Setting the Record Straight on the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act'

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act last year, it was thanks in no small part to faith leaders who spoke out in favor of the principle that all people deserve access to quality health care. People of faith also consistently set the record straight in response to political operatives who tried to spread the insidious lie that the legislation would open the floodgates of taxpayer funding for abortion.

Pro-life and pro-choice leaders alike supported the landmark legislation, knowing all too well that our health care system was broken. Because of the Affordable Care Act, our health care system is now on a more sustainable, more moral footing -- so long as the law survives ongoing efforts by Congressional Republicans to dismantle it.

And misinformation about abortion funding hasn't gone away. Religious right leaders made this deceptive argument the centerpiece of their political campaign work in 2010, aiming a barrage of false attacks at pro-life Members of Congress who voted for the Affordable Care Act. Courageous legislators who voted their conscience and provided the critical final votes for passage were branded as sellouts who abandoned their values, and many went down to defeat on election day.

This week the House GOP leadership will keep the drumbeat going by bringing H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" to a vote. Proponents of the bill claim that it is necessary to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion through "Obamacare." However, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited federal funding of abortion for decades and independent fact-checks have made perfectly clear that both the legislation itself and the accompanying executive order from President Obama prohibit any federal funds going towards abortion services.

In terms of policy, H.R. 3 is a solution desperately seeking a problem.

But politically speaking, it gives opponents of health insurance reform another opportunity to continue hammering home their false message that we need new laws to ensure that "Obamacare" doesn't fund abortion. This week, the Family Research Council Super PAC is running ads in targeted Congressional districts to trumpet the lie.

The truth of the matter is that H.R. 3 breaks sharply with longstanding federal abortion policy in ways that could significantly impact people's health insurance and set a precedent that jeopardizes federal funding for many faith-based organizations. Proponents of the legislation claim it will permanently codify the Hyde Amendment, which is renewed annually and prohibits federal funding of abortion services except in the case of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. But H.R. 3 would also create financial penalties for individuals whose insurance plans cover abortion services (something the majority of insurance plans currently do, and have done without arousing controversy during pro-choice and pro-life Presidential administrations in the past). The bill would discontinue all tax subsidies to private health insurance plans that cover abortion, even if abortion coverage is entirely paid for by private funds, and it would impose tax penalties on those that pay for abortion coverage. In other words, it would create incentives for health insurers to not cover abortion services at all. Pro-life leaders who support this tax increase and departure from the status quo should say so.

Furthermore, H.R. 3 also risks bringing about problematic unintended consequences, which Third Way helpfully lays out in this memo:

In particular, the bill would take the unprecedented step of defining "federal funding" to include the benefit of a tax exemption or other tax expenditure.

This expanded definition presents serious ramifications that could potentially threaten a wide array of other activities currently governed by similar restrictions to the ones that have regulated federal funding for abortion.

For example, numerous religious organizations receive federal funds to run activities such as adoption services, homeless shelters and food banks. These religious organizations are trusted to segregate the federal funds they receive to provide social services from private funds used for religious practice and proselytizing. Churches and religious organizations also receive tax exemptions in order to ensure a separation between church and state as protected by the Constitution. By significantly widening the definition of federal funding to include activities that have an attenuated connection to federal funds, the bill calls into question, politically and perhaps even legally, many other areas like these where separation of funds or other mechanisms have been seen as sufficient to protect private funds from being comingled with federal monies. And by labeling tax exemption as "federal funding," it could even potentially threaten tax exemptions for churches and other religious institutions by transforming those exemptions into government support for those entities.

H.R. 3's numerous potential impacts, both intended and unintended, need to be publicly acknowledged and honestly debated in order to ensure that the actions of Congress reflect the will of the American people -- pro-life and pro-choice alike. People of good will who disagree on the morality and legality of abortion can find common ground that advances the shared priorities of both without sacrificing the priorities of either. But that can only happen if we defuse rampant misinformation about the Affordable Care Act's prohibitions on abortion funding.

