H. Rept. 113-332 - 113th Congress (2013-2014)
January 23, 2014, As Reported by the Judiciary Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 113-332 - NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT




[House Report 113-332]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


113th Congress                                            Rept. 113-332
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

======================================================================



 
                  NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT

                                _______
                                

   January 23 (legislative day of January 21), 2014.--Ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                         [To accompany H.R. 7]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     8
Committee Consideration..........................................     8
Committee Votes..................................................     8
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    16
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    16
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    16
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    17
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    17
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    17
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    18
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    18
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    19
Dissenting Views.................................................    25

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' would 
prohibit the Federal funding of abortions, except in cases of 
rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    For over 30 years, a patchwork of policies has regulated 
Federal funding for abortion. Amendments have been added to 
various appropriations bills (which have been signed into law) 
that would prohibit the Federal funding of abortions through 
the programs funded by those appropriations bills. But now is 
the time for Congress to pass one piece of legislation that 
prohibits Federal funding of elective abortion, no matter where 
in the Federal system that funding might occur. H.R. 7, with 
the exception of a few narrow categories that have been 
accepted for many years, provides that the Federal Government 
should not make taxpayers pay for abortions or insurance 
coverage that includes abortion.
    The American people overwhelmingly oppose Federal funding 
of abortions. At the height of public debate over what became 
known as the Obamacare law, a 2010 Zogby/O'Leary poll found 
that 76% of Americans said that Federal funds should never pay 
for abortion or should pay only to save the life of the 
mother.\1\ Another poll found that a strong majority continues 
to oppose using public funds for abortion: 58% opposed using 
tax dollars to pay for abortion; only 35% supported using tax 
dollars to pay for abortion.\2\ A September 2009 International 
Communications Research poll asked, ``If the choice were up to 
you, would you want your own insurance policy to include 
abortion,'' to which 68% of respondents answered no and only 
24% answered yes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Testimony of Douglas Johnson before the Subcommittee on 
Health, U.S. House of Representatives (February 9, 2011) at 16-17, 
available at http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/ahc/
ProtectLifeActDouglasJohnsonTestimony.pdf.
    \2\See National Right to Life Committee, Inc., ``New Polling Shows 
Strong Support for Prohibiting Abortion on Pain-Capable Unborn 
Children'' (April 22, 2013), available at http://
www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/04/new-polling-shows-strong-
support-for-prohibiting-abortion-on-pain-capable-unborn-children/
#.UpzbOCemYlQ (press release).
    \3\International Communications Research, September 16-20, 2009, 
1043 adults (margin of error: 
3.0%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, as Richard Doerflinger has written, the Hyde 
Amendment is a longstanding bipartisan policy:

        The Hyde Amendment . . . first took effect on Oct. 1, 
        1976, sponsored by Republican Henry Hyde of Illinois, 
        but passed by a House and Senate that were 
        overwhelmingly Democratic. As a rider to the annual 
        appropriations bill governing domestic Federal health 
        programs, it has been renewed with little change for 36 
        years, supported by congressional majorities and 
        presidents of both parties as well as by public 
        opinion. It would be difficult to name an abortion-
        related policy that has garnered more bipartisan 
        support over a longer period of time.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Richard Doerflinger, ``Defending Hyde,'' America: The National 
Catholic Review (November 19, 2012), available at http://
americamagazine.org/issue/5159/article/defending-hyde.

            H.R. 7 CONTINUES LONG-STANDING FEDERAL POLICIES

    H.R. 7 will make permanent the policies that have 
previously been passed on a case-by-case basis. Provisions that 
currently rely on regular re-approval include:

        the Hyde amendment, which prohibits funding for 
        elective abortion coverage through any program funded 
        through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services 
        Appropriations Act;

        the Smith FEHBP amendment, which prohibits funding for 
        health plans that include elective abortion coverage 
        for Federal employees;

        the Dornan amendment, which prohibits use of 
        congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the 
        District of Columbia; and

        other policies such as the restrictions on elective 
        abortion funding through the Peace Corps and Federal 
        prisons.

 HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ABORTIONS WOULD LIKELY BE PAID FOR EACH YEAR 
 BY FEDERAL TAXPAYERS WITHOUT THE POLICIES THAT H.R. 7 MAKES PERMANENT

    In 1993 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 
Federal Government would pay for as many as 675,000 abortions 
each year without the Hyde Amendment and other measures in 
place at the time to prevent Federal funding of abortion in 
Federal programs.\5\ The Alan Guttmacher Institute has also 
estimated that in the Medicaid program alone, the Federal 
Government was subsidizing 295,000 abortions a year until the 
Hyde amendment was enacted.\6\ It is axiomatic that when 
government subsidizes conduct, it encourages it. The Supreme 
Court in Maher v. Roe acknowledged the truth of this 
proposition in the context of abortion when it equated 
government funding of an activity with government encouragement 
of that activity.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Robert D. Reischauer, Director, Congressional Budget Office, 
Letter to the Congressman Vic Fazio (D-CA) (July 19, 1993).
    \6\Julian Gold, MD and Willard Cates, Jr., MD, MPH, ``Restrictions 
of Federal Funds for Abortion: 18 Months Later,'' American Journal of 
Public Health (September 1979) at 929, available at http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1619219/pdf/amjph00694-0087.pdf.
    \7\Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 475 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to more recent studies, where government funding 
for abortion is not available under Medicaid or the state 
equivalent program, conservative estimates are that at least 
one-fourth of the Medicaid-eligible women carry their babies to 
term, who would otherwise procure federally funded abortions. 
One abortion advocacy group, NARAL, has claimed that the effect 
of a denial of public funding on abortion reductions is even 
greater, around 50 percent. For example, a 2010 NARAL factsheet 
contains this statement:

        A study by the Guttmacher Institute shows that 
        Medicaid-eligible women in states that exclude abortion 
        coverage have abortion rates of about half of those of 
        women in states that fund abortion care.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\``Discriminatory Restrictions on Abortion Funding Threaten 
Women's Health,'' NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation factsheet 
(January 1, 2010) (citing Rachel K. Jones et al., Patterns in the 
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions in 2000-
2001, Persp. on. Sexual & Reprod. Health 34 (2002)).

