[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 184 (Wednesday, December 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H14378]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  OPPOSITION TO STUPAK-PITTS AMENDMENT

  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I've witnessed the horror of choice 
between back alley abortions and sometimes unforced marriages to try to 
avoid disgrace. Those were the realities that women faced prior to 
1973. My fear is if this harmful Stupak-Pitts language is signed into 
law, we will revert back to those dark times.
  Critical to this debate is a breakdown of the facts. The opposition 
says that it codifies current law. It is grossly incorrect. Stupak-
Pitts goes far beyond current law, placing unprecedented restrictions 
on the individual's use of their own private dollars. The Hyde 
amendment does not apply to private funding nor does it apply to 
administrative costs. It has only placed limits on direct Federal 
appropriations being used to fund abortion benefits. That brings in 
everyone who has insurance from their employer, which is tax exempt, 
which means, of course, a Federal subsidy.
  The Hyde amendment does not include similar, far-reaching language. 
Seventeen States currently provide abortion coverage without separate 
funding.
  We must not go back to the back alley.

                          ____________________