[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6523-H6529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                PRO-LIFE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to shine the light on a 
subject where I do not believe this administration's actions are living 
up to its rhetoric. Whether it was said on the campaign trail or in 
speeches during his time in office, the President has certainly tried 
to sound reasonable on the issue of life, but the administration's 
actions belie its words.
  During a campaign appearance at the Saddleback Civil Forum with 
Pastor Rick Warren on August 17, 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama made 
clear that his goal was to ``reduce the number of abortions.'' In fact, 
he said that he had inserted this into the Democratic Party platform: 
``How do we reduce the number of abortions?''
  Now, given the administration's expressed support for Roe v. Wade, I 
never expected, nor do not expect it, to suddenly reverse its course. 
However, one way to reduce the number of abortions in a way that works 
and one that is a common-ground issue for the American people is not to 
allow taxpayer-funded abortions. Violating the consciousness of 
millions of pro-life Americans to fund a procedure which they object to 
based on a deeply held religious belief, a moral belief, by allowing 
taxpayers to fund abortions actually increases the number of abortions 
performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute through research on 
Planned Parenthood.
  Honoring the deeply held religious and moral beliefs of millions of 
taxpayers by restricting taxpayer-funded abortions actually decreases 
abortions by about 30 percent. So that is one way to reduce the number 
of abortions, something that the President has said he would like to 
do. But since taking office, this administration has actually worked to 
increase taxpayer funding for abortions at both home and abroad. The 
first was the Mexico City Policy.
  The Mexico City Policy was first promulgated in 1984 and renewed by 
the Bush administration in 2001. This is a very simple policy that 
says, as a condition for receipt of U.S. family planning aid, foreign, 
nongovernmental organizations and international organizations must 
certify that they neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a 
method of family planning. Simply

[[Page H6524]]

put. This policy says that U.S. taxpayers will not pay to promote 
abortions overseas, yet one of this administration's first acts back in 
January was to rescind this Mexico City Policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm going to defer here because I have a gentlelady from 
the other side of the aisle, Congresswoman Dahlkemper, who would like 
to speak out about this issue, and I would like to give part of my 
time, as much time as the gentlelady needs, on this issue.
  Thank you very much for joining me tonight.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding. And I 
want to extend a thank you for inviting me to have this opportunity 
tonight to speak on the floor about the issue of life, an issue that is 
very important to me.
  I believe in the sanctity of life from birth to natural death. In 
fact, I often like to refer to myself as a person who is ``whole life'' 
in my beliefs.
  This issue of abortion is very personal for me. When I was 21 and I 
was in college, I found myself unmarried and pregnant, and it was 
obviously a very difficult time of my life. There was a lot of soul 
searching that went on, a lot of praying. I had the support of friends 
and family, but I struggled; I struggled with the thought of telling my 
parents, and I struggled with the social stigma and the fact that I may 
have to drop out of school, and also the fact that I would have to be a 
single parent. But I knew that there was a life inside of me, a living 
person. And little did I know at that very early stage the joy and the 
beauty that that child would bring into my life. Today I have an 
absolutely gorgeous 30-year-old son who is married, and he made me a 
grandmother just a little over 2 months ago with a beautiful daughter 
named Charlotte. She is obviously the joy of his life right now, and 
certainly the joy of her grandfather and my life, too. But that's why I 
feel so strongly about this important issue of choosing life, an issue 
where there is a general consensus among American people--in fact, a 
recent poll shows that a majority of Americans believe in at least some 
restrictions on abortions, and they certainly do not support their 
taxpayer dollars going to fund abortion. In fact, a May 15 Gallup poll 
shows that this practice is opposed by 75 percent of the American 
people.
  Now, I came to Congress just a short 5\1/2\ months ago, but I came to 
this Chamber to represent the American people and my constituents. 
Therefore, I do not believe that we should be using taxpayer dollars, 
hard-earned taxpayer dollars for something that faces such widespread 
opposition.
  That being said, it is equally important that we provide the support 
that is required to bring that child into this world; only then are we 
going to be able to prevent the root cause of abortion in America and, 
actually, throughout this world. So I would like us to use our taxpayer 
dollars not to fund abortions, but to use this money for the moms and 
for the babies for health care and other services that they need.
  I was really proud during my first few weeks here in Washington, in 
this Chamber, to vote for SCHIP. This legislation provides critical 
health services for our Nation's babies, and just as importantly, it 
provides crucial assistance for pregnant moms as well, the first time 
that we've done that in this country. What a blessing it is that we are 
finally taking care of our brand new precious babies and providing 
support for moms too.
  I strongly supported this bill because of another personal story that 
I have. When my second child was being born, when I was pregnant with 
number two, Gretchen, we changed jobs in the middle of the pregnancy. 
My husband was carrying the health insurance through his job, and we 
had a new health care provider. All of a sudden, I had a pre-existing 
condition, and that preexisting condition was my pregnancy. And that 
child was born without myself having any health care coverage. Luckily, 
I had a very noneventful natural birth, but you still have to go to a 
doctor and make sure that your child's needs and your needs are taken 
care of. I would just like to say that a child is not a preexisting 
condition; a child is precious, and a life that we need to be taking 
care of.

