[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 23]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 31318]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   OPPOSITION TO THE STUPAK AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 9, 2009

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I have witnessed the horror of the 
choice between a back alley abortion and a forced marriage to avoid 
disgrace. These were the realities women faced prior to 1973. My fear 
is that if this harmful Stupak/Pitts language is signed into law, we 
will revert back to those dark times.
  Until now, for over 30 years we lived in this House in peaceful 
coexistence, the pros and the cons getting together on the fact that 
the Hyde amendment said no federal money can be spent. We on our side 
simply had the law.
  Critical to this debate is to break down the facts. The opposition 
claims that the Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law. This is 
grossly incorrect.
  Stupak-Pitts goes far beyond current law by placing unprecedented 
restrictions on individuals' 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. The Stupak 
Amendment expands the Hyde prohibitions on the use of Federal funds for 
an abortion benefit to include ``any part of the costs of any health 
plan that includes coverage of abortion.''
  The Hyde Amendment does not include similar, far-reaching language. 
Seventeen States currently provide abortion coverage in Medicaid with 
separate State funding.
  The opposition claims that this amendment will not change current 
insurance plans for women. This is blatantly wrong.
  A report by health policy experts at the George Washington University 
School of Public Health concludes that the Stupak Amendment ``will have 
an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated 
abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is 
derived through a health insurance exchange.''
  The opposition claims that the segregation of funding under the House 
bill is an accounting sham. This is blatantly false.
  In the Capps Amendment, the segregation of funding piece is based on 
the current model the Federal Government uses to pay for abortions 
currently permitted in Medicaid. States are permitted to use their own 
funding to provide additional abortion coverage under Medicaid.
  For me, and for many of my colleagues, it means 30 or 40 years of our 
life is being cancelled out with this amendment.
  I am afraid that we are driving young women, poor women, all women of 
child-bearing age back to the back alley, and I dread to see that day.

                          ____________________