the Hyde Amendment clarified 

that the term ‘‘rape’’ includes statutory rape. In that regulation, 

the Department of Health, Education and Welfare responded to 

comments that ‘‘criticized the regulations for including statutory 

rape within the exception permitting Federal funding of abortions 

for victims of rape.’’ 14 As the Department explained, both the text 

of the Hyde Amendment and its legislative history demand this interpretation. The text itself does not qualify the term rape to distinguish between ‘‘forcible’’ and ‘‘statutory’’ rape and Congress rejected a proposed amendment that would have limited funding to 

instances of ‘‘forced’’ rape.15 H.R. 7’s proponents continued effort to 

deprive some of the most vulnerable victims—children and teens 

who are the subject of sexual predators—of critical assistance finds 

no support in the text of Hyde Amendment or its legislative history 

and should be rejected by any administrative agency or court that 

is called upon to implement the longstanding exception that allows 

funding in cases of rape and incest. 

Second, section 308(2) will endanger women’s lives by failing to 

include the constitutionally required exception to protect a woman’s 

health. Although this provision allows funding where continuing a 

pregnancy would ‘‘place the woman in danger of death,’’ it fails to 

include the constitutionally required exception to protect a woman’s 

health. 

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was unequivocal: ‘‘A . . . 

criminal abortion statute . . . that excepts from criminality only a 

life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to 

pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment.’’ 16 The Court affirmed this rule in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, explaining that any 

prohibition must make an exception for where an abortion ‘‘is necessary, in appropriate medical judgement, for the preservation of 

the life or health’’ of the woman.17

During Committee markup, Democratic Members offered amendments to address H.R. 7’s failure to include an exception to the 

funding ban that takes into account and preserves women’s health. 

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) sought to broaden secVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:59 Jan 24, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR332P1.XXX HR332P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

18See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 111–117, div. B, tit. II, §§ 203–04, 123 Stat. 3034, 3139 (2009). 19See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1093(b) (2006) (prohibiting the performance of abortions in Department 

of Defense facilities). 

tion 308 to allow funding when continuing a pregnancy could result 

in ‘‘severe and long-lasting damage to a woman’s health.’’ Representative Suzan K. DelBene (D-WA) sought to amend section 308 

to ensure an exception for women with cancer who need life-saving 

treatment that is incompatible with continuing a pregnancy. Both 

amendments were voted down by party-line vote. 

Representative Judy Chu (D-CA) also offered an amendment to 

protect women’s health by ensuring that nothing in H.R. 7 would 

prevent health care providers from disclosing relevant information 

to patients, and to ensure that principles of informed consent and 

the ethical standards of care are followed. Her amendment also 

was voted down by party-line vote. 

By failing to include an exception that preserves women’s health, 

H.R. 7 not only violates long established constitutional protections, 

but jeopardizes the lives of women. 

Third, section 309 usurps the right of the District of Columbia to 

determine how to use its own funds and will reinstate and make 

permanent funding restrictions. While some Congresses have restricted the District of Columbia’s use of its own funds, other Congresses have afforded it the same right as the states to use local, 

non-Federal funds for abortion-related services. Section 309 would 

impose a permanent ban on the District’s use of local funds for 

abortion-related services. Like the states, the District of Columbia 

should be able to make its own decisions about how best to serve 

its residents with its own money. As explained more fully in Section IV, below, Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member 

of the Committee, offered an amendment to remove the restriction 

on the District’s use of its own funds. That amendment was voted 

down by party-line vote. 

Fourth, sections 301 and 302 impose a permanent, blanket restriction on funding. Sections 301 and 302 are modeled on the Hyde 

Amendment. Enacted in 1979, the Hyde Amendment prohibits the 

use of funds appropriate in particular laws (e.g., annual appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services) from 

being used for abortion. But unlike the Hyde Amendment, sections 

301 and 302 would never expire and would apply to all Federal 

funds, not just funds appropriated for a particular agency or purpose. 

Fifth, section 303 bans abortion services in Federal health care facilities or by any Federal employee. Section 303 imposes a sweeping 

prohibition on the inclusion of abortion as part of any health care 

service furnished in a health care facility ‘‘owned or operated’’ by 

the Federal government or by any Federal employee. Although 

Congress previously has prohibited abortion services in prisons 

(though requiring transportation from prison when necessary)18

and in Department of Defense facilities,19 H.R. 7 would impose this 

ban on all Federal facilities and all Federal employees. These bans 

would not apply in cases of rape, incest, or where the woman’s life 

is in danger by virtue of section 308. 