  So as we go forward here in Congress and we take up health care 
reform, we must address this issue of pre-existing conditions that too 
often keep mothers, fathers, and children from the care that they need. 
But the first step is stopping the practice of spending taxpayer 
dollars to fund abortion.
  Once again, I want to thank you so much for the opportunity to speak 
on the floor tonight about an issue that is very personal for me and 
for millions of families across this country. And I ask all of my 
colleagues from both sides to join me in making the whole life of the 
child a priority, beginning at conception. This begins with steering 
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars away from providing abortions and 
towards health care and the other critical services for our children, 
as well as our moms and dads.
  I want to thank the gentlelady, and I yield back.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you very much. And I would just like to say to 
the gentlelady, we have so much in common, even though we represent 
different sides of the aisle, and one is the fact that we have the joy 
of being grandparents. I think one of the things that we learn often in 
life is that, while your children bring you tremendous joy, the joy 
cannot even be realized until you have that grandchild.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Absolutely.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I just have to tell of another joy. My second 
grandchild was born just 2 weeks ago today, and I was there for that 
birth.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Congratulations. Well, the gentlelady has me beat by 
one, but I only have one child, so----
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I yield back and thank the gentlelady.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, God bless you and your family. Thank you so much.
  While we are on this subject of taxpayer abortions, I would like to 
recognize another gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). I will 
extend as much time as you need on this very sensitive and important 
subject.
  Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for being the 
leader of this Special Order tonight. And I want to thank the 
gentlelady from Pennsylvania for her pro-life statement and for sharing 
her experience with us. We are all blessed by her statement, we are all 
blessed by her being here. She and I and the gentlelady from Ohio are 
regular attendees at our weekly prayer breakfast, and I can say that it 
is a blessing to have that opportunity. And it just would make us all 
so much happier if more people in her caucus felt the way that she does 
on this issue.
  You know, over the past several months, the Obama administration has 
begun to erode the pro-life protections in place to keep taxpayer 
dollars from paying for abortions. We know and have known for a long 
time that the majority of the American people do not want to see 
taxpayer money used for abortions, but we even know now that the 
majority of the American people are opposed to abortions.
  I think the Obama administration is going in absolutely the wrong 
direction on this issue, as it is on many other issues. But they began 
with the repeal of the Mexico City Policy, which restricted taxpayer 
money from funding groups providing abortions overseas. This is 
something that had been in effect for many, many years.

                              {time}  1945

  Now, what they want to do is bring taxpayer-funded abortions back to 
Washington, D.C., by changing the so-called Dornan amendment, which 
restricts publicly funded abortions in the District of Columbia.
  The District of Columbia has one of the most troubling track records 
in the Nation when it comes to its abortion policies. Not only is the 
District of Columbia part of a notorious group that allows minors to 
receive abortions, only the District of Columbia and three States have 
such laws, but it also has one of the highest abortion rates in the 
country. It is no secret that the District of Columbia's lax abortion 
policies draw women to D.C. abortion clinics from other States. 
Repealing the Dornan amendment would mean allowing D.C. to use tax 
dollars to foot the bill for abortions for minors and potentially for 
minors from other States.
  It is a real travesty when most of our children cannot get any kind 
of treatment from a physician. They can't get a shot. They can't get a 
preventative shot. They can't get any treatment.

[[Page H6525]]

