[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1086-E1087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            COMMENTS ON H.R. 3, NO TAXPAYER FUNDING ABORTION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MAXINE WATERS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 14, 2011

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, 
the No Taxpayer Funding Abortion bill. This bill prevents women who 
have private insurance plans from receiving comprehensive sexual health 
coverage even in cases when their health is in danger.
  It is extremely clear that Republicans are waging a war against 
women's rights by pushing a radical agenda that will primarily hurt 
poor and low-income women. An agenda like this only further proves that 
the Republicans are not interested in jobs and repairing our economy 
but instead more interested in divisive social issues that will not 
move this economy forward.
  Women and families need affordable and accessible health care more 
than ever before. This blatant assault on women's health needs to stop. 
As elected officials, it is our duty to ensure that all rights, 
including women's rights, are not violated through policies that only 
further limit access. We have to stand up and fight for the 
preservation of the rights for all women by defeating this bill.


                         QUICK FACTS FROM ACLU

       Who does H.R. 3 penalize? Bearing in mind the rationale 
     underlying the tax code's treatment of medical expenses, as 
     described above, a close examination of the Smith bill's tax 
     provisions reveals that it serves to punish certain segments 
     of the population.
       Women: It should go without saying that the effects of the 
     Smith bill will disproportionately fall on women, as women 
     are the ones who are most likely to spend funds on abortion 
     procedures. However, the Smith bill does not punish women 
     exclusively. Many men purchase insurance policies that cover 
     their spouses and dependents, and many use the funds 
     considered in the Smith bill to pay expenses for abortion 
     procedures for their spouses and dependents.
       Low and middle-income people: The Smith bill would penalize 
     low- and middle-income taxpayers. As described below, 
     taxpayers who would be entitled to a subsidy for insurance 
     purchased on an exchange would not be eligible for such a 
     subsidy if the insurance plan offered on the exchange 
     included coverage for abortion procedures. Thus, while 
     wealthier taxpayers whose employers provide insurance premium 
     subsidies would likely suffer no penalty to enroll in a plan 
     that includes coverage for abortion procedures, taxpayers who 
     must buy insurance on an exchange would lose a significant 
     subsidy, and in all likelihood be effectively precluded from 
     obtaining insurance with coverage for abortion procedures.
       Small businesses: The Affordable Care Act provides for a 
     tax credit for small businesses (businesses with 25 or fewer 
     full-time employees) to encourage the provision of health 
     insurance for their employees. The Smith bill's provisions 
     would deny small businesses this tax credit if they were to 
     offer insurance policies that covered abortion procedures. In 
     all likelihood, this would have the effect of eliminating 
     coverage for abortion for employees of small businesses.
       Tax-Exempt Organizations: As described below, tax-exempt 
     organizations are also eligible to receive the small business 
     credit for the provision of health insurance (the credit is 
     taken against employment tax payments). At a time when 
     individuals are scaling back on charitable giving, small 
     charities that would be eligible for the small business tax 
     credit can use all the help they can get. The Smith bill 
     would deny these organizations a crucial tax incentive, 
     without which many of these charities would not likely be 
     able to bear the cost of providing health insurance to their 
     employees. Such a crucial incentive should not be dependent 
     upon whether the organization provides insurance coverage 
     that covers abortion procedures.
       H.R. 3 rewrites long-standing tax laws and policies to 
     impose a new penalty on millions of Americans (Section 303): 
     H.R. 3 rewrites long-standing tax laws to penalize a single,

[[Page E1087]]

     legal, medical procedure: abortion. It would end certain 
     preferential tax treatment for medical expenses and insurance 
     premiums where abortion is involved.
       Specifically, under the bill: Individuals eligible for the 
     health coverage tax credit or who receive benefits from the 
     Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation would not receive a 
     credit on the premiums paid for insurance that covered 
     abortion; small business employers who make a qualified 
     nonelective contribution to purchase a health insurance plan 
     that includes coverage for abortion would not receive a small 
     business tax credit provided under the health care law; 
     individuals could no longer claim the itemized deduction for 
     unreimbursed medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their 
     adjusted gross income; individuals who make tax deductible 
     contributions to a health savings account (HSA) would be 
     required to include in income any amounts paid out of an HSA 
     when those proceeds are used for expenses relating to an 
     abortion; any individual who uses funds from a health 
     Flexible Spending Arrangement (FSA) for an abortion would now 
     be required to include those funds in their gross income for 
     the taxable year; amounts distributed to an employee from a 
     Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA) account for purposes 
     of reimbursing the employee for funds spent for abortion 
     would be included in the employee's taxable income;

                          ____________________