Written by Diana Robinson-Bardyn   

The vote is in on H.R.3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. It’s no surprise that the final vote in the House was 251 – 175. It is just another case of business as usual led by House Republicans whose favorite opt out for meaningful work is their obsessive, perhaps fatal, attraction for women’s wombs. In Florida, a single Republican, Gus Bilirakis (FL-9), refrained from adding his vote to the red army intent on depriving women of health care and health care choices. Fortunately, the noise is all for spin. The substance isn’t there; opposition from the administration for a bill that would deny federal funding for abortion even in a case involving incest and statutory rape is strong and unequivocal. If the President is presented with H.R. 3, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

"The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3 because it: 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. Longstanding Federal policy prohibits Federal funds from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered. This prohibition is maintained in the Affordable Care Act and reinforced through the President’s Executive Order 13535. H.R. 3 goes well beyond these safeguards by interfering with consumers’ private health care choices. The Administration also strongly supports existing provider conscience laws that have protected the rights of health care providers and entities for over 30 years, and it recognizes and supports the rights of patients. The Administration will strongly oppose legislation that unnecessarily restricts women’s reproductive freedoms and consumers’ private insurance options." — STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY: HR 3, updated May 3, 2011

Even the Joint Committee on Taxation affirmed that H.R. 3 would result in higher taxes for small business and individuals. Of course this subject never made it to the floor during last week’s listening session with Congresswoman Sandy Adams in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. I applaud Congresswoman Adams’ willingness to come to our town with the GOP ‘facts’ and an army of Path to Prosperity charts, although it appeared they were designed to limit the focus of the conversation and to instill fear of doomsday alternatives that have no real factual basis rather than enable ‘listening’. There was little time for talk about what would happen to a pregnant woman who discovers she has cancer, and to be saved must start chemotherapy immediately, and therefore needs an abortion. What would happen to her health insurance coverage (if indeed she is privileged to have any), and how would her life be saved if H.R.3 were the law of the land? The same legislators who are so critical of the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan for example, are seemingly blind to our own version of cruelty towards women as proposed in this bill.

H.R.3 has majority support in the House and also the support of American Family Association, National Right to Life Committee, Susan B. Anthony List, Family Research Council, Priests for Life, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Concerned Women for America, Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles and others I’ve surely left out unintentionally. I’m hardly surprised by the position of the Concerned Women for America whose mission statement is “to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens – first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society – thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.” The decline of moral values in our nation is something that concerns me too. But I question the sincerity of the ‘values’ of those who would so casually undermine the values of a free democratic society, one that embraces freedom of conscience and respect for diversity including religious diversity.

“Even if you personally believe you would not choose to have an abortion, in our free democratic society it is critical that we stand up for freedom of conscience—including freedom for others with whom we disagree. Forcing women to give birth against their will by placing unnecessary and unfair obstacles in their way runs counter to the concepts of social justice that are central to our society’s fundamental principles.” — from Letter to Congress from Catholics for Choice, February 4, 2011