They couldn't be sewn up in a hospital if they are hurt or at school 
without permission from their parents. However, the District of 
Columbia allows these minors to get an abortion, to kill a human life. 
And, again, polls have shown that a majority of Americans do not 
support taxpayer-funded abortion.
  We must preserve the Dornan amendment and keep hardworking Americans' 
tax dollars from paying for abortions, a practice that violates the 
conscience of millions of pro-life Americans.
  We also know that taxpayer-funded abortions increase the number of 
abortions done because the research has been done on that.
  But I, again, applaud my colleague from Ohio for leading this Special 
Order tonight. And I want to say that I share Congresswoman 
Dahlkemper's philosophy, that I support life from conception to natural 
death, and I think that a society that devalues the unborn will soon 
devalue those who are born, and I do not want to see our country going 
down that slippery slope because it would not be good for us.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her kind words on 
this very important issue.
  Before I turn this over to another gentleperson regarding this issue, 
I would like to explain to the Speaker one of the situations that we're 
talking about is the potential funding of abortions for the District of 
Columbia. And one of the things that I think we might forget is that 
article I of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress holds complete 
legislative authority over the District of Columbia, exclusive 
legislation in all cases whatsoever. That is why the entire budget for 
the District of Columbia, including revenue generated by local sources, 
must be appropriated by Congress through an annual appropriations bill.
  For many years, the annual D.C. appropriations bill contained a 
provision to prevent the use of any congressionally appropriated funds 
for the abortions except to save the life of a mother or in the case of 
rape or incest. This was the so-called Dornan amendment, named after 
Congressman Dornan, for the fiscal year 1989 appropriations bill that 
he talked about in 1988. This bill has been in place pretty much 
consistently over that time. The White House budget document released 
on May 7, appendix page 1209, asks Congress to repeal the ban on 
congressionally appropriated funds and replace it with a bookkeeping 
requirement that would apply only to funds specifically contributed for 
Federal program purposes.
  Now, what I want to point out is this: that while the Dornan 
amendment was officially put in place in 1989 and was there until 1993, 
for a few years under the Clinton administration it was relaxed, and 
what happened during that time was that the funding for abortions in 
the District of Columbia continued and those funds for abortions 
actually increased the number of abortions in the District of Columbia. 
And the way they did it was, according to then Mayor Sharon Pratt 
Kelly, they authorized the use of a million dollars from the Medical 
Charities Fund, which was originally set up to help indigent AIDS 
patients to pay for those abortions. So back during the Clinton 
administration when the Dornan amendment was relaxed, specifically 
prohibiting any money both directly and indirectly into the District of 
Columbia that was Federal money for the purpose of abortions, when that 
was relaxed, not only did the number of abortions go up, but they used 
an alternate funding to actually pay for those abortions. And that's 
really the focus of what we're talking about tonight.
  And before I go back through my history of this new administration 
since taking office in January, I do want to turn it over to my good 
colleague from Minnesota, Congresswoman Bachmann.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, 
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt. She is the head of the Women's Pro-Life 
Caucus, and she has done such a remarkable job for us. There aren't 
that many women who are pro-life women here in the United States 
Congress, and Jean has done a wonderful job taking that effort forward.
  Thank you, Jean, for hosting the hour this evening, and I appreciate 
the honor of being with you and Ms. Foxx and with my colleagues this 
evening to be able to address this important issue.
  I come here tonight as a female Member of Congress, as a strong pro-
life Member of Congress, and also as a mother. I have been gifted to be 
able to bear five children, and I'm grateful for that honor, grateful 
to have known what it's like to be able to hold a little baby and be 
able to know what it's like to carry a little baby to full term. It is 
a thrill. It is a blessing.
  And I know for many women across America, they've made decisions in 
their lives regarding abortion that have affected them, that have 
affected them for good and for not so good. And for women who are 
abortion-minded, who have made that decision to abort their baby, they 
know what I'm talking about. They have made a decision that has 
radically altered their life. And whether that's a memory that they've 
tried to put under the carpet or whether it's a memory they are still 
dealing with, they know in the center and in the core of their being 
that something huge happened when they made that decision.
  And I don't stand here this evening, Mr. Speaker, condemning any 
women that have made that decision. To the contrary, what I am saying 
is that there is a way out for women who have made that decision. They 
can find peace. They can find forgiveness.
  But we also want to tell the truth about abortion. We want to tell 
the truth, that it leaves a gaping hole in the soul of a woman when she 
makes that decision.
  Many women are pressured to make that decision, pressured by a 
boyfriend who tells them they'll leave the woman if they don't make the 
decision, pressured by parents who are embarrassed or who don't want 
their daughter to have to deal with a baby or maybe who themselves 
don't want to deal with a grandchild that they're just not quite 
prepared to deal with. And I think part of the message that we want to 
give tonight is that there are alternatives. There are positive 
alternatives for women and for men who find themselves in that 
situation.
  There are loving alternative pregnancy centers in nearly every 
community in the United States who will offer free pregnancy testing, 
who will offer free sonograms or ultrasounds so that you can hear your 
baby's heartbeat and see your baby on a screen and make that decision. 
And I think what we're trying to let a lot of American women know 
across this country this evening is that choosing life is probably one 
of the most gratifying decisions any woman, any man can make. We want 
to let them know they're not alone.

  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Reclaiming my time, I've been to a number of these 
wonderful pregnancy care centers in my own district, and it's not just 
offering them the opportunity of a free sonogram, but it's also 
offering them the opportunity to really help them, not just with their 
pregnancy but with the delivery and the carrying of that child. And 
these centers have programs to help educate the moms and the dads on 
good parenting skills, something that all of us can benefit from. They 
also work to give them a points program so, as they go through each one 
of their phases of education, they can earn points so that they can 
have a free bed, a free bassinet, free clothing, free food. It is a 
wonderful experience for these young women and these young men, and it 
really makes them better parents not just for that baby but for future 
babies, and it builds a stronger relationship in many cases between 
that mother and that father.
  So it's not just pregnancy centers that want these women to have 
their child but pregnancy centers that reach out and help that woman 
and the dad with that child, not just through its birth but through the 
process of its natural life. And at least the ones in my district open 
their arms to that, and toward the end of all of the pregnancy centers, 
I really salute them because they're doing a great job.
  I yield.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. You're absolutely right, Congresswoman Schmidt. They 
are all across America and they are doing a fabulous job. They do it on 
very little money. They aren't receiving money from the Federal 
Government the same way that Planned Parenthood does. Planned 
Parenthood receives well over $300 million a year in grants from the 
Federal taxpayer. We don't see that for these pro-life centers. And 
these are centers who people give donations to.