 

Comments

[Nathan Stout]

01:40 PM on 05/06/2011

I wrote about this this morning. Americans ought to be outraged by H.R. 3

http://ethikopolitike.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-americans-should-be-outraged-by-hr.html

[magicthighs]

10:16 AM on 05/06/2011

If tax subsidies count as government funds I guess churches can't be exempted from paying taxes anymore, since that would mean the government is funding religious organisations.

[Craig Abernethy]

08:13 AM on 05/06/2011

The story about criticism of the "health care reform" legislation backed by Obama mentions a threat to to the government funding of religiously-connected endeavors.. I think there should be no government funding of any religious, or religiously-connected, institution or activity. That is an obvious violation of separation of church and state, as well as an imposition on taxpayers, and I assure you that taxpayers with modest incomes pay more than enough in taxes already. It does religion no credit that, in addition to the utterly unfair tax exemption for incredibly wealthy religious institutions, organized religion now gets money taken from taxpayers, to support religiously-connected schools, for instance, something that in past decades cost Massachusetts taxpayers millions of dollars annually. That's outrageous. The honorable thing for people of faith to do is to fund their own institutions, instead of forcing nonbelievers or people of other faiths to do so. Exempting religious institutions, with all their money, from taxation is simply another example of unfair preferential treatment for the rich, and their exemption from taxation should be removed. It is particularly upsetting that religious groups, like the US Catholic Conference and the National Council of Churches, have a history of calling for increasing the tax burden on working people (for instance, when Reagan was President), while themselves enjoying a complete exemption from being taxed. If that's not hypocrisy, nothing is.

[Terry Rooter]

04:59 PM on 05/05/2011

"The bill would discontinue all tax subsidies to private health insurance plans that cover abortion, even if abortion coverage is entirely paid for by private funds"
Tax subsidies to the insurance plans that cover the procedure . . . even without direct itemized compensation the argument that the right's POV is a lie is in itself greatly disingenuous, accepting absolute fungibility of money.

I make no such duplicitous arguments -nor should we rationalize that robbing "Peter to pay Paul" (tongue planted firmly in cheek) is anything other than it is- We absolutely should be paying for abortions and now can do so, lets not mince words nor be deceptive in our doing so, lest humanity face a very dire Malthusian scenario- where we not only have to actively ration HC but also food and possibly . . . water.

It's fantastic that the ACA has finally made an end-run around "Hyde's" hide, I choose to celebrate it not deny it.

[Debra Singer-Hanson]

04:51 PM on 05/05/2011

No matter what, it just FEELS like there's an anti-woman's movement afoot. All of this affects women not men directly, but WOMEN. Taxes, contraception, even abortion choices if you are dying of cancer and want to choose to live...but cannot if you are pregnant. It is under another guise, religion. But, Jesus protected women.... no matter what happens here, the right is not right.

[tek1]

07:44 AM on 05/08/2011

When ultra-religious men gain power, women lose equality.

[DrSnuggles]

10:02 AM on 05/05/2011

Well said. A true person of faith, even those bound by pro-life leanings, would still be concerned with the well-being of the living and should support legislation that as a whole has a beneficial effect as opposed to concentrating on a singular issue (regardless of the accuracy). Those who do not, and would reject legislation out of hand because of this singular issue are clearly not operating out of anything resembling compassion for their fellow man.

Though, it seems to me that the extreme libertarian movement is not being as disingenuous as the the conservative christian one is. If you don't think government should fund ANYTHING then it's fairly consistent to say it shouldn't fund ONE SPECIFIC THING.

[Linda from Deerfield]

09:35 AM on 05/05/2011

Thank you for helping me get the extent to which politics is merely a game to Republicans. Let's see, if Democrats wanted to play that game they could maybe have put forth legislation to require banks and oil companies to file income taxes and pay any amount owed !#?.

[Mac1000]

10:02 AM on 05/06/2011

Love it! F & F!

[ssassy78]

09:04 AM on 05/05/2011

Finally something I can smile about amidst the mindless and misogynistic chaos. This, if nothing else, would be fantastic! I, as a taxpayer, do not want to fund faith-based initiatives with public money. Therefore, I am SO glad the misguided religious right opened this door. Hopefully, they get the backlash right to the face for their hypocrisy and short-sightedness. I would LOVE if all faith-based initiative were cleared from the public dole, and the chickens, literally, come home to roost, feeding off of the church's charity as opposed to the church's public subsidies.

