Pro Life

Floor Speech

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to shine the light on a subject where I do not believe this administration's actions are living up to its rhetoric. Whether it was said on the campaign trail or in speeches during his time in office, the President has certainly tried to sound reasonable on the issue of life, but the administration's actions belie its words.

During a campaign appearance at the Saddleback Civil Forum with Pastor Rick Warren on August 17, 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama made clear that his goal was to ``reduce the number of abortions.'' In fact, he said that he had inserted this into the Democratic Party platform: ``How do we reduce the number of abortions?''

Now, given the administration's expressed support for Roe v. Wade, I never expected, nor do not expect it, to suddenly reverse its course. However, one way to reduce the number of abortions in a way that works and one that is a common-ground issue for the American people is not to allow taxpayer-funded abortions. Violating the consciousness of millions of pro-life Americans to fund a procedure which they object to based on a deeply held religious belief, a moral belief, by allowing taxpayers to fund abortions actually increases the number of abortions performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute through research on Planned Parenthood.

Honoring the deeply held religious and moral beliefs of millions of taxpayers by restricting taxpayer-funded abortions actually decreases abortions by about 30 percent. So that is one way to reduce the number of abortions, something that the President has said he would like to do. But since taking office, this administration has actually worked to increase taxpayer funding for abortions at both home and abroad. The first was the Mexico City Policy.

The Mexico City Policy was first promulgated in 1984 and renewed by the Bush administration in 2001. This is a very simple policy that says, as a condition for receipt of U.S. family planning aid, foreign, nongovernmental organizations and international organizations must certify that they neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. Simply put. This policy says that U.S. taxpayers will not pay to promote abortions overseas, yet one of this administration's first acts back in January was to rescind this Mexico City Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to defer here because I have a gentlelady from the other side of the aisle, Congresswoman Dahlkemper, who would like to speak out about this issue, and I would like to give part of my time, as much time as the gentlelady needs, on this issue.

Thank you very much for joining me tonight.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her kind words on this very important issue.

Before I turn this over to another gentleperson regarding this issue, I would like to explain to the Speaker one of the situations that we're talking about is the potential funding of abortions for the District of Columbia. And one of the things that I think we might forget is that article I of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress holds complete legislative authority over the District of Columbia, exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever. That is why the entire budget for the District of Columbia, including revenue generated by local sources, must be appropriated by Congress through an annual appropriations bill.

For many years, the annual D.C. appropriations bill contained a provision to prevent the use of any congressionally appropriated funds for the abortions except to save the life of a mother or in the case of rape or incest. This was the so-called Dornan amendment, named after Congressman Dornan, for the fiscal year 1989 appropriations bill that he talked about in 1988. This bill has been in place pretty much consistently over that time. The White House budget document released on May 7, appendix page 1209, asks Congress to repeal the ban on congressionally appropriated funds and replace it with a bookkeeping requirement that would apply only to funds specifically contributed for Federal program purposes.

Now, what I want to point out is this: that while the Dornan amendment was officially put in place in 1989 and was there until 1993, for a few years under the Clinton administration it was relaxed, and what happened during that time was that the funding for abortions in the District of Columbia continued and those funds for abortions actually increased the number of abortions in the District of Columbia. And the way they did it was, according to then Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly, they authorized the use of a million dollars from the Medical Charities Fund, which was originally set up to help indigent AIDS patients to pay for those abortions. So back during the Clinton administration when the Dornan amendment was relaxed, specifically prohibiting any money both directly and indirectly into the District of Columbia that was Federal money for the purpose of abortions, when that was relaxed, not only did the number of abortions go up, but they used an alternate funding to actually pay for those abortions. And that's really the focus of what we're talking about tonight.

And before I go back through my history of this new administration since taking office in January, I do want to turn it over to my good colleague from Minnesota, Congresswoman Bachmann.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Reclaiming my time, I've been to a number of these wonderful pregnancy care centers in my own district, and it's not just offering them the opportunity of a free sonogram, but it's also offering them the opportunity to really help them, not just with their pregnancy but with the delivery and the carrying of that child. And these centers have programs to help educate the moms and the dads on good parenting skills, something that all of us can benefit from. They also work to give them a points program so, as they go through each one of their phases of education, they can earn points so that they can have a free bed, a free bassinet, free clothing, free food. It is a wonderful experience for these young women and these young men, and it really makes them better parents not just for that baby but for future babies, and it builds a stronger relationship in many cases between that mother and that father.

So it's not just pregnancy centers that want these women to have their child but pregnancy centers that reach out and help that woman and the dad with that child, not just through its birth but through the process of its natural life. And at least the ones in my district open their arms to that, and toward the end of all of the pregnancy centers, I really salute them because they're doing a great job.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you so much, my good friend from Minnesota.

I just want to add that, while the whole issue is a very emotional issue, one of the things that really disturbs me in the whole abortion debate is when minors have abortions without parental consent, because when a minor has an abortion, that means that child has gotten into a family situation, and they're under age. In many
States, that's considered statutory rape. In some cases, including in my own district, at Planned Parenthood, which technically is in District One but is in my own community, there are two lawsuits right now with regard to underage children who had abortions, and their parents were not adequately notified about it. So the whole issue of parental notification on anything--on a child's taking an aspirin--is critical.

Back in the 80s, we know that the District of Columbia was very open about abortions. It let folks from other States have abortions. It let minors without parental consent have abortions. I don't think we want to expand on that policy today.

I really want to turn this over right now to my good friend, the head of our Values Action Team, the good Congressman, Mr. Pitts.

Congressman Pitts, would you please give us your words of advice and encouragement on this issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank you so much for that because consistently since January, the words and the actions have not met the conscience clause, which he clearly took out, and yet said both as a candidate and in subsequent speeches as President that our conscience needs to be recognized and our moral beliefs need to be recognized, especially on this issue. He has really taken that away.

What we now are facing today is the change in the D.C. policy in which we are going to be faced with allowing for the public funding of abortions. Congressman Dornan's amendment prior to FY1989 allowed the District of Columbia to use congressional funds, appropriated funds, something that we have to do because of article I of the Constitution, give the District of Columbia money to operate with. The disconnect between using those funds inadvertently for abortions was shut down by Congressman Dornan's amendment. This was an amendment that has been faithfully in place, except for a few years in the Clinton administration. Now with the President's new budget, he wants to cleverly allow for the District of Columbia to use federally funded money for abortions.

I would now like to turn some time over to my very dear colleague, an individual who has been at the forefront of life issues, not just recognizing the value of a child both inside and outside the womb, but the value of children all across the world, including his fight for a father to bring his child home from Brazil.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I would just like to close, Madam Speaker, by saying this is a very sensitive and important issue. The public has spoken out on the fact that they really do not want Federal funds to be used for abortion. The President, as a candidate, when he took office, and in subsequent speeches, has said he wants to work to reduce the number of abortions. To do that is not to allow for Federal funds. So I would only hope that this administration would match their words with their action.

Source