[[Page H6526]]

  And for women who find themselves in a situation where they're torn, 
trying to figure out what they should do about this unplanned 
pregnancy, Mrs. Schmidt is exactly right, because they offer not only 
just the sonogram and just a pregnancy test, but they offer clothes if 
you need maternity clothes. They offer baby clothes. They offer a 
little bassinet. They might offer a stroller, a little baby carrier, 
free diapers. They are there to help women at their most vulnerable 
time.
  And you will find in a Planned Parenthood that a woman walks in and 
they say that they're full service, but there is actually only one 
option usually when you go into Planned Parenthood, and that's to end 
the life of that little baby. And what the pro-life centers try to do 
is offer women life-giving choices and to let them know they can keep 
their dignity. Whether they choose to keep their baby or not, they can 
keep their dignity, but they can give the greatest gift they can ever 
give, and that's that they give the gift of life to the next 
generation. It's one of the most beautiful decisions than can ever be 
made.
  You've had the pleasure of being a mother. I've had the pleasure of 
being a mother, and it is truly one of the greatest treasures anyone 
can ever have, to be entrusted with giving life to the next generation.
  So I think as we start this discussion on abortion, on what it means, 
and there are a lot of opinions on either side, but one thing we have 
seen that has occurred recently, the American people, for the first 
time, the public opinions show that over 51 percent of Americans claim 
they are pro-life. This is one of the highest ratings we've ever seen. 
Part of that, I think, is because of science, because science shows us 
the human development of the unborn child. And the more that we learn 
about the unborn child, the fascination, the intricacy, the beauty of 
the unborn child, the more we embrace giving life to this beautiful 
treasure and to this beautiful gift.
  And that brings us to our subject this evening, dealing with D.C., 
and there are a few things I wanted to mention in my remarks. The 
taxpayer funding of abortion also increases the number of abortions. So 
when we put tax money into the equation, we'll get more abortions. And 
it makes sense. It's practical. And that's according to the Alan 
Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood.
  The Guttmacher Institute also routinely reports showing that when 
public funding is not available, 30 percent fewer women who receive 
Medicaid have abortions. Now, this is interesting because it means 30 
percent more babies whose mothers receive government-subsidized health 
care survive because of abortion-funding restrictions. And this is, I 
think, particularly important for women and men in the African American 
communities, in the Latino communities. In communities of color, we see 
a very high percentage of abortions. And I know one of our colleagues, 
Congressman Trent Franks, speaks about this often. He has a tremendous 
heart, as we do as well, for unborn children in the minority community 
because such a grossly high percentage of babies in the African 
American/Latino community are aborted, and we don't want to see that.