    Using a conservative 25 percent abortion-reduction figure, 
well over one million Americans are alive today because of the 
Hyde Amendment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See ``Whose Choice? How the Hyde Amendment Harms Poor Women,'' 
Center for Reproductive Rights, 2010, at 4, available at http://
reproductiverights.org/en/feature/whose-choice-download-report (stating 
that ``[b]ecause of the Hyde Amendment, more than a million women'' 
have not had abortions they may have had otherwise). See also The Heart 
of the Matter: Public Funding Of Abortion for Poor Women in the United 
States, by Heather D. Boonstra, Guttmacher Policy Review, Volume 10, 
Number 1 (Winter 2007) (``Studies published over the course of two 
decades looking at a number of states concluded that 18-35% of women 
who would have had an abortion continued their pregnancies after 
Medicaid funding was cut off.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           H.R. 7 IS WORKABLE

    H.R. 7 will ensure that American taxpayers are not involved 
in funding the destruction of innocent human life through 
abortion on demand. The ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 
Act'' will establish a government-wide statutory prohibition on 
funding abortion or insurance coverage that includes abortion. 
This comprehensive approach will reduce the need for the 
numerous separate abortion funding policies and ensure that no 
program or agency is exempt from this important safeguard.
    This comprehensive approach is clearly administratively 
workable, as insurers have been operating under the limits of 
the Hyde Amendment and the Hyde-companion policy that applies 
to the Federal Employee Health Benefits program for decades. As 
CQ has reported, ``Most people with employer-sponsored 
insurance also must pay for abortions out of their own pocket. 
`Most insurers offer plans that include this coverage, but most 
employers choose not to offer it as part of their benefits 
package,' said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's 
Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry's trade 
association.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\CQ Today (July 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            THE OBAMACARE LAW FAILS TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF 
                    TAXPAYER MONEY TO FUND ABORTIONS

    Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) and former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) 
offered an amendment to what became the Obamacare law during 
the 111th Congress that would have prohibited government 
funding of abortion had it been included in the final health 
care reform act. In the House, the Stupak/Pitts amendment 
passed by a vote of 240-194. The Senate then took up another 
bill (H.R. 3590) which did not include the Stupak/Pitts 
amendment, and that bill was ultimately signed into law by 
President Obama as P.L. 111-148. That law marks a drastic break 
from longstanding Federal policy. The Hyde Amendment has, for 
over 30 years, prevented programs funded by the annual Health 
and Human Services Appropriations bill from financing abortion. 
The language of the current Hyde Amendment explicitly prohibits 
not only direct use of Federal funds for abortions, but also 
Federal subsidies for plans that include abortion coverage. As 
the Hyde Amendment states:

        FY12, Division D, Title V, General Provisions

        SEC. 506. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this 
        Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which 
        funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended 
        for any abortion.

        (b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and 
        none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
        appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health 
        benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

        (c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the 
        package of services covered by a managed care provider 
        or organization pursuant to a contract or other 
        arrangement.

        SEC. 507. (a) The limitations established in the 
        preceding section shall not apply to an abortion------

        (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
        incest; or

        (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
        disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, 
        including a life-endangering physical condition caused 
        by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as 
        certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of 
        death unless an abortion is performed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\P.L. 112-74.

    The Obamacare law passed the House only after a handful of 
Democrats agreed to a deal in which the text of the Senate bill 
would not change, but the President would sign an executive 
order that would allegedly contain a ban on Federal funding of 
abortion coverage. But an executive order cannot trump the text 
of legislation enacted by Congress. Indeed, in a recent 
interview with the Chicago Tribune editorial board, former 
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel emphasized that the 
Executive Order on abortion signed by President Obama in March, 
2010, does not carry the force of law, and as such, was 
approved by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others who 
oppose a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion. Mr. Emanuel said 
``I came up with an idea for an executive order to allow the 
Stupak amendment not to exist in law.''\12\ Clearly, then, the 
substance of the Stupak amendment does not now exist in law, 
according to the person who served as the chief of staff to 
President Obama at the time. Congress needs to pass H.R. 7 to 
put a ban on the Federal funding of abortions back into Federal 
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Chicago Tribune mayoral debate video (January 14, 2011), 
formerly available at http://www.wgntv.com/news/elections/mayor/
editorial/(Pt. 10). See also David Freddoso, ``Rahm on the Stupak 
Amendment,'' The San Francisco Examiner (January 18, 2011), available 
at http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/rahm-on-the-stupak-amendment/
Content?oid=2168010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ABORTION IN OBAMACARE

    Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) [P.L. 111-
148] specifies the conditions under which abortion can be 
included in federally subsidized insurance plans sold on the 
exchanges established under the ACA in the following ways.
State Opt-Out
    1303(a) is a State opt-out that allows states to exclude 
abortion from the plans sold on the exchange in their state. 
The opt-out can be exercised by all states even those that have 
refused to set up an exchange in their state.
Insurance Provider Option
    1303(b)(1) specifies that insurance companies selling plans 
on the exchanges may choose whether to include abortion in the 
plan(s) they offer on the exchanges.
Taxpayer Funding Accounting Procedure
    1303(b)(2) establishes an unprecedented accounting 
arrangement by which the taxpayer subsidies (refundable, 
advancable tax credits) can be used to buy insurance plans that 
include elective abortion. Plans that include abortion coverage 
will comply with this part of the law by implementing an 
abortion surcharge and a secrecy clause:

        Abortion Surcharge

        Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 1303(b)(2) require that 
        plans that cover abortion collect abortion surcharges 
        from all enrollees. These surcharges will then go into 
        an abortion account to pay for abortions. Subparagraph 
        (D) specifies how the surcharge will be calculated and 
        requires that it be an amount of at least $1 per 
        enrollee, per month. Subparagraph (E) addresses 
        compliance.

