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