More

Eleanor Holmes Norton: Abortion Rider Is 'Fatal' To D.C. Spending Bill

Dc Abortion

First Posted: 11/17/11 04:17 PM ET Updated: 11/17/11 04:32 PM ET

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."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
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...
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...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 823
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
FromMarineToCop
Anything I've done already, I would do again
06:44 PM on 11/18/2011
It's interesting that if you are for abortion, you are considered "Pro-Choice", if you are against abortion, you are "Anti-Abortion" (even though it's still a choice).

Why not call it "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion" or "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Death"??
03:04 AM on 12/04/2011
If you are "pro-choice," you are NOT necessarily in favor of abortion. There are plenty of folks who believe a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion who would not necessarily choose that avenue for themselves. Those who believe that women should NOT have the choice are "anti-choice." Most current laws in the U.S., including and especially the Supreme Court Ruling in Roe vs. Wade, support a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The ruling was neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. It established a woman's right to CHOOSE. It would be great if we could all modify our language accordingly.
11:14 AM on 12/05/2011
No one is "for" abortion, the political position is pro-choice, and those who claim to be "anti-abortion" advocate policies that increase both unplanned pregnancies and abortion, and despite calling themselves pro-life, their policies advocate more death.

The correct designation is pro-choice and anti-choice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tjgg
Intolerance will not be tolerated.
07:46 AM on 11/18/2011
A Democrat in government showing some real spine, I love it!! If we had more of them at the federal level, refusing to be intimidated into voting against their constituents' best interests and desires, the past few years would have gone an entirely different way and our country would be in a much better place.
01:01 AM on 12/04/2011
It doesn`t matter if there is a D or an R beside their name. They are sworn to protect & preserve the Constitution and they have gone beyond their guidelines. Much should be done on the state level. The federal government is not given unlimited powers in their job description.

Ron Paul is the best choice for President at this time. I am registered Independent and will be voting for him. check out ronpaulmyths.com to learn more about him if you want the truth.
07:43 AM on 11/18/2011
Women should have a choice. But what right does the father have. If he wants the child and the women does not does he have any say? If he does not want the child does he have any say? If he does not want the child and she wants it does he still have to pay for care of the child. How is it that there is a fight for the womans rights but not for the fathers rights?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KDMac
It's called sarcasm, Genius.
12:37 PM on 11/18/2011
How often does this happen?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
boberrigan
Only the mediocre are always at their best.
04:24 PM on 11/18/2011
If a man has such strong feelings about wanting a child that could be conceived he should either make sure he or his partner are in agreement BEFORE sex takes place or make darn sure he has his own birth control in place so as not to rely on the woman. Otherwise, it's the woman's body and her choice.
photo
FromMarineToCop
Anything I've done already, I would do again
06:47 PM on 11/18/2011
Really? He should make sure? It's up to him to make sure either he or she uses birth control or he loses his say once a baby is conceived??

That's the only choice a man has?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
giftsthatpurr
zestful life
03:08 AM on 11/18/2011
Republicans are obcessed with restricting women's reproductive choices. Not a day goes by that I don't hear of a new trick they have tried both in DC and the STATES. Over 40 bills have been introduced by Congressional Republicans that are meant to inhibit - if not
seriously diminish women's reproductive health choices. We are in a long term recession. People have lost their homes and can't find jobs. The atmospere is polluted and we are looking at a shortage of clean water. There are so many problems that need to be dealt with, yet Republicans fixate on women's freedom of choice. Aarrgh!!!!!!!
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
12:40 PM on 11/18/2011
Really? Please name those Republicans who oppose reproduction. How about those who support reproduction?! Those are the only two choices!
Semper fi
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
giftsthatpurr
zestful life
02:03 PM on 11/18/2011
Better learn to read! Republicans oppose women having control over their reproductive CHOICES/functions/health. Republicans/TPs have ardently fought pro-choice and the whole country knows that. Republicans have attacked Planned Parenthood and Roe v Wade since their inception. Reproduction - LOL You made me laugh - thanks!
02:55 AM on 11/18/2011
And we all thought that Federal dollars cannot be used to pay for abortions.....whatever happened to the Hyde amendment?

Oh, and planned parenthood isn't an abrtion factory either.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tjgg
Intolerance will not be tolerated.
07:08 AM on 11/18/2011
If you actually take time to READ the article, it addresses the Hyde Amendment, which would still be in place in DC. Federal dollars cannot be used to subsidize abortion anywhere, including DC. This isn't about federal dollars, but state dollars being used as the state sees fit, as they are in every other state.