        Secrecy Clause

        The secrecy clause in 1303(b)(3) states that plans that 
        include abortion may ``only'' notify enrollees about 
        the coverage (and subsequent abortion surcharge) as a 
        part of the ``summary of benefits and coverage 
        explanation, at the time of enrollment . . .'' 
        Advertising about the plan and information available on 
        the exchange about the plan may ``only'' list the total 
        amount of the combined payments for services, meaning 
        that information about the abortion surcharge may not 
        be made clear in advertising and publications on the 
        exchange.
Multi-State Plans
    Section 1334 establishes multi-state plans that will be 
administered by the Office of Personnel Management and are 
designed to be similar to Federal Employee Health Benefits 
Program (FEHBP) coverage. However, 1334(a)(6) specifies that 
all but one multi-state plan may include elective abortion 
coverage. Under longstanding law, no FEHBP plans include 
elective abortion. (These plans will not include abortion 
coverage in states that have opted out of such coverage.)
    Under the Affordable Care Act, tens of millions of 
Americans will be eligible for Federal subsidies for private 
health plans. The rollout of the Obamacare exchanges already 
reveals that many health insurance plans will subsidize 
abortion-on-demand. As the office of the sponsor of H.R. 7 has 
discovered, for example, 103 of the 112 insurance plans for 
Members of Congress and congressional staff include elective 
abortion coverage. Only nine plans offered exclude elective 
abortion.\13\ Without the enactment of H.R. 7, these Federal 
subsidies will be used to pay for plans that cover abortion on 
demand, in direct contradiction to the second principle of the 
Hyde Amendment which prohibits the use of Federal funds to pay 
for plans that cover elective abortion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\See document distributed by the office of Rep. Chris Smith, 
available at http://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2013_12-
02_floor_flyer_on_member_hc_plans.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although this Federal assistance is called a ``credit,'' it 
is actually provided regardless of one's tax liability, so it 
is akin to an entitlement program. An August 2010 chart by the 
Congressional Budget Office evidences that 73% of the total 
cost for the premium assistance credits will be through direct 
spending in excess of tax liability. CBO projects that in year 
2020, there will be $72.2 billion in direct spending in premium 
credit outlays, and $27.2 billion in premium credit revenue 
reductions. This means that 73% of the total premium assistance 
dollars will be in excess of taxpayers' liabilities (72.2/
99.4=73%).\14\ In a separate publication, CBO explains: ``PPACA 
[the Obamacare law], as amended, establishes new exchanges for 
the purchase of health insurance and authorizes government 
subsidies for such purchases for individuals and families who 
meet income and other eligibility criteria. The subsidies for 
health insurance premiums are structured as refundable tax 
credits; the portions of such credits that exceed taxpayers' 
liabilities are classified as outlays, while the portions that 
reduce tax payments appear in the budget as reductions in 
revenues.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\See Congressional Budget Office, CBO's August 2010 Baseline: 
Health Insurance Exchanges (August 25, 2010), available at http://
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/
ExchangesAugust2010FactSheet.pdf. When the projected $18.9 billion in 
direct spending on cost-sharing subsidies (which are not a credit) is 
added to the $72.2 billion in direct spending for premium credit 
outlays, the resulting $91.1 billion in direct spending equals 77% of 
the total dollars for Exchange subsidies (91.1/118.3=77%).
    \15\CBO, ``The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 
2021, at 62-63 (January 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These subsidies are advancable, meaning that Federal monies 
will be sent by the Secretary of the Treasury on a monthly 
basis directly to the health insurer to pay for the subsidized 
plan, including plans that cover abortion on demand.
    Congress has the clear authority to enact H.R. 7. The 
Supreme Court has held that the alleged constitutional 
``right'' to an abortion ``implies no limitation on the 
authority of a State to make a value judgment favoring 
childbirth over abortion, and to implement that judgment by the 
allocation of public funds.''\16\ As the U.S. Supreme Court has 
said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474 (1977).

        By subsidizing the medical expenses of indigent women 
        who carry their pregnancies to term while not 
        subsidizing the comparable expenses of women who 
        undergo abortions (except those whose lives are 
        threatened), Congress has established incentives that 
        make childbirth a more attractive alternative than 
        abortion for persons eligible for Medicaid. These 
        incentives bear a direct relationship to the legitimate 
        congressional interest in protecting potential life. 
        Nor is it irrational that Congress has authorized 
        Federal reimbursement for medically necessary services 
        generally, but not for certain medically necessary 
        abortions. Abortion is inherently different from other 
        medical procedures, because no other procedure involves 
        the purposeful termination of a potential life.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980) (footnotes omitted, 
emphasis added). Note that this court decision upheld the original Hyde 
amendment of Fiscal Year 1977, which allowed Federal abortion funding 
only in cases of danger to the life of the mother; that policy was also 
in effect from 1981 to 1993.

    As the Supreme Court held in Rust v. Sullivan,\18\ in 
upholding Federal limits on abortion funding, ``By requiring 
that the . . . grantee engage in abortion-related activity 
separately from activity receiving Federal funding, Congress 
has, consistent with our teachings . . . not denied it the 
right to engage in abortion-related activities. Congress has 
merely refused to fund such activities out of the public 
fisc.''\19\ And when a challenge to the constitutionality of 
the Hyde Amendment reached the Supreme Court in 1980 in the 
case of Harris v. McRae, the Court ruled that the government 
may distinguish between abortion and other procedures in 
funding decisions--noting that ``no other procedure involves 
the purposeful termination of a potential life''--and affirmed 
that Roe v. Wade had created a limitation on government, not a 
government entitlement.\20\ Three years earlier the Supreme 
Court had ruled that the government's refusal to fund abortion 
placed no restriction on the right to choose abortion.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\500 U.S. 173 (1991).
    \19\Id. at 198.
    \20\Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980).
    \21\Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 475 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitition and Civil 
Justice held a hearing on H.R. 7 on January 9, 2014. Testimony 
was received from Helen Alvare, Professor of Law at George 
Mason University School of Law; Richard Doerflinger, Associate 
Director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, United 
States Conference of Catholic Bishops; and Susan Franklin Wood, 
Associate Professor of Health Policy and Environmental & 
Occupational Health, George Washington University, with 
additional material submitted by various individuals and 
organizations.

