Madam Speaker, today we consider H.R. 7, the misleadingly named No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion bill. Congress, unfortunately, already prohibits Federal funding of abortion. This bill does not simply codify existing law. Rather, it modifies and extends current funding restrictions in the Hyde amendment and, for the first time ever, uses the Tax Code to penalize the use of private funds to purchase insurance that covers abortion. It denies small businesses the tax credits they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if they offer their employees health insurance, if that health insurance covers abortion. It similarly denies income-eligible women and families the tax credits that they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if they use their own money to purchase insurance, if that insurance covers abortion. The claim here is that a tax credit equals Federal funding. This is a completely new principle, asserted for the first and only time in this context. If we adopt this new theory--that granting tax relief is Federal funding--then how can tax relief for churches, synagogues, and religious-affiliated schools not be considered Federal funding in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? We should all be very careful about establishing this new principle. H.R. 7 is not a codification of existing law, nor is it just another attempt to enact the approach taken in the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House-passed Affordable Care Act. H.R.…
Share & report
More from Jerry Nadler
Mr. Speaker, as we have both said, we are going around in circles, so I will say what everybody has been waiting to hear: I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from more than 250 organizations representing workers, consumers, and the environment opposing H.R. 115. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, despite the bill's title, H.R. 115 is not really intended to address midnight rules, but rather is an effort by our Republican colleagues to advance their antigovernment…
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, nays 173, not voting 22, as follows: [Roll No. 501] YEAS--236 Aderholt Aguilar Alford Allen…





