[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 60 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 4, 2011

  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, 
the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  Our first priorities in the House of Representatives must be helping 
to foster job creation and supporting middle class families. More than 
four months into the 112th Congress, we have not considered one bill 
that would achieve these goals.
  This deceptively named bill claims that it would enact a government-
wide prohibition on federal subsidies for abortion and health insurance 
plans that cover it. In truth it is an unprecedented and extreme 
attempt to limit health insurance coverage for American women, raise 
taxes on small businesses, infringe on the legally protected rights of 
American Servicewomen, and make this legal, constitutionally protected 
medical procedure inaccessible to women.
  This bill would eliminate tax credits for families and small 
businesses to purchase comprehensive health insurance plans. This would 
result in substandard health care for millions of Americans.
  Unprecedented, H.R. 3 would change the tax code to promote an anti-
choice agenda. This bill would allow women to use tax preferred saving 
accounts for abortion care only in cases of rape, incest, or when their 
life is in danger. Under this extreme bill, women would have to prove 
to the IRS that they have been victim of sexual assault to use their 
own money for their medical care.
  This bill triumphs on states' rights by preventing the District of 
Columbia from using its own funds to pay for abortion services for low-
income women. Further, it would permanently deny low-income women, 
federal employees, and military women access to abortion care, even 
when their health is at risk.
  It is important to remember why comprehensive health care is needed. 
I recently heard a heartbreaking story from one of my constituents who 
was desperate to have a baby with her husband. Unfortunately after 
getting pregnant, they discovered that the fetus had a deadly condition 
and was not going to survive. They were left with only one choice--to 
terminate the pregnancy. This couple never thought they would be in 
that position. This bill would deny private health insurance companies 
from providing this kind of medical care to women.
  The question of whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most 
difficult decisions any woman can face. Reproductive health care is a 
personal matter that should be left to individuals, their doctors, and 
their families without interference from the government. Rather than 
making abortion more dangerous for young women, I believe that Congress 
should do more to create the conditions that enable women to make true 
choices by providing comprehensive sexuality education and ensuring 
that women have access to a range of effective contraceptives.
  I oppose H.R. 3 and urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous 
piece of legislation.

                          ____________________