                        Committee Consideration

    On January 15, 2014, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 7 favorably reported without amendment, 
by a rollcall vote of 22 to 12, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 7.
    1. The amendment offered by Mr. Conyers amends section 308 
to treat the District of Columbia as a state for purposes of 
the provisions of the bill. This amendment was defeated by a 
rollcall vote of 11-19.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................              X
Mr. Coble (NC).................................              X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................              X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................              X
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................              X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................              X
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................              X
Mr. King (IA)..................................              X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................              X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................              X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................              X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................              X
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................              X
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................
Mr. Holding (NC)...............................              X
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................              X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................              X
Mr. Smith (MO).................................              X
[Vacant].......................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........      X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................      X
Mr. Scott (VA).................................      X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................      X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................      X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................      X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................      X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................      X
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................      X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................      X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................      X
[Vacant].......................................
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     11      19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair by 
Mr. Sensenbrenner was approved by a rollcall vote of 18-12. 
This motion occurred during debate on an amendment offered by 
Mr. Nadler that was ultimately ruled not germane.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................      X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................      X
Mr. Coble (NC).................................      X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................      X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................      X
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................      X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................      X
Mr. King (IA)..................................      X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................      X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................      X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................      X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................      X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................      X
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................      X
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................
Mr. Holding (NC)...............................      X
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................      X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................      X
Mr. Smith (MO).................................      X
[Vacant].......................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........              X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................              X
Mr. Scott (VA).................................              X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................              X
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................              X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................              X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................              X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................              X
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................              X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................              X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................              X
[Vacant].......................................
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     18      12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The amendment offered by Mr. Johnson adds a new section 
310 to provide that the bill shall not take effect unless the 
Attorney General submits a report to Congress setting forth the 
bill's effect on women's access to abortion and insurance that 
covers abortion. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote 
of 14-17.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................              X
Mr. Coble (NC).................................              X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................              X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................              X
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................              X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................              X
Mr. King (IA)..................................              X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................              X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................              X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................              X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................              X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................              X
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................              X
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................
Mr. Holding (NC)...............................              X
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................              X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................
Mr. Smith (MO).................................              X
[Vacant].......................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........      X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................      X
Mr. Scott (VA).................................      X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................      X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................      X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................      X
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................      X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................      X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................      X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................      X
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................      X
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................      X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................      X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................      X
[Vacant].......................................
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     14      17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The amendment offered by Ms. Chu adds a new section 310 
to provide that the bill shall not (1) restrict the ability of 
health care providers to disclose all relevant information to 
patients; or (2) allow violations of principles of informed 
consent and ethical standards of care. This amendment was 
defeated by a rollcall vote of 15-19.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................              X
Mr. Coble (NC).................................              X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................              X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................              X
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................              X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................              X
Mr. King (IA)..................................              X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................              X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................              X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................              X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................              X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................              X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................              X
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................              X
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................
Mr. Holding (NC)...............................              X
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................              X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................              X
Mr. Smith (MO).................................              X
[Vacant].......................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........      X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................      X
Mr. Scott (VA).................................      X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................      X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................      X
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................      X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................      X
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................      X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................      X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................      X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................      X
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................      X
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................      X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................      X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................      X
[Vacant].......................................
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     15      19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee amends section 
308 to lift funding restrictions where continuing a pregnancy 
could result in severe and long-lasting damage to a woman's 
health. This amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 12-
20.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................              X
Mr. Coble (NC).................................              X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................              X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................              X
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................              X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................              X
Mr. King (IA)..................................              X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................              X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................              X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................              X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................              X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................              X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................              X
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................              X
Mr. Holding (NC)...............................              X
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................              X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................              X
Mr. Smith (MO).................................              X
[Vacant].......................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................      X
Mr. Scott (VA).................................
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................      X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................      X
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................      X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................      X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................      X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................      X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................      X
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................      X
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................      X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................      X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................      X
[Vacant].......................................
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     12      20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The amendment offered by Mr. Deutch adds the phrase 
``even though women have the Constitutionally protected right 
to choose'' after the word abortion in the bill. This amendment 
was defeated by a rollcall vote of 12-21.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................              X
Mr. Coble (NC).................................              X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................              X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................              X
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................              X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................              X
Mr. King (IA)..................................              X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................              X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................              X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................              X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................              X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................              X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................              X
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................              X
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................              X
Mr. Holding (NC)...............................              X
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................              X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................              X
Mr. Smith (MO).................................              X
[Vacant].......................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................      X
Mr. Scott (VA).................................
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................      X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................      X
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................      X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................      X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................      X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................      X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................      X
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................      X
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................      X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................      X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................      X
[Vacant].......................................
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     12      21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The amendment offered by Ms. DelBene amends section 308 
to lift funding restrictions where a woman with cancer needs 
life-saving treatment incompatible with continuing the 
pregnancy. This amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 
13-21.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................              X
Mr. Coble (NC).................................              X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................              X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................              X
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................              X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................              X
Mr. King (IA)..................................              X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................              X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................              X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................              X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................              X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................              X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................              X
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................              X
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................              X
Mr. Holding (NC)...............................              X
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................              X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................              X
Mr. Smith (MO).................................              X
[Vacant].......................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................      X
Mr. Scott (VA).................................      X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................      X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................      X
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................      X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................      X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................      X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................      X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................      X
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................      X
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................      X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................      X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................      X
[Vacant].......................................
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     13      21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The bill was favorably reported, without amendment, by a 
rollcall vote of 22-12, a quorum being present.


                             ROLLCALL NO. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................      X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................      X
Mr. Coble (NC).................................      X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................      X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................      X
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................      X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................      X
Mr. King (IA)..................................      X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................      X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................      X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................      X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................      X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)..............................      X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................      X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................      X
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................      X
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................      X
Mr. Holding (NC)...............................      X
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................      X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................      X
Mr. Smith (MO).................................      X
[Vacant].......................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................              X
Mr. Scott (VA).................................              X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................              X
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................              X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................      X
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................              X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................              X
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................              X
Ms. DelBene (WA)...............................              X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................              X
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................              X
[Vacant].......................................
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     22      12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 7, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, January 17, 2014.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 7, the ``No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                  Director.
Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member



             H.R. 7--No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

      As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 
                          on January 15, 2014.