Sixth, section 304 narrows the Hyde Amendment’s broad right to 

use non-Federal funds. The Hyde Amendment recognizes and preVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:59 Jan 24, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR332P1.XXX HR332P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

20See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 111–117, div. D, tit. II, § 508(b), 123 Stat. 3034, 3280 (2009) (‘‘None 

of the Federal funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which 

funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.’’). 21See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 111–117, div. D, tit. II, § 508(c), 123 Stat. 3034, 3280 (2009). 

serves a broad right to use private funds, without specifying or limiting items that may be purchased with those funds.20 Rather than 

mirroring this language exactly, section 304 protects only the purchase of ‘‘separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage 

that includes abortion’’ with non-Federal funds. The impact of limiting a broad, unspecified right is unclear but notably places the 

use of funds for abortion (as compared to insurance coverage) at 

risk, particularly when coupled with the bill’s unprecedented tax 

penalties on the use of private funds, as codified in title II of H.R. 

7. Those penalties may make the right allegedly protected by section 304 purely symbolic for many women and their families. 

Seventh, section 305 alters Hyde Amendment protections for providers who offer abortion coverage. The Hyde Amendment broadly 

preserves the right for ‘‘any’’ managed care provider to offer abortion coverage,21 while section 305 protects only the right of a ‘‘nonFederal’’ health benefits plan provider to offer coverage that includes abortion. It is not clear who might fall in or outside this category, and whether any insurer who participates in an exchange 

established under the Affordable Care Act might be considered a 

Federal provider for purposes of H.R. 7. 

Eighth, section 306 preserves only those Federal laws that impose 

greater restrictions on access to abortion. Section 306 makes clear 

that H.R. 7 would supersede any law that does not impose equal 

or greater restrictions on access to abortion. As a result of this provision, Congress would be deprived of any discretion or flexibility 

to, for example, provide greater protections for a woman’s health in 

a particular setting or circumstance. 

Ninth, section 307 allows funding for treatments of complications 

that might arise from abortion. This section apparently is intended 

to protect women against wrongful denials of coverage by clarifying 

that funding restrictions do not apply to treatment for complications that might arise from an abortion. It is unclear whether section 307 will be sufficient to overcome the chilling effect of title I, 

sections 304 and 305, and title II on insurers coverage decisions, 

given the broad prohibitions and tax penalties imposed on abortion 

coverage. 

III. TITLE II OF H.R. 7 WILL INCREASE TAXES AND DRIVE INSURERS TO

EXCLUDE ABORTION FROM INSURANCE PLANS

Title II of H.R. 7 makes several amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. During markup of the bill, Minority Members 

were informed that any amendments to title II would not be germane as it falls within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means 

Committee. In light of the fact that the predecessor to this legislation in the last Congress was considered by the House under a 

closed rule, Representative Nadler expressed concern that, unless 

the bill is considered by the Ways and Means Committee, Members 

of the House may have no opportunity to amend this legislation’s 

harmful tax provisions that impact the rights of all Americans to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

22 H.R. 1232, 112th Cong (2011) (ordered to be reported favorably by a 22 to 14 vote on Mar. 

31, 2011). 23 H.R. Rep. No. 112–55, at 28 (2011). 

spend their own money to cover their health care expenses as they 

see fit. 

Even though the tax provisions were outside our power to amend 

through the Committee process, we oppose H.R. 7’s use of the tax 

code to penalize private health care choices and provide this explanation in the hope that our colleagues will join us in opposing this 

harmful bill. 

A. H.R. 7 Imposes Unprecedented Tax Penalties on Extremely Personal and Constitutionally-Protected Health Care Decisions 

H.R. 7 imposes unprecedented burdens—in the form of tax increases and the denial of tax credits—on the use of private money 

to pay for abortion or insurance that would cover abortion. Title II 

is not about Federal money. It is about the Federal Government penalizing individuals, families, and small employers when they 

make a particular, constitutionally-protected health care choice 

that some Members of Congress oppose. 