                              {time}  2000

  These babies add to the richness of the American fabric just as 
Caucasian babies do. All babies are valuable, but what we're seeing is 
an even higher percentage of babies who are losing their lives in the 
minority community. In particular, we see this with minorities as they 
access Medicaid funding. If they have Medicaid funding, government 
funding, we'll see more abortions, and we'll see that particularly in 
the minority communities.
  This is a common-ground issue, I think, that we can share with those 
who embrace a pro-abortion view and with those who embrace a pro-life 
view because the polls have shown very clearly that the majority of 
Americans do not support taxpayer-funded abortion. They don't support 
it. We are here to represent the will and the interests of the American 
people. That's not where the American people are right now. They don't 
want to see us spending their money when we don't have much, when this 
government is in the red--in red ink up to our eyeballs. We don't have 
money to pay for the intentional murder of unborn children.
  The Obama budget changes this Dornan amendment, as my colleague Mrs. 
Schmidt has said, to the Financial Services' appropriations bill, so 
the publicly funded abortions will, once again, be available in the 
District of Columbia. Right here where we stand this evening, this is 
the District of Columbia. So now, once again, President Obama is 
expanding abortion. Instead of making it rare, instead of making it 
safer, this is making more abortions, particularly for pre-born babies 
of color.
  The District of Columbia has a record of abusing taxpayer funds for 
abortion. It's bad news, but it's true news. In the 80s when the 
District had the most permissive abortion funding policy in this 
country, abortions were funded for anyone, not just for Medicaid 
recipients.
  Elizabeth Reveal was the D.C. budget director at the time. She 
confirmed that the District's government has a policy of funding 
abortion on demand and does not attempt to determine the circumstances 
of the pregnancy. D.C. allows minors--that's children--to receive 
abortion services without the consent of their parents.
  So imagine that. Here in D.C., children can receive abortions without 
their parents' consent, which means that the American taxpayer will be 
funding abortions, paying for them for children, and minors could 
easily be brought in from other States. Remember, D.C. is only about 10 
miles square, so minors could be transported across State lines and 
brought to D.C. from other States to have abortions paid for by the 
American taxpayer right here in Washington, D.C. to avoid the parental 
notification laws in their home States. That's according to the Alan 
Guttmacher Institute. According to Planned Parenthood, they don't have 
accurate numbers on abortions in D.C. due to women from other States 
coming to D.C. for abortions.
  There are problems here with this, deep problems with this measure. 
That's why we had the Dornan amendment. It made sense. It was only 
reasonable. So, unfortunately, under the Obama administration, we are 
taking the Band-Aid off this problem and are exposing it to even more 
infection. The infection is more money, and we know that more money 
will lead to more abortions and particularly to more abortions for 
babies of color.
  This is really a sad story. We don't want to just talk about sad 
stories, because life is such a wonderful story. We would love to just 
be here this evening and talk about the positive story of life--and 
it's a beautiful story--but this is a really ugly story because it's 
about expanding more abortion; it's about more misery for women who are 
forced into abortions often against their will, who are given 
incomplete and inadequate information and who may be headed for a 
lifetime of addiction, depression or of a sense of loss and grief that 
they may have to deal with for 10, 15, 20 years. We don't want this to 
happen. We want women to be dignified. We don't want women to be 
brutalized. That's why we're here this evening, because we really 
believe in women, and we believe in women's choices and in empowering 
women. This doesn't empower women to put them in a situation where 
they're forced to do something quite often by pressure from boyfriends 
who are careless or from parents who don't want to be bothered.
  So I just want to, again, thank Representative Jean Schmidt. She has 
a heart of love. She has a heart of love on this issue. With her 
courage and with her dignity, she has brought together this group of 
men and women here on the House floor this evening who believe very 
strongly that American women will be hurt by this bill. Certainly, 
American children will be hurt by this bill.
  I thank you for your courage in bringing this forward this evening.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you so much, my good friend from Minnesota.
  I just want to add that, while the whole issue is a very emotional 
issue, one of the things that really disturbs me in the whole abortion 
debate is when minors have abortions without parental consent, because 
when a minor has an abortion, that means that child has gotten into a 
family situation, and they're under age. In many

[[Page H6527]]

States, that's considered statutory rape. In some cases, including in 
my own district, at Planned Parenthood, which technically is in 
District One but is in my own community, there are two lawsuits right 
now with regard to underage children who had abortions, and their 
parents were not adequately notified about it. So the whole issue of 
parental notification on anything--on a child's taking an aspirin--is 
critical.
  Back in the 80s, we know that the District of Columbia was very open 
about abortions. It let folks from other States have abortions. It let 
minors without parental consent have abortions. I don't think we want 
to expand on that policy today.
  I really want to turn this over right now to my good friend, the head 
of our Values Action Team, the good Congressman, Mr. Pitts.
  Congressman Pitts, would you please give us your words of advice and 
encouragement on this issue.
  Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Jean. I really want to commend the lady from 
Ohio for her leadership and for the Pro-Life Women's Caucus for having 
this Special Order.
  You know, there are really no more eloquent voices for women and 
children than pro-life women. You're not only eloquent; you're elegant. 
I want to thank you for your wonderful statements on the issue of life 
and of women and of the unborn child.
  Abortion is an exploitation of women and children. I remember hearing 
a few years ago the President of Feminists for Life, Frederica 
Mathewes-Green, when she spoke to the Congressional Life Forum. She 
said abortion breaks a woman's heart. She said there are always two 
victims with an abortion. One is the baby. The other is the mother. One 
is dead. One is wounded. We should keep that in mind as we talk about 
this issue.
  I am very sad to see this administration act so quickly in going 
towards promoting abortion policies. Three days after the President was 
inaugurated, on Friday evening at about 5:30, he issued an order 
overturning the Mexico City Policy. Mexico City was started by 
President Reagan, and it has been in our policy for many years. He 
overturned Mexico City. By eliminating the Mexico City Policy, what 
that does is permits all of the family planning funds that go to 
international organizations to go to organizations that promote and 
provide abortions. He has given them that money. Not only did he 
overturn Mexico City, but in the omnibus bill, he raised the amount of 
money this year to $545 million to go to these international 
organizations that promote and provide abortions. It's a tragedy. He is 
becoming known by many in the pro-life community as the ``abortion 
President.'' It's very unfortunate. It's very sad.
  The next thing he did shortly after that was to issue an executive 
order overturning the Federal ban that President Bush had put on the 
stem cell policies, expanding the use of taxpayer funds for the use of 
destroying embryos so that they could harvest the stem cells and use 
them for experimentation. Not only did he do that, but he issued an 
order to discourage adult stem cell research. Now, we all know, having 
followed this for many years, that for the last 25 years, they've done 
research on mice and, for the last 12 or 13 years, on humans. The only 
thing that has worked as far as treating humans are adult stem cells. 
There are something like 73 successful treatments and several protocols 
using adult stem cells, but there is nothing using embryonic stem 
cells, which kills the tiniest of human beings, the human embryo.
  Then he proposed a rule shortly after that to remove the critical 
regulations that were put in place to protect the right of conscience 
of health care workers so that now health care workers--doctors, 
nurses, those in health care--can be compelled against their 
consciences to provide abortion services, which are referrals and 
providing abortion services. This is another promotion, if you will, of 
abortion.
  Then, in the omnibus bill, they removed the provisions that would 
have prevented funds from going to the UNFPA--the groups in China that 
promote abortion and that force abortion and sterilization. They now 
are eligible to get those funds for that practice.
  I remember a few weeks ago that Harry Wu, the great human rights 
activist from China, who spent 19 years in their laogai, in the gulag 
there, presented testimony before the Human Rights Caucus. He said, in 
China, having a baby is not a human right. He said, if you have a 
second pregnancy, they will forcibly abort that woman. They will 
forcibly sterilize her. They will find her and tear down her house and 
sometimes imprison her. We are putting taxpayer funds into 
organizations that promote and provide that kind of service in China? 
It is really a terrible thing that American taxpayers, who have 
consciences against their funds being used for these things, are now 
seeing this administration open the floodgates for these kinds of 
provisions in our country and around the world.
  Now, in this budget, in the Obama budget, he has included a loophole 
that will allow taxpayer funds for abortions in the District of 
Columbia.
  The best way to reduce abortion is to limit taxpayer funding for 
abortion. There has been a lot of talk about abortion reduction, and 
the one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that public funding 
for abortion increases the number of unborn babies lost to abortion. 
Even the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the arm of Planned Parenthood, 
routinely issues reports showing that, when public funding is not 
available, 30 percent fewer women in the covered population have 
abortions. That means 30 percent of babies whose mothers receive 
government-subsidized health care survive because of an abortion 
funding restriction. So undermining commonsense policies like the 
restriction on taxpayer funding for abortion flies in the face of the 
President's claims that he is working to reduce abortion in America. It 
is very unfortunate.
  I just want to commend the pro-life women for this Special Order 
tonight. They have an understanding like no one else on this issue, and 
it is so heartening to hear their eloquent testimony and their voices 
on behalf of women and children here in our country and around the 
world. So thank you. Thanks to the gentlelady for inviting me down. I 
really commend you for your Special Order tonight.