    H.R. 7 would amend Title 1 of the United States Code to 
prohibit the use of Federal funds provided under Federal law to 
pay for abortion services or for any health plan that provides 
abortion services, except in cases of rape or incest, or when 
the life of the pregnant woman is in danger.
    H.R. 7 also would amend the Internal Revenue Code to 
disallow the application of certain health coverage tax 
benefits to coverage of abortion services, other than under the 
excepted circumstances mentioned above. The bill would not 
allow the costs of abortion services to count as a deductible 
medical expense in determining income tax liability. It would 
change the definition of a ``qualified health plan'' to exclude 
plans that offer coverage of abortion services, other than 
under the excepted circumstances. In addition, health insurance 
tax credits for small employers would not be available for 
health insurance plans that include such coverage. The bill 
also would require any reimbursements from health flexible 
spending arrangements and distributions by Archer medical 
savings accounts and health savings accounts for abortion 
services to be included as gross income.
    Enacting H.R. 7 could affect direct spending or revenues; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. According to the 
staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the bill would 
have negligible effects on tax revenues. Similarly, CBO 
estimates that any effects on direct spending would be 
negligible for each year and over the 2014-2024 period.
    CBO and JCT have determined that H.R. 7 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on 
state, local, or tribal governments.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 7 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that H.R. 7 specifically directs to 
be completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 5 
U.S.C. 551.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 7 
would prohibit the taxpayer funding of abortion, with certain 
exceptions.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 7 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the provisions of the 
bill within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction as reported 
by the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Short title. Section 1 provides the short title of 
the bill.
    Sec. 101. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions. Section 
101 adds the following provisions as sections of a newly 
created Chapter 4 of Title 1 of the U.S. Code prohibiting 
taxpayer-funded abortions:
    Sec. 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions. Section 301 
prohibits Federal funding for abortion.
    Sec. 302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans 
that cover abortion. Section 302 prohibits funding for health 
benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
    Sec. 303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees. 
Section 303 prohibits abortion in Federal health facilities 
(such as Department of Defense, Indian Health, and Veterans 
Affairs hospitals) and ensures abortion is not included in the 
services provided by individuals as a part of their employment 
by the Federal Government. Under current law these facilities 
do not provided abortions except in the cases of rape, incest 
or to save the life of the mother. Section 303 codifies that 
policy.
    Sec. 304. Construction relating to separate coverage. 
Section 304 clarifies that the bill does not prohibit 
individuals, entities, States or localities from purchasing 
separate non-federally funded coverage that includes abortion. 
Such coverage must be purchased using non-Federal funds and may 
not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally 
subsidized program. For example, States may provide abortion 
coverage to Medicaid participants, but may not do so using 
Federal funds or State Medicaid matching funds, as is the case 
under the Hyde Amendment today.
    Sec. 305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal 
funds for health coverage. Section 305 clarifies that non-
Federal health insurance providers may sell abortion coverage 
consistent with the policies described in Section 304. Section 
305 provides that ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed 
as restricting the ability of any non-Federal health benefits 
coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, or the 
ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such 
a provider for such coverage, so long as only funds not 
authorized or appropriated by Federal law are used and such 
coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required 
for a federally subsidized program, including a State's or 
locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.'' Section 
305 makes clear that the insurance industry may continue to 
provide abortion coverage to those who purchase such coverage 
using their own private money.
    Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws. Section 306 
clarifies that the bill preserves any stronger abortion funding 
restrictions in law.
    Sec. 307. Construction relating to complications arising 
from abortion. Section 307 makes clear that the bill's 
restrictions on the use of Federal funds for abortion do not 
apply to the treatment of complications from abortion, 
regardless of whether the abortion itself was illegal or 
ineligible for Federal funds.
    Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, 
and preserving the life of the mother. Section 308 establishes 
an exception to the prohibitions on abortion funding for cases 
of rape and incest, and when necessary to save the life of the 
mother. This section uses the same language that appears in the 
Hyde Amendment.
    Sec. 309. Application to the District of Columbia. Section 
309 clarifies that the term ``funds appropriated by Federal 
law'' includes funds appropriated by Congress for the District 
of Columbia, and that standards set for the Federal Government 
include the government of the District of Columbia. Because 
H.R. 7 codifies the Hyde Amendment principle as a matter of 
Federal law, it will affect funding in the District of 
Columbia. Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution 
grants Congress ultimate authority over all District 
legislation, including funding.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 1, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      TITLE 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

      Rules of construction............................................1
     * * * * * * *
      Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions..........................301
     * * * * * * *

            CHAPTER 4--PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

301. Prohibition on funding for abortions.
302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that cover 
          abortion.
303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees.
304. Construction relating to separate coverage.
305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal funds for health 
          coverage.
306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws.
307. Construction relating to complications arising from abortion.
308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the 
          life of the mother.
309. Application to District of Columbia.

Sec. 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions

    No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and 
none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended 
for any abortion.

Sec. 302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that cover 
                    abortion

    None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal 
law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended 
for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of 
abortion.

Sec. 303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees

    No health care service furnished--
            (1) by or in a health care facility owned or 
        operated by the Federal Government; or
            (2) by any physician or other individual employed 
        by the Federal Government to provide health care 
        services within the scope of the physician's or 
        individual's employment,
may include abortion.

Sec. 304. Construction relating to separate coverage

    Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting 
any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing 
separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that 
includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely 
using only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law 
and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds 
required for a federally subsidized program, including a 
State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

Sec. 305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal funds for 
                    health coverage

    Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting 
the ability of any non-Federal health benefits coverage 
provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a 
State or locality to contract separately with such a provider 
for such coverage, so long as only funds not authorized or 
appropriated by Federal law are used and such coverage shall 
not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally 
subsidized program, including a State's or locality's 
contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws

    Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any 
effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law imposes 
any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health 
benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion,beyond the 
limitations set forth in this chapter.

Sec. 307. Construction relating to complications arising from abortion

    Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to the 
treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or disorder that 
has been caused by or exacerbated by the performance of an 
abortion. This rule of construction shall be applicable without 
regard to whether the abortion was performed in accord with 
Federal or State law, and without regard to whether funding for 
the abortion is permissible under section 308.

Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving 
                    the life of the mother

    The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 
shall not apply to an abortion--
            (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of 
        rape or incest; or
            (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a 
        physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness 
        that would, as certified by a physician, place the 
        woman in danger of death unless an abortion is 
        performed, including a life-endangering physical 
        condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy 
        itself.