Under current law, medical expenses (including money spent to 

purchase insurance) receive favorable tax treatment in recognition 

of the fact that they reduce an individual’s ability to pay taxes and 

to encourage the purchase of insurance that helps ensure health 

care and reduces the costs—and shared burden—of uncompensated 

care. H.R. 7 radically alters existing law by requiring forfeiture of 

favorable tax treatment any time private, non-Federal funds are 

spent to pay for abortion services and in many instances when insurance is purchased that would cover such services in the event 

they were needed. 

Last Congress, the House Ways and Means Committee considered the tax provisions that were substantively similar to title II 

of H.R. 7.22 Several Democratic Members on that Committee filed 

dissenting views opposing these provisions, explaining, among 

other things, that they ‘‘not only represen[t] an unprecedented 

move down a path that takes the Committee’s jurisdiction squarely 

into an extremely private and personal decision that a woman and 

her family may have to make—[they] would also increase taxes on 

women and families during that difficult time.’’ 23 H.R. 7 would do 

so in the following ways. 

1. H.R. 7 Increases Taxes on Women and Families 

H.R. 7 denies women and their families the itemized deduction 

for medical expenses for any expense that relates to an abortion. 

This singles out a perfectly lawful medical procedure for unfavorable treatment simply because a woman has made a decision that 

the legislation’s sponsors do not like. 

H.R. 7 also treats as taxable income any distribution from a 

health savings account, an Archer medical savings account, or 

health flexible spending account that is used to pay for abortion expenses. An estimated 30 million Americans currently use flexiblesavings accounts to set aside pre-tax money to pay for medical exVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:59 Jan 24, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR332P1.XXX HR332P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

24 Jordan Rau, Defending the Flex Spending Accounts, Kaiser Health News (Feb. 2, 2011), 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48627.html. 25 America’s Health Insurance Plans, January 2011 Census Shows 11.4 Million People Covered by HSA Qualified High-Deductible Health Plans (2011), http://www.ahipresearch.org/ 

hsacensus.html. 26 Christina Romer & Mark Duggan, Council of Econ. Advisors, Health Insurance Reform Will 

Help Small Businesses (Feb. 26, 2010), available at www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/26/healthinsurance-reform-will-help-small-businesses. Appointed by the President with the advice and 

consent of the Senate, the Council of Economic Advisors offers the President objective economic 

advice on foreign and domestic economic policy. 

penses,24 and approximately 11.4 million are enrolled in healthsavings accounts.25 H.R. 7 would effectively increase taxes for these 

individuals and families if they use the money that they have set 

aside to cover medical expenses to pay for abortion. 

2. H.R. 7 Denies Middle- and Lower-Income Families the 

Premium Tax Credits That They Need To Buy Insurance 

If That Insurance Covers Abortion 

Under the Affordable Care Act, income-eligible women and families (those under 400 percent of the poverty line, which was 

$89,400 for a family of four in 2011) are eligible for a premium tax 

credit. H.R. 7 would require forfeiture of this tax credit if a woman 

chooses insurance that covers abortion. 

Denial of this tax credit will mean that some women and families 

are forced to choose insurance that excludes abortion coverage. For 

example, a single mother with two children who earns $24,000 a 

year is eligible to purchase insurance through an exchange under 

the Affordable Care Act. If the family’s health insurance plan includes coverage for abortion, title II requires them to forfeit the 

premium assistance credit that makes it possible to purchase this 

insurance. This effectively forces them to purchase insurance that 

excludes abortion coverage, making the right allegedly protected by 

sections 304 and 305 of title I, which purport to protect the right 

to use one’s own funds to contract for and purchase insurance that 

covers abortion, purely symbolic for this mother and her family. 

3. H.R. 7 Increases Taxes for Small Business Employers 

The Affordable Care Act provides a tax credit for small business 

contributions to purchase health insurance for employees. H.R. 7 

would require that credit to be forfeited if the insurance offered by 

a small employer covers abortion. 

The Council of Economic Advisors estimates that 4 million small 

businesses are eligible for a tax credit under the Affordable Care 

Act if they provide health care to their workers, and that ‘‘millions 

of workers at small firms and their families would be eligible for 

their own tax credits to purchase coverage through the Exchange 

if their firms did not offer coverage.’’ 26 All of these businesses, individuals, and families would lose their tax credits under title II of 

H.R. 7 if their insurance covers abortion, thus raising taxes on potentially millions of small businesses and their workers. 

