Life in the 112th: no money for abortion

By 

Jordan Sekulow

|
June 25, 2011

2 min read

Pro Life

A

A

While focus on the ObamaCare repeal vote is sure to dominate political news next month, there is significant pro-life legislation with a real chance of passing the pro-life House of Representatives in the 112th Congress.

Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, is set to introduce the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." If passed, there will be no loopholes for federal funding of abortion.

This bill would make the Hyde amendment (no federal funds from Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act used to pay for elective abortions), Helms amendment (no international abortion funding), Smith FEHBP amendment (no payment for federal employee's elective abortion), the Dornan amendment (no funds for abortion in DC) and the conscience clause permanent.

Converting annually renewable amendments to statutory law would be a momentous victory for the pro-life movement. When the Dornan amendment was overturned in the omnibus spending bill last year, it served as a reminder of the need for permanent bans on federal funding of abortion. Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL), a Democrat, co-sponsors this legislation because, "To guarantee that taxpayers are never forced to pay for abortions and the innocent unborn are protected, we must make the longstanding ban on federal funding for abortion permanent and government-wide."

The pro-life movement is not rolling over when it comes to ObamaCare. Congress Joe Pitts (R-PA) will introduce a bill that blocks funding of abortion in the new health care law.

You can read the complete article here. Please leave your comments on the Washington Post site.

Please note that in discussing political issues, candidates positions and political party statements, Jordan Sekulow is offering analysis in his individual capacity as lawyer and commentator. He is not speaking on behalf of the American Center for Law & Justice. The ACLJ does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Nothing contained in this article should be construed as the position of the ACLJ.