Sec. 309. Application to District of Columbia

    In this chapter:
            (1) Any reference to funds appropriated by Federal 
        law shall be treated as including any amounts within 
        the budget of the District of Columbia that have been 
        approved by Act of Congress pursuant to section 446 of 
        the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (or any 
        applicable successor Federal law).
            (2) The term ``Federal Government'' includes the 
        government of the District of Columbia.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                     INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

Subtitle A--Income Taxes

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subchapter A--Determination of Tax Liability

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART IV--CREDITS AGAINST TAX

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subpart C--Refundable Credits

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 36B. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Definition and Rules Relating to Applicable Taxpayers, 
Coverage Months, and Qualified Health Plan.--For purposes of 
this section--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Definitions and other rules.--
                    (A) Qualified health plan.--The term 
                ``qualified health plan'' has the meaning given 
                such term by section 1301(a) of the Patient 
                Protection and Affordable Care Act, except that 
                such term shall not include a qualified health 
                plan which is a catastrophic plan described in 
                section 1302(e) of such Act or any health plan 
                that includes coverage for abortions (other 
                than any abortion or treatment described in 
                section 213(g)(2)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (C) Separate abortion coverage or plan 
                allowed.--
                            (i) Option to purchase separate 
                        coverage or plan.--Nothing in 
                        subparagraph (A) shall be construed as 
                        prohibiting any individual from 
                        purchasing separate coverage for 
                        abortions described in such 
                        subparagraph, or a health plan that 
                        includes such abortions, so long as no 
                        credit is allowed under this section 
                        with respect to the premiums for such 
                        coverage or plan.
                            (ii) Option to offer coverage or 
                        plan.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) 
                        shall restrict any non-Federal health 
                        insurance issuer offering a health plan 
                        from offering separate coverage for 
                        abortions described in such 
                        subparagraph, or a plan that includes 
                        such abortions, so long as premiums for 
                        such separate coverage or plan are not 
                        paid for with any amount attributable 
                        to the credit allowed under this 
                        section (or the amount of any advance 
                        payment of the credit under section 
                        1412 of the Patient Protection and 
                        Affordable Care Act).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subpart D--Business Related Credits

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 45R. EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSES OF SMALL EMPLOYERS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Insurance Definitions.-- [Any term]
            (1) In general._Any term used in this section which 
        is also used in the Public Health Service Act or 
        subtitle A of title I of the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act shall have the meaning given such 
        term by such Act or subtitle.
            (2) Exclusion of health plans including coverage 
        for abortion.--The terms ``qualified health plan'' and 
        ``health insurance coverage'' shall not include any 
        health plan or benefit that includes coverage for 
        abortions (other than any abortion or treatment 
        described in section 213(g)(2)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subchapter B--Computation of Taxable Income

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--ITEMS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 125. CAFETERIA PLANS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (k) Abortion Reimbursement from Flexible Spending 
Arrangement Included in Gross Income.--Notwithstanding section 
105(b), gross income shall include any reimbursement for 
expenses incurred for an abortion (other than any abortion or 
treatment described in section 213(g)(2)) from a health 
flexible spending arrangement provided under a cafeteria plan. 
Such reimbursement shall not fail to be a qualified benefit for 
purposes of this section merely as a result of such inclusion 
in gross income.
    [(k)] (l) Cross reference.--For reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, see section 6039D.
    [(l)] (m) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART VII--ADDITIONAL ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 213. MEDICAL, DENTAL, ETC., EXPENSES.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Amounts Paid for Abortion Not Taken Into Account.--
            (1) In general.--An amount paid during the taxable 
        year for an abortion shall not be taken into account 
        under subsection (a).
            (2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
                    (A) an abortion--
                            (i) in the case of a pregnancy that 
                        is the result of an act of rape or 
                        incest, or
                            (ii) in the case where a woman 
                        suffers from a physical disorder, 
                        physical injury, or physical illness 
                        that would, as certified by a 
                        physician, place the woman in danger of 
                        death unless an abortion is performed, 
                        including a life-endangering physical 
                        condition caused by or arising from the 
                        pregnancy, and
                    (B) the treatment of any infection, injury, 
                disease, or disorder that has been caused by or 
                exacerbated by the performance of an abortion.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 220. ARCHER MSAS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Tax Treatment of Distributions.--
            (1) Amounts used for qualified medical expenses.--
        Any amount paid or distributed out of an Archer MSA 
        which is used exclusively to pay qualified medical 
        expenses of any account holder shall not be includible 
        in gross income, except that any such amount used to 
        pay for an abortion (other than any abortion or 
        treatment described in section 213(g)(2)) shall be 
        included in the gross income of such holder.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 223. HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Tax Treatment of Distributions.--
            (1) Amounts used for qualified medical expenses.--
        Any amount paid or distributed out of a health savings 
        account which is used exclusively to pay qualified 
        medical expenses of any account beneficiary shall not 
        be includible in gross income, except that any such 
        amount used to pay for an abortion (other than any 
        abortion or treatment described in section 213(g)(2)) 
        shall be included in the gross income of such 
        beneficiary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            Dissenting Views