B. H.R. 7 Will Drive Insurance Companies To Drop Coverage for 

Abortion Altogether 

H.R. 7 creates a number of penalties and disincentives for insurance companies that provide abortion coverage as part of their 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

27 H.R. Rep. No. 112–55, at 26 (2011). 28 H.R. 7 Hearing (written statement of Susan Wood, at 2–3). 29 H.R. 7 Hearing at 29–30. 30 H.R. 7 Hearing (written statement of Richard M. Doerflinger, at 9). 

basic health insurance plans. For example, and as described above, 

the bill disallows premium tax credits under the Affordable Care 

Act for coverage that includes abortion. As our colleagues on the 

House Ways and Means Committee observed in their dissent to 

substantively similar legislation last Congress, ‘‘insurance companies would respond in the individual market by solely offering coverage that does not include abortion services given the value of the 

premium tax credits.’’ 27 H.R. 7 similarly denies tax credits to small 

employers who offer coverage that includes abortion, making it 

likely that such employers will seek products that exclude abortion 

and that insurance companies will drop abortion coverage from 

their plans as a result. 

Testifying before the Constitution Subcommittee, Professor 

Susan Wood explained how the tax penalties contained in H.R. 7, 

particularly when added to the restrictions already in the Affordable Care Act that impose significant accounting and administrative burdens, could lead insurers to stop offering coverage that includes abortion.28 Because the vast majority of insurance plans currently cover abortion services, this would have a significant impact 

on millions of American women and their families. She explained: 

If Congress enacts this bill, you are taking away coverage from women who live in places where private insurance plans that include abortion coverage are sold today[.] 

* * * 

Further changing the tax benefits for employees and for 

employers providing health coverage as proposed in H.R. 7 

could create a tipping point in the nature of insurance 

whereby women lose abortion coverage because insurers 

may no longer provide plans that include it. 

Since approximately 60 percent of women of reproductive age, 37 million women, get their health care coverage 

through private insurance, this legislation could have a 

far-reaching effect. It represents more than just meddling 

in their personal decisions, by making it unaffordable, it 

effectively bans abortion for some women.29

A Majority witness at the hearing, Richard Doerflinger, frankly 

acknowledged the likelihood that the bill will alter existing insurance coverage: 

[T]he new legislation when combined with existing laws 

may produce a ‘tipping point’ where coverage without abortion becomes the usual norm for health insurance; coverage that includes abortion will be permitted but rare.30

In fact, Mr. Doerflinger expressed no concern for the millions of 

American women and families whose current insurance coverage 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

31 Id. 32 A federally supported study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute found that 87% of typical employer-based insurance plans covered abortion, and a 2003 survey by the Kaiser Family 

Foundation found that 46% of insured workers had coverage for abortion. See Guttmacher Institute, Memo on Insurance Coverage of Abortion (updated Sept. 18, 2009), http:// 

www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html. 33 H.R. 7 Hearing at 44. 

would be changed when he stated, ‘‘My response to this prediction 

is that I hope it is correct.’’ 31

Congress should not embrace such cavalier disregard for the 

well-being of millions of American women and their families who 

currently have insurance that covers abortion services.32

C. H.R. 7 Places Women at Risk of Intrusive ‘‘Rape Audits’’ by the 

Internal Revenue Service and Insurance Companies 

H.R. 7 has absolutely no corollary in existing law. It is a completely novel and untested use of the Internal Revenue Code that 

places women at risk of intrusive auditing by the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS). 

As Professor Susan Wood testified during the Constitution Subcommittee hearing on the bill, women might be required to document a rape or incest for the IRS or their insurance company. As 

she further explained, the burden and risk placed on insurers having to make coverage decisions (i.e., whether a particular expense 

falls within the exception for rape, incest, or where the life of a 

woman is endangered and can be covered without penalty or the 

need to segregate funds) likely will drive insurers to drop abortion 

coverage altogether. 

Mr. NADLER. So last year we had concerns give the unprecedented tax provisions in the bill that this could require some pretty invasive regulatory enforcement procedures for women who are pregnant as a result of rape or 

incest and for women whose lives are endangered if they 

continue pregnancy. Is this a concern? 