                              {time}  2015

  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you so much for sharing some moments with us and 
for all that you do with the Values Action Team to keep us alerted to 
issues that are pertinent to all in the United States.
  When I started this a few moments ago, I was talking a little bit 
about the new administration and the new President and matching his 
words with his actions. And I would like to go back a second because I 
have a transcript from the Saddleback forum, which was back in August 
of 2008, and I got this off of CNN. And I just want to read you a 
couple of paragraphs so that, Madam Speaker, you understand that I am 
not taking what then-candidate Obama and now President Obama has said. 
I really want to give you the full text.
  And so Pastor Warren, after asking then-candidate Obama about his 
views on religion, Pastor Warren said, Let's go through some tough 
questions, tough ones. Then-candidate Obama said, I thought that was 
pretty tough. And Pastor Warren said, Well, that was a freebie. That 
was a freebie. That's a gimme, okay? Now let's deal with abortion. 
Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I've had to 
deal with this all the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. 
And I know this is a very complex issue, 40 million abortions. At what 
point does a baby get human rights in your view?
  Then-candidate Obama said, Well you know, I think that whether you're 
looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific 
perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is 
above my pay grade.
  Pastor Warren: But have you----
  Then-candidate Obama: But let me speak more generally about the issue 
of abortion because this is something obviously this country wrestles 
with. One thing that I am absolutely convinced of is that there are 
moral and ethical elements to this issue. And so I think anybody who 
tries to deny the moral difficulties and the gravity of the abortion 
issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number 
one.
  But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and 
I

[[Page H6528]]