    H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' 
changes existing law in ways that will endanger the health of 
women and deprive them of their constitutionally-protected 
right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. The 
proponents of this bill seek to substantially restrict the 
existing Hyde Amendment exception that permits funding in cases 
of rape to exclude assistance for children and teenagers who 
are the victims of statutory rape. H.R. 7 also extends current 
funding restrictions that are limited in time and scope and 
applies them to all Federal laws, without any effort to 
determine how such a sweeping and permanent expansion would 
impact American women and their families. And, contrary to the 
misleading title of the bill, this legislation is not needed to 
achieve what has already long been accomplished: Congress has 
prohibited the use of Federal funds for abortion for more than 
three decades.
    Although proponents of this legislation claim that it 
merely codifies existing restrictions on Federal funding for 
abortion, H.R. 7 goes well beyond any existing law and would 
interfere with both public and private funding. For the first 
time, privately-funded health expenses that receive 
preferential tax treatment would be made equivalent with 
Federal spending under this bill in order to raise taxes on 
women, families, and small business employers who use their own 
money to pay for abortion or purchase insurance that covers 
abortion. The intent of this legislation is clear: to make 
abortion completely unavailable even when paid for with purely 
private, non-Federal funds.
    Contrary to proponents' assertions, H.R. 7 is not necessary 
to prevent Federal funding of abortion under the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).\1\ 
This is because the Affordable Care Act fully preserves the ban 
on Federal funding of abortion.\2\ H.R. 7's radical departure 
from current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance 
coverage--which goes well beyond the approach taken in the 
Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the House-passed Affordable Health 
Care for America Act\3\--is not justifiable nor necessary to 
prevent Federal funding of abortion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 120 (2010); Pub. L. No. 111-152, 
124 Stat. 1029 (2010).
    \2\Pub. L. No. 111-148, Sec. Sec. 1303 & 1334(a)(6) (2010).
    \3\H.R. 3962, 111th Cong., Sec. 265 (as passed by House, Nov. 7, 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not surprisingly, H.R. 7 is strenuously opposed by a broad 
cross-section of women's rights, religious, civil liberties, 
small business, and health organizations.\4\ The 
Administration, in issuing a veto threat with regard to H.R. 
7's predecessor in the last Congress, aptly observed that the 
legislation ``intrudes on women's reproductive freedom and 
access to health care; increases the tax burden on many 
Americans; unnecessarily restricts the private insurance 
choices that consumers have today; and restricts the District 
of Columbia's use of local funds, which undermines home 
rule.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Advocates for Youth, American Association of University Women 
(AAUW), American Civil Liberties Union, American Congress of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Public Health Association, 
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asian & Pacific Islander 
American Health Forum, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals 
(ARHP), Black Women's Health Imperative, Catholics for Choice, Center 
for Reproductive Rights, Choice USA, Feminist Majority, Guttmacher 
Institute, Hadassah: The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc., 
Jewish Women International, Joint Action Committee for Political 
Affairs, Methodist Federation for Social Action, NARAL Pro-Choice 
America, National Abortion Federation, National Asian Pacific American 
Women's Forum (NAPAWF), National Center for Lesbian Rights, National 
Council of Jewish Women, National Family Planning and Reproductive 
Health Association, National Health Law Program, National Latina 
Institute for Reproductive Health, National Organization for Women, 
National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Health 
Network, National Women's Law Center, People For the American Way, 
Physicians for Reproductive Health, Planned Parenthood Federation of 
America, Population Connection Action Fund, Population Institute, 
Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need, Religious Coalition 
for Reproductive Choice, Religious Institute, Reproductive Health 
Technologies Project, Sexuality Information and Education Council of 
the U.S. (SIECUS), South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, 
Unitarian Universalist Association, Unitarian Universalist Women's 
Federation, United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries. 
See, e.g., Coalition Letter to Members of the House of Representatives 
(Jan. 15, 2014) (expressing the view that H.R. 7 ``jeopardizes women's 
health by directly banning abortion coverage, by raising taxes on 
families and small businesses that purchase comprehensive insurance 
coverage, and by putting women who have survived sexual violence 
through intrusive tax audits'') (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary 
Democratic staff).
    \5\Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3--the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion Act (May 2, 2011), available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/
saphr3r_20110502.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, H.R. 7 is not necessary and is an unbridled attack 
on the health of women and their constitutionally-protected 
right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. For these 
reasons and those described below, we must respectfully dissent 
and adamantly urge our colleagues to reject this seriously 
flawed bill.

                       DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

    Title I of H.R. 7 adds new provisions to title I of the 
United States Code that would alter existing law and 
superimpose funding restrictions that are similar--but not 
identical to--restrictions that have been enacted as part of 
various appropriations bills. H.R. 7 would make these modified 
restrictions permanent and applicable to all Federal laws. 
Title II of the bill imposes an unprecedented tax penalty on 
the use of purely private funds to pay for abortion or for 
insurance that will cover abortion. During the Judiciary 
Committee Markup of H.R. 7, Chairman Goodlatte informed members 
that the Committee's jurisdiction is limited only to title I of 
the bill. Accordingly, the following section by section 
analysis does not include title II of the bill.
    Section 101 of H.R. 7 amends title I of the United States 
Code by adding a new chapter at the end titled ``Prohibiting 
Taxpayer Funded Abortions'' consisting of nine separate 
provisions that seek to extend and make permanent existing 
funding restrictions that currently are limited in time and 
scope. A detailed section-by-section explanation of these new 
provisions as added by section 101 follows.
    New section 301 mandates that no Federal funds shall be 
used to pay for any abortion, unless, by virtue of section 308, 
the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where continuing 
a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death.
    New section 302 prohibits any Federal funds from being used 
to purchase health benefits coverage (i.e., insurance) that 
includes abortion, unless, by virtue of section 308, the 
pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where continuing a 
pregnancy places a woman in danger of death.
    New section 303 prohibits the performance of an abortion in 
any health care facility owned or operated by the Federal 
Government or by any person employed by the Federal Government 
to provide health care services while acting in the scope of 
that employment. By virtue of section 308, section 303's 
prohibition does not apply in cases of rape, incest, or where 
continuing a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death.
    New section 304 preserves the right of any individual, 
entity, or state or locality to use their own funds to purchase 
separate abortion or health benefits coverage that includes 
abortion. Section 304 further provides that such coverage shall 
not be purchased using matching funds required for a Federal 
program, including Medicaid matching funds.
    New section 305 preserves the right of non-Federal health 
benefits coverage providers (i.e., insurers) to offer abortion 
coverage, and the right of states and localities to purchase 
such coverage with their own funds. Section 305 further 
provides that such coverage shall not be purchased using 
matching funds required for a Federal program, including 
Medicaid matching funds.
    New section 306 protects any Federal law that imposes 
greater limitations on the use of funds for abortion or for 
health benefits coverage that includes abortion.
    New section 307 clarifies that title I does not apply to 
the treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or disorder 
that is caused or exacerbated by the performance of an 
abortion.
    New section 308 includes an exception to the restrictions 
imposed by sections 301, 302, and 303 where pregnancy results 
from an act of rape or incest, or where a physician certifies 
that continuing a pregnancy is life threatening.
    New section 309 specifies that the term ``funds 
appropriated by Federal law'' applies to funds within the 
budget of the District of Columbia and that the term ``Federal 
Government'' includes the government of the District of 
Columbia. Section 309 effectively prohibits the use of local 
funds for abortion.