Ms. WOOD. Absolutely. Having to make that determination is not something that either the IRS, insurance companies or Congress should really be involved in. 

Mr. NADLER. And setting aside the privacy concerns, 

how might uncertainty over how an expense might be 

treated by the IRS impact women and how might it impact 

insurers? 

Ms. WOOD. Well, I think impacting women, to have to 

document a rape or condition of incest is traumatic at the 

minimum. I think in terms of insurers, they do not want 

to be in the place of having to make a determination of 

which is an acceptable exception to the ban on coverage, 

or whether it needs to be covered by either the woman herself or by this potential rider that would then need to be 

coordinated with the base plan. 

This raises a lot of regulatory and oversight and implementation concerns that insurers have traditionally never 

been involved in and would—in their traditional way 

would be to just cut out that entire set of coverage entirely 

and not want to go into making those determinations, 

leaving all abortions uncovered.33


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

34 H.R. Rep. No. 112–55, at 28 (2011). 35Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 675 (1970) (upholding property 

tax exemptions for religious organizations); see also Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. V. Winn, 

131 S. Ct. 1436 (2011) (finding that—because tax credits do not involve the expenditure of government funds—Arizona taxpayers lacked standing to challenge a state law providing tax credits for individual or business contributions to a private ‘‘school tuition organization that, among 

others, awarded grants to students attending religious schools). 

Our colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee have 

also noted that intrusive abortion tax audits are likely. As they explained last Congress,’’ the Internal Revenue Service would be required to use the tools currently available as part of its tax enforcement duties, including the Internal Revenue Service’s ability to 

audit taxpayers, to determine whether tax benefits had properly or 

improperly been claimed with respect to expenses related to abortion services.’’ 34 The burdens that H.R. 7 would impose on a woman’s right to abortion and her access to health care services related 

to that constitutionally-protected choice should be rejected. 

D. H.R. 7 Is At-Odds with Congress’s Longstanding Tax Treatment 

of Private Funds in Other Circumstances 

There is no precedent for the position that the tax treatment of 

private funds—whether through exemption, deduction, credit or 

any other favorable treatment—converts money that the government has decided not to collect from individual taxpayers or businesses into Federal funds. That position, adopted to justify H.R. 7’s 

tax penalty on the purely private funding of abortion, directly conflicts with Congress’s and the courts’ longstanding view of the tax 

treatment of private funds. 

Under this theory, for example, favorable tax treatment for religious organizations or for individual contributions to religious organizations would qualify as Federal funding of religion, raising First 

Amendment Establishment Clause concerns. Of course, the Supreme Court has never considered the favorable tax treatment of 

private funds to constitute Federal funding in that context: 

The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship since the 

government does not transfer part of its revenue to 

churches but simply abstains from demanding that the 

church support the state. No one has ever suggested that 

tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees ’on the public payroll.’ There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion.35

Just as favorable tax treatment does not convert private funds 

paid to religious organizations into Federal funding of religion, allowing private funds paid for abortion-related services to be treated 

as permissible medical expenses under the Internal Revenue Code 

does not convert those private funds into Federal funding of abortion. Title II does not target Federal funds but, instead, targets and 

penalizes the use of private funds. H.R. 7 is a radical departure 

from current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage; and it is not justifiable nor necessary to prevent Federal 

funding of abortion. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

36 H.R. 7 Hearing (written statement of Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), at 1–2). 37Letter from Vincent C. Gray, Mayor of the District of Columbia, to Representative Trent 

Franks, Chair, Subcomm. on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Jan. 8, 2014) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary Democratic staff). 

IV. H.R. 7 SINGLES OUT WOMEN AND FAMILIES IN THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR PARTICULAR HARM, 

UNJUSTIFIABLY RESTRICTING THE DISTRICT’S USE OF 

LOCAL FUNDS 

H.R. 7, through the provisions of new section 309 of the United 

States Code, singles out the District of Columbia and places additional limits on the District’s use of its own, non-Federal funds for 

abortion-related care or coverage. Because of H.R. 7’s unprecedented impact on her district, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) asked to testify before the Constitution Subcommittee 

at the January 9, 2014 hearing on this legislation. Breaking with 

the Committee’s past practice of granting other Members with a 

particular interest in a bill or issue the opportunity to testify, the 

Majority refused our colleagues’ request. 

