Dan Coats: “Second, let me state this idea of separating Federal from District funds is nothing more than a bookkeeping exercise.…”

“Second, let me state this idea of separating Federal from District funds is nothing more than a bookkeeping exercise. Essentially, what would happen is that the so-called District funds would allow the local government to continue funding abortion on demand. I do not believe that is something this Congress endorses. I do not believe that is something that we should not deal with as we have dealt before. The separation of Federal funds from District funds is a distinction without a difference, given the constitutional mandate and the practice of this Congress to appropriate all funds for expenditure in the District. We all know that the District has one of the more permissive, if not one of the most permissive abortion funding policies in the country. It is essentially unrestricted abortion on demand. I do not believe that is what this Congress wants to authorize for the District of Columbia, and we have, on numerous instances, addressed this issue. In the conference report that is before us on the omnibus funding bill, this was discussed at length. The language that is incorporated is language that has been agreed to by the conferees. It does allow the use of funds for abortions to protect the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. Members need to understand that. What we are not trying to do, what we are opposing, what I am opposing and others are opposing, is the use of those funds for unrestricted abortion, abortion on demand.”