I find it interesting that so many TP'ers scream about states' rights and small government, except when it comes down to trying to tell states how they must deal with the abortion issue.
02:20 AM on 11/18/2011
I'm sorry, but what does abortion have to do with a spending bill? Please remind me? Oh wait, it's all part of the social conservative plan to turn this country into a theocracy while pretending to be all about jobs, jobs and more jobs.
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
12:41 PM on 11/18/2011
Actually, it has nothing to do with government spending. And, neither does abortion!
Semper fi
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ihsxps
Θεός, Λόγος καί Σοφία
01:34 AM on 11/18/2011
Representative Darrell Issa makes my skin crawl. So I calm my heart and soul by contemplating the pure land with my subscription to Daily Haiku by Issa (1763-1828)

Today's Selection:

"the masses wait
but all in vain...
cuckoo

o^zei ga muda machishitari hototogisu

.大勢がむだ待したり時鳥

by Issa, 1824

Is Issa complaining that the first cuckoo of summer has not yet been heard? The "masses" might refer to haiku poets, Issa included, who wait to write that year's cuckoo verses...in vain."

http://cat.xula.edu/issa/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KDMac
It's called sarcasm, Genius.
12:38 PM on 11/18/2011
I thought haikus were 5-7-5.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ihsxps
Θεός, Λόγος καί Σοφία
01:05 PM on 11/18/2011
The Japanese version is :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonderYrednow
¿Y read backwards?
12:57 AM on 11/18/2011
Republic, never let a womb they haven't met go unwound, it's a crime.
12:21 AM on 11/18/2011
OK, I know I'm gonna catch a lot of flack for this comment, however if you think about it, its very true! Why fund abortions for these women? OK, I get they are the poorest women according to the article. However wouldn't it be cheaper to issue the women a box of condoms to be used when they decide to have sex? I mean you kill 2 birds with 1 stone so to speak! First you help stop the spread of VD/AIDS. Second, a box of condoms doesn't cost $150.00 or $1000.00. A $1000.00 buys a whole lot of condoms and since its not abortion no one can stop the state from buying condoms to distribute! I say if a woman cant practice safe sex before or during sex then by all rights the tax payers shouldn't have to pick up the tab for her abortion. If you say they cant afford to find their way in to pick up condoms, I say that is a line of crap, specially if they can find their way in after the fact to get an abortion!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
katylied
It's just a ride
12:52 AM on 11/18/2011
1. Condoms break
2. What about rape
3. You comment about women practicing safe sex leaves out one small detail. It takes two
01:12 AM on 11/18/2011
To answer your questions....
1. I've used condoms for 15 years and haven't had one break yet.
2. Rape is covered under the government plan as well as insest and if mothers life is in danger.
3. Yes, it takes 2, but when it comes down to sex all the woman has to say is wrap it or its a no go! If they refuse to wrap it and persist on having their way even though the women then says NO, you are now talking rape.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
MeanMachine
No Nonsense Thinker
11:22 PM on 11/17/2011
My God, if anti-abortion is so important make a stand alone bill, oh that's write the majority oppose anti-abortion laws. Abortion is legal because it is a public health issue. Anti-abortion measure just aim to kill the mothers too.
11:59 PM on 11/17/2011
If abortion was used only to save the life of a woman, we wouldn`t be having this discussion. Most people agree that is necessary. It`s the slaughter of millions of lives for convenience that is appalling to the conscience of most people. Can you understand that?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonderYrednow
¿Y read backwards?
01:00 AM on 11/18/2011
Fetuses are not 'lives', how does that escape your little brain ?
MeanMachine
No Nonsense Thinker
01:10 AM on 11/18/2011
Without a professional doing the abortion, mother are more likely to die due to complications such as secondary infection, or just down right blood lost. People will get abortions despite it being illegal, just like people drink during prohibition. Essentially your making the same argument the prohibitionist did. The results of prohibition was the mob, the result of anti-abortionist will be dead mothers on the street.
fallenawayrepublican
George Bush cured me, praise the lord.
11:12 PM on 11/17/2011
Time for the GOP neanderthals to go.
10:58 PM on 11/17/2011
Bravo, Delegate Norton. Stick to your guns!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BRAINS4USA
Vote. Just do it. Always.
10:52 PM on 11/17/2011
Great! Stop the sickening social engineering by the repubs NOW!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:47 PM on 11/17/2011
Isn't it about time that sperm donors start paying for their own abortions?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonderYrednow
¿Y read backwards?
01:01 AM on 11/18/2011
I'd pay for yours... but they say I'm not that nice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greeneyes51654m
Retired, finally...
03:05 AM on 11/18/2011
Absolutely. F & F