Having been denied the opportunity to appear, Representative 

Norton submitted a prepared statement, explaining among other 

things, how H.R. 7 imposes unique harms on her district: 

H.R. 7 would permanently prohibit the District of Columbia government, but no other local government, from using 

its local funds for abortion services for low-income women, 

uniquely denying the District government the right local 

and state governments exercise to protect the reproductive 

rights of their female residents. . . . In particular, the 

bill, subject to very limited exceptions, would ban abortions in facilities owned or operated by the Federal Government, which, by definition in H.R. 7, would ban abortions in facilities owned or operated by the D.C. government. Moreover, the bill would prohibit a physician or 

other individual employed by the Federal Government 

from performing an abortion, which, by definition in H.R. 

7, would prohibit a physician or other individual employed 

by the D.C. government from performing an abortion. The 

contortions upon which this provision depends undermine 

any basis for its legitimacy.36

Similarly, District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray ‘‘express[ed] 

outrage’’ about the fact that H.R. 7 ‘‘contains language extremely 

offensive’’ to the District.37

While some Congresses have restricted the District’s use of its 

own funds, others have accorded the District the same respect afforded to the states with regard to decisions about the use of local 

funds. If H.R. 7 should become law, the District’s discretion to 

make the funding decisions that best serve the needs of its residents will be permanently restricted. 

During the Committee’s markup of H.R. 7, Ranking Member 

John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) offered an amendment to prevent imposition of this permanent restriction. Expressing his disappointment 

that the Committee had not honored Representative Norton’s request to testify, Ranking Member Conyers sought to ensure that, 

as with constituents in other Members’ districts, the women and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

38 Unofficial Tr. of the Markup of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, by the 

H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2014) (written statement of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. 

(D-MI), Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary). 

families who reside in the District of Columbia should have the 

same assurance that their elected representatives can spend local 

funds to serve their best interests, not those of certain Members of 

Congress. He explained: 

My Amendment removes the permanent ban on the District’s ability to spend its own local taxpayer-raised funds 

as it chooses. . . . 

Just because we can interfere by virtue of our unique 

power with regard to the District of Columbia does not 

mean that we should. I have long supported statehood for 

the District of Columbia because of these types of egregious examples of Congress overriding and restricting the 

reasoned judgment of District Officials about how best to 

serve Americans who live here in the city to which we are 

all visitors.38

Unfortunately, his amendment was rejected by a vote of 11 to 19. 

H.R. 7’s permanent restriction on the District’s use of its own 

local funds should be rejected. Women and families who live in the 

District should not be subject to additional harm simply because of 

where they live. They deserve the same guarantee afforded to constituents elsewhere: the fundamental assurance that their local 

elected representatives will act in their best interests or answer to 

the democratic process. We would never tolerate Congress treating 

our own constituents this way; we should show the same regard for 

the Americans who live in the Nation’s Capitol. 

CONCLUSION

H.R. 7 is not a modest effort to codify existing restrictions on 

Federal funding of abortion. Rather, it is part of an aggressive campaign to roll back women’s rights in complete disregard for the impact it would have on women’s health, lives, or families. H.R. 7’s 

aggressive tax provision has no corollary in existing law. It is an 

untested and unjustifiable penalty on privately-funded health care 

choices that some Members of Congress oppose. 

Through Federal funding restrictions that have been in place for 

more than three decades, Congress has used economic coercion in 

an effort to limit women’s access to abortion. Until now, that coercion has been directed against the poor and women dependent on 

the Federal Government for health care. Now, all women and their 

families have been targeted. 

Women in America have the fundamental right—guaranteed by 

the Constitution that we take an oath to support and defend—to 

make the profound and deeply personal decision of whether to 

carry a pregnancy to term. H.R. 7 burdens that right in a variety 

of ways that have nothing to do with Federal funding of abortion. 

For these reasons, we respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to oppose this bill. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

JERROLD NADLER. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. ZOE LOFGREN. SHEILA JACKSON LEE. STEVE COHEN. HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR. JUDY CHU. TED DEUTCH. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ. KAREN BASS. CEDRIC RICHMOND. SUZAN DELBENE. JOE GARCIA. HAKEEM JEFFRIES. DAVID N. CICILLINE. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS