Mark Souder: “this debate has been crystal clear. You know, at times we've kind of passed over each other, but it isn't about…”

“this debate has been crystal clear. You know, at times we've kind of passed over each other, but it isn't about abortion. I also want to thank the gentlelady for putting clauses on abortion in the bill. And it's not about family planning, because this doesn't change the family planning fund. There is only one debate here, and that is, should family planning money go to organizations that advocate or perform abortion? And that is really what this is about. Those organizations are restricted under the Mexico City Policy. And that is in fact, in the view of people who are against abortion, providing public funds if you provide the condoms or whatever you're giving in in-kind aid. Now, for example, as a Republican candidate, I'm not likely to get cash funding from anybody on your side of the aisle. But I have a feeling that if somebody donated stamps to me or donated a mailing to me or donated things in my office, your side would view that the same as a cash contribution. And people back home can understand that money this direct is, in fact, fungible. We have had this debate since I've been in Congress on faith-based. Every time the faith-based argument comes up, your side of the aisle argues that giving money to pay for preachers' expenses, for electricity at a Christian organization, is in fact the same as a direct contribution to those faith-based organizations. You can't have it both ways. In fact, this is fungible money.”