come to that conclusion not because I am pro-abortion but because 
ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think 
they, they wrestle with these things in profound ways in consultation 
with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family 
members. And so this for me, the goal right now should be, and this is 
where I think we can find common ground--and by the way, I have now 
inserted this into the Democratic Party platform--is, how do we reduce 
the number of abortions?
  The fact is that although we have had a President who was opposed to 
abortion over the last 8 years, abortions have not gone down, and that 
is something that we have to address.
  Pastor Warren: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?
  Then-candidate Obama: I'm in favor, for example, on limits on late-
term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. From 
the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider 
that inadequate, and I respect their views. One thing that I've always 
said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins 
at conception, then--and you are consistent in that belief, then I 
can't argue with you on that because that is the core of the faith for 
you.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat that because I'm going to be 
coming back to that in a few minutes.
  Then-candidate Obama said, If you believe that life begins at 
conception, then--and you are consistent in that belief--then I can't 
argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you. 
What I can say, what I can and do say, there are ways we can work 
together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we 
actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking abortions. And 
as an example of that, one of the things that I've talked about is how 
do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep 
a child. You know, have we given them health care that they need? Have 
we given them the supportive services that they need? Have we given 
them the options of adoption that are necessary? That can make a 
genuine difference.
  When I began this, I talked about the fact that the President, when 
he was running for office, spoke of a concept of abortion where we 
would actually reduce the number of abortions, and yet as soon as he 
took office, he seemed to reverse that policy.
  As many of my colleagues demonstrated tonight, just days after taking 
office, the first thing that this President did was reverse the Mexico 
City Policy. And that policy, again, simply says that U.S. taxpayer 
dollars will not promote abortions overseas and that any NGO and any 
governmental agency or non-governmental agency overseas cannot use that 
money to promote abortions that they receive from the United States.
  But if this was not enough, today Congress considered a bill that 
would establish in the State Department the Office of Global Women's 
Issues. And one of those purposes of that Global Office on Women's 
Issues is to promote abortions overseas.
  So as the President stated when he was running for office, he wanted 
to reduce the number of abortions, he put it in the platform of the 
Democratic Party. He said that if you're consistent in your beliefs 
that life begins at conception, that this should be recognized.
  One of the things that this Congress, in concert with the 
administration, is doing is rapidly promoting abortions through the use 
of Federal funds for those abortions.
  But it's not just the funding of overseas abortions that is 
occurring. It's not the only assault on creating a culture of life that 
we have witnessed both from this administration and this Congress. And 
it's not the only instance where the administration's rhetoric does not 
match its actions.
  What candidate Obama said about stem cell research at the Saddleback 
forum, he said, Now, if in fact adult stem cell lines are working just 
as well, then, of course, we should try to avoid any kind of moral 
arguments that may be in place.
  I've got to repeat that.
  Candidate Obama at the time said, Now, if in fact adult stem cell 
lines are working just as well, then, of course, we should try to avoid 
any kind of moral arguments that may be in place.
  Well, today, adult stem cells have actually been found to be useful 
in treating a large number of diseases or ailments; embryonic stem 
cells have not yet been found to effectively treat anything. Yet in 
March, our President signed an executive order overturning the Bush 
administration's stem cell research policy.
  And the assault on life does not stop there. Nor does the double-
talk.
  You know, the President recently spoke at Notre Dame, and it was met 
with some controversy. And in that May speech--I want to read to you 
the context, the full context of what he said on the issue of abortion.
  And he said, Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than 
on the issue of abortion. As I considered the controversy surrounding 
my visit here, I am reminded of an encounter during my Senate campaign, 
one that I describe in the book I wrote called ``The Audacity of 
Hope.'' A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an 
e-mail from a doctor that told me while he voted for me in the primary, 
he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in 
the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was 
strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him for voting 
for me.

  What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had 
posted on my Web site, an entry that said I would fight right-wing 
ideologies who want to take away a woman's right to choose. The doctor 
said that he had assumed that I was a reasonable person, but that if I 
truly believe that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue 
who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very 
reasonable.
  He wrote, I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only 
that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.
  Fair-minded words.
  After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked 
him. I didn't change my position. But I did tell my staff to change the 
words on my Web site. And I said a prayer that night that I might 
extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had 
extended to me. Because when we do that, when we open our hearts and 
our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do, 
that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground; 
that's when we begin to say, Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we 
can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman 
to make, both with moral and spiritual dimensions.
  So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking 
abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies and making adoption more 
available and providing care and support for women who do carry their 
child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with 
abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause and make sure that all 
of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound 
science as well as respect for the equality of women.
  I could go on with this speech. But what I want to say is that while 
speaking at Notre Dame, the President said, Let's honor the conscience 
of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience 
clause to make sure that our health care policies are grounded in clear 
ethics and sound evidence.
  I didn't take it out of context.
  But he actually said this, Madam Speaker, after his administration 
had rescinded the conscience clause regulations promulgated by the Bush 
administration. These regulations made it clear that a health care 
provider who would not have to choose between his or her deeply held 
moral and religious beliefs and a career. In fact, this is what the 
President, then-candidate, alluded to at the Saddleback conference 
that, you know, your conscience should be recognized and your moral 
ground should be recognized especially if you're consistent with your 
belief that life begins at conception and ends at natural death. And 
yet the conscience clause was almost immediately rescinded upon this 
President's arrival to take office.
  Does the gentlelady wish to say something?
  Ms. FOXX. I wonder if the gentlewoman would yield.
  I appreciate very much what you and our other colleagues have pointed 
out