[Linda from Deerfield]

09:15 AM on 05/05/2011

I'm with you on that.

[blue53]

05:56 AM on 05/05/2011

First, I'd like some proof for your first pararaph. The only religious I can recall involved in the HC bill were the Catholic Bishops who marched into the Congress--making demands--Along with a call from the Vatican.

Second, perhaps you could take this up with the Values Action Team of the Congress and their religious organizations that designed the legislation. Focus on the Family, the Eagle Forum and Concerned Women of America whould be happy to tell you who really wrote the bill.

Third, we should fight just as hard to remove ANY taxpaper money from any religious organization. See, I can be just as blind as you and your friends. I don't care about the consequences. This is about power and control.

[sedc72]

04:54 AM on 05/05/2011

I have a idea for you pro-lifers; if you say your tax dollars should not fund abortion, then my tax dollars should not fund any religious organization, period.

[fahrside]

08:38 AM on 05/05/2011

...or military actions that kill women and children.

[Jeff Tamblyn]

10:02 AM on 05/05/2011

Yes!

[MochaLite]

09:27 PM on 05/05/2011

Are you saying that abortion is a religion? That tracks with the old feminist saw that if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

[Taxed2death]

03:58 AM on 05/05/2011

With the modern advancements in birth control, why are we still debating abortions?

Rape and incest should be covered, but abortion for birth control no way.

Birth control pills are cheaper than an abortion.. why should I be taxed for an abortion when a pill could be used daily?

[Kandinski]

05:35 AM on 05/05/2011

READ THE BLOODY ARTICLE BEFORE YOU COMMENT.
"The Hyde Amendment has prohibited federal funding of abortion for decades and independent fact-checks have made perfectly clear that both the legislation itself and the accompanying executive order from President Obama prohibit any federal funds going towards abortion services."

[Left Hook]

03:15 PM on 05/05/2011

You're missiing the point Kandi...Anti-choicers, anti-womens rights and liberties groups along with the home grown terrorist goons at "Kill Reproductive Health Care Doctors for Jesus" have scared the bejesus out of the (R)s and they HAVE to bring up these kinds of "solutions looking for a problem" bills or they get dumped from office.

How and Why do they get away with it you ask? Because the women of American have yet to stand up to the freaks and mental defects and tell them to "stop the insanity" that's why...

When women of America get moving there is no stopping them - Remember what the "burn your bra" demonstrations did for womens rights? Well, as long as the women of America sit on their hands these anti-choicers and self-appointed religious freaks will rule over the women of America - And I have little sympathy for them for letting these small group of power hungry evangelicals and fundamentalist get away with it...

[Cristina Page]

12:23 AM on 05/05/2011

Great piece Jennifer. Thanks for revealing that what's going on here isn't pro-life, it's pro-lie.

[jeanrenoir]

12:20 AM on 05/05/2011

This is just like the right-to-collective-bargaining fight. Liberal women either have the votes, or they don't. If they do, they can throw out a critical mass of Republicans in '12, and reverse this attack on their rights. If they don't have the votes, they are dead meat.

[GHarry]

12:19 AM on 05/05/2011

Notice that Butler doesn't take the principled position that abortion should be funded by tax dollars just like any other medical service. Oh, no. Apparently that simple, logical position would be too much for the "faith-based community" to absorb or condone. So Butler and other "progressive" religionists criticize the extreme right-wing HR 3, but only while appearing to condone the right-wing premise that early abortion is somehow evil and should not be federally funded. And here's the real irony: They're opposed to this bill mainly because it might interfere with their ability to tap into federal funds, which many of us believe is a blatant violation of the Constitution in the first place! The best approach would be to honor the spirit of the Constitution and tax all religious groups -- while keeping cockamamie religious ideas from shaping our laws.

[Zadoc]

11:21 PM on 05/04/2011

No tax payer funding for fire trucks. That's what's next. Set your house on fire, your fault!

Should tax payer money be used for abortions?

Poll: http://www.wepolls.com/r/122533/Should-abortions-get-federal-healthcare-funding

Vote!