Washington D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) faced a tough decision earlier this week: Would she support a proposed bill that grants D.C. some much-needed autonomy over its own budget, or reject it because of an anti-abortion rider that bans the city from using its money to help low-income women pay for abortions?
On Wednesday, she chose choice.
The D.C. budget autonomy bill proposed Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) would allow D.C. to spend its money as soon as its budgeted, without having to wait for the approval of Congress. Norton and other city officials, including Mayor Vincent Gray, have expressed strong support for such an initiative because it would prevent Congress from using D.C. as a bargaining chip during federal budget negotiations, as it has in the past.
But Issa's bill includes a provision that would ban D.C. from spending its own locally-raised funds on abortion care, except in the cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger.
Norton said in a statement on Wednesday that she cannot support the bill because the majority of D.C. residents are pro-choice.
"Particularly considering the many good provisions in Chairman Issa’s bill, we regret that we cannot accept it, and would have to strongly oppose it if it were introduced," she said. "We recognize that the abortion provision is what Chairman Issa believed would be necessary to get the bill passed in the House. But the views of others should not prevail over the views of our own residents."
In a Thursday meeting, Norton reiterated to Issa that she is unwilling to compromise her pro-choice values to support the bill.
"Norton said that the Issa bill came close to her own pending D.C. Budget Autonomy Act," her office said in a statement. "However, the inclusion of an unprecedented permanent ban on the District’s use of its own funds on abortion services for the city’s most vulnerable women proved fatal."
The current federal budget bill includes a similar abortion-spending ban, which has prevented D.C. women from using Medicaid to help with the cost of their abortions since April 2011. Issa's bill would codify that rider into permanent law.
Every other U.S. state has the freedom to spend its funds on abortion care if it so chooses, although the Hyde Amendment currently prevents any federal dollars from being used toward abortions.
The anti-abortion rider aside, Norton and D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray reacted warmly to Issa's proposal. Norton said the bill was "very close to a bill that D.C. can support," and she said she plans to continue to work with Issa to get the final bill where it needs to be, since it's "probably the best chance the District has for getting budget autonomy in the near future."
A spokesperson for Gray told HuffPost on Tuesday that the mayor is "aware that the pro-life movement placed a lot of pressure on Congressman Issa to continue the prohibition on using local dollars for abortion."
Issa's office did not respond to a call for comment.
The D.C. Abortion Fund, a non-profit organization that helps raise money to help low-income women pay for abortions, said its call volume has doubled since the ban first took effect in April. The cost of an abortion in D.C. can range anywhere from $150 to over $1,000 dollars, depending on a woman's stage of pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood of Metro Washington said it strongly opposes any proposal that could further burden the city's poorest women.
"Women unfortunately have fewer options when they have to scramble in order to get abortion care and cobble together the finances," said Laura Myers, president and CEO of PPMW. "It is very unfortunate that Congress is trying to inflict an extreme agenda on the District, when we should get to decide how to use our own locally raised tax dollars."