[[Page H6529]]

tonight in terms of the inconsistencies in the President's position. I 
also want to thank you for having pointed out the joy of having 
children. And I want to bring up one more example of what I think is an 
inconsistency on the part of the President.
  He has nominated Dawn Johnsen to head up the Office of Legal Council, 
and she is among the most controversial of his nominees. She formerly 
worked for NARAL and the ACLU's Reproduction Freedom Product.
  She has compared pregnancy to involuntary servitude, describing 
pregnant women as ``losers in the contraceptive lottery,'' and she even 
criticized then-Senator Clinton for claiming a need to keep abortions, 
traumatic experiences, rare.
  She, as I said, has said that she believes that being pregnant or 
banning abortion undermines the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery. And 
she says ``that there is no `father' and no `child'--just a fetus.'' 
Any move by the courts to force a woman to have a child amounted to 
``involuntary servitude.'' She goes on and on and on to talk about how 
horrible it is to bear a child.
  And I think it is a very sad, sad situation that the President has 
nominated a woman who has these kinds of beliefs to head up an 
extremely important position in the administration, the Office of Legal 
Council. And I wanted to point that out as another inconsistency in the 
positions that he's taken.
  And I yield back.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank you so much for that because consistently since 
January, the words and the actions have not met the conscience clause, 
which he clearly took out, and yet said both as a candidate and in 
subsequent speeches as President that our conscience needs to be 
recognized and our moral beliefs need to be recognized, especially on 
this issue. He has really taken that away.

                              {time}  2030

  What we now are facing today is the change in the D.C. policy in 
which we are going to be faced with allowing for the public funding of 
abortions. Congressman Dornan's amendment prior to FY1989 allowed the 
District of Columbia to use congressional funds, appropriated funds, 
something that we have to do because of article I of the Constitution, 
give the District of Columbia money to operate with. The disconnect 
between using those funds inadvertently for abortions was shut down by 
Congressman Dornan's amendment. This was an amendment that has been 
faithfully in place, except for a few years in the Clinton 
administration. Now with the President's new budget, he wants to 
cleverly allow for the District of Columbia to use federally funded 
money for abortions.
  I would now like to turn some time over to my very dear colleague, an 
individual who has been at the forefront of life issues, not just 
recognizing the value of a child both inside and outside the womb, but 
the value of children all across the world, including his fight for a 
father to bring his child home from Brazil.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding. As a matter 
of fact, that's why I was late in getting here. I was working on that 
very issue.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. You are a great American. Take as much time as you 
would like.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Jean, just very briefly to say to my 
colleagues tonight, Barack Obama has said he is seeking common ground, 
and he wants to reduce the number of abortions. Sadly, virtually 
everything he has done, months to date, as President of the United 
States has expanded abortions internationally as well as domestically 
by executive order as well as by his embedding into his administration 
a virtual who's who of abortion leaders, people from the organizations 
who are now running agencies of the government of the United States. 
These are the people who ran the organizations for abortion rights. Now 
they're there.
  The District of Columbia for years has not provided--and our hope is 
that it will continue not to provide--any funding for abortion, except 
for rape and incest and life of the mother. That language, as you have 
pointed out, was crafted by Congressman Bob Dornan; and it was a little 
game that was played for years. I have been here 29 years, and I will 
never forget the game that was played. The language would say, no 
Federal funds can be used to pay for abortion; but they would allow it 
because we congressionally authorize local funds, so the bottom line 
was, the net consequence was, abortion on demand unfettered was paid 
for by public funds, by taxpayers.
  Barack Obama keeps saying he wants to reduce abortions. The common 
ground on reducing abortions is proscribing, prohibiting funding for 
abortions. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned 
Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood itself continually say that about a 
third of the abortions don't occur when public financing is not 
available. So as a result of the Hyde amendment, as a result of an 
amendment that I offered back in 1983 that proscribed funding under the 
auspices of the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan, the Dornan 
amendment on D.C. approps, and all the other amendments have actually 
permitted, facilitated those children who otherwise would have been 
aborted because public financing of abortion wasn't there. That's true 
common ground. Taxpayers don't want to subsidize chemical poisoning and 
dismemberment of unborn children.
  People can talk all they want. The cheap sophistry of choice is that 
it does not bring into the visibility that it deserves the very active 
abortion, which is the maiming, ultimately the killing, of an unborn 
child. This is the year 2009. We know more about the magnificent life 
of an unborn child than ever before. Microsurgeries are being done. 
These unborn children are the littlest patients. They can get blood 
transfusions. Unfortunately in some hospital rooms and especially in 
clinics, they are being dismembered; they are being chemically 
poisoned; and they are being starved to death in the act of abortion, 
which then is suggested to be a benign act. It is anything but. It is 
not compassion. It shows no sense of justice; and the public should not 
be forced, compelled to finance abortion in the District of Columbia or 
anywhere else.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I would just like to close, Madam Speaker, by saying 
this is a very sensitive and important issue. The public has spoken out 
on the fact that they really do not want Federal funds to be used for 
abortion. The President, as a candidate, when he took office, and in 
subsequent speeches, has said he wants to work to reduce the number of 
abortions. To do that is not to allow for Federal funds. So I would 
only hope that this administration would match their words with their 
action.

                          ____________________