                          CONCERNS WITH H.R. 7

   I. H.R. 7 IS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY AS FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION 
                         ALREADY IS PROHIBITED

    Although H.R. 7's proponents assert that the bill merely 
codifies existing funding restrictions, and that passage of the 
Affordable Care Act necessitates additional restrictions to 
ensure that the current policy of banning Federal funds for 
abortion is continued, this is not the case.
    The Affordable Care Act addresses the coverage of abortion 
services by qualified health plans available through health 
benefit exchanges. The Act clearly distinguishes between 
abortions for which Federal funding is allowed and for which 
such funding is prohibited ``as based on the law as in 
effect,'' thus incorporating the Hyde Amendment distinctions, 
which allow Federal funding only in cases of rape, incest, or 
possible death of the mother.
    As is true under the Hyde Amendment, the Affordable Care 
Act allows for the purchase or provision of supplemental 
coverage for abortion services or a plan that provides broader 
abortion coverage. To ensure that only non-Federal funds are 
used for such coverage, the Act requires plan providers to 
segregate from the funds used to purchase broader abortion 
coverage an amount equal to the portion of the premium to be 
paid directly by the enrollee (i.e., not paid for by the amount 
attributable to the tax credit or cost-sharing reduction) for 
the broader abortion coverage. Similarly, individuals may 
purchase plans that qualify for tax credits under the 
Affordable Care Act that include broader coverage for abortion, 
but payments for the additional coverage must come exclusively 
from non-Federal sources and remain segregated from other 
funds.
    H.R. 7's proponents assert that this required segregation 
effectively amounts to an ``abortion surcharge'' that must be 
borne by all individuals enrolled in a health plan that covers 
abortion.\6\ As Professor Wood explained in the following 
exchange with Constitution Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold 
Nadler (D-NY) during the hearing on the bill, this claim is 
inaccurate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Unofficial Tr. of No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: Hearing 
on H.R. 7 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution and Civil Justice of 
the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2014), at 39 [hereinafter 
H.R. 7 Hearing].

          Mr. Nadler. Professor Wood, the Affordable Care Act 
        requires participating insurance plans to segregate 
        monies for abortion services from all other funds, a 
        measure my anti-choice colleagues insist was necessary 
        to prevent Federal funding of abortion. To aid in 
        identifying these funds, both in terms of premiums 
        being paid for coverage and costs for services 
        provided, the law requires companies to estimate the 
        cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 a month. 
        Some have characterized this segregation of funds as an 
        abortion surcharge. Is this an accurate description?
          Ms. Wood. The short answer to that question is no. As 
        you have correctly stated, this is a general premium to 
        provide for all health care services. . . . [T]he 
        segregation of the private dollar contribution of at 
        least $1 a month is to be set aside to pay directly for 
        [abortion] services . . . [I]t's clearly not a 
        surcharge. It's a segregation of the premium.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\H.R. 7 Hearing at 40 (testimony of Susan Wood).

    In addition, President Obama, following enactment of the 
Affordable Care Act, issued Executive Order 13535 confirming 
that ``the Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions 
governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the 
newly created health insurance exchanges.''\8\ The Executive 
Order further proposed pre-regulatory model guidelines 
establishing standards for the segregation of funds for private 
health plans that elect to cover abortion services. The 
guidelines ensure that funds used for abortion coverage are 
segregated and that Federal funds are not used for abortion 
services, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life 
of the woman is endangered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Exec. Order No. 13535, 75 Fed. Reg. 15,599 (Mar. 29, 2010), 
available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-03-29/pdf/2010-
7154.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, the Department of Health and Human Services 
promulgated regulations that reinforce the prohibition on the 
use of Federal funds for abortion services, providing that 
health plans that opt to cover abortion services ``must not use 
any amount attributable to'' either the advance payment of 
premium tax credits available under section 1412 of the 
Affordable Care Act or the reduced cost-sharing for individuals 
enrolling in Qualified Health Plans under section 1402 of the 
Affordable Care Act.\9\ To implement this directive, the final 
regulation further instructs health plans that opt to cover 
abortion services to establish separate allocation accounts in 
which to deposit and thus segregate the premium payments 
collected directly from private consumers from the premium tax 
credits available under section 1412 of the Affordable Care 
Act.\10\ The regulation provides that allocation accounts 
holding funds attributable to the premium tax credits must be 
``used exclusively to pay for services other than [abortion 
services],'' consistent with existing prohibition on the use of 
Federal funding for abortion services as well as Executive 
Order 13535.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Establishment of 
Exchanges and Qualified Health Plans; Exchange Standards for Employers, 
Final Rule and Interim Final Rule. 77 Fed. Reg. 18,472 (Mar. 27, 2012) 
(to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 156).
    \10\Id.
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As this makes clear and contrary to the claims of its 
proponents, H.R. 7 is not needed to prevent Federal funding of 
abortion. Nor is the bill a mere codification of existing 
funding bans.

                    II. H.R. 7 PLACES WOMEN AT RISK

    H.R. 7 adds several new provisions to title 1 of the United 
States Code that will modify and extend funding restrictions in 
numerous respects that will harm women's health and place their 
lives at risk.
    First, section 308(1) will be used to further limit the 
Hyde Amendment's existing exception for cases of rape to 
``forcible'' rape. This provision adopts the Hyde Amendment 
exception, which allows funding where pregnancy is the result 
of rape or incest. As originally introduced last Congress, the 
legislation would have narrowed the Hyde Amendment rape 
exception and allowed funding only in cases of ``forcible'' 
rape. As explained by Majority witness Richard Doerflinger from 
the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at the 
Constitution Subcommittee hearing in the last Congress, the 
intent was to close ``a very broad loophole for federally 
funded abortions for any teenager,''\12\ making clear that the 
change was not inadvertent and was intended (possibly among 
other things) to limit access to abortion for teenagers, who 
might otherwise fall within the exception for statutory rape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: Hearing on H.R. 3 Before 
the Subcomm. on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the H. Comm. on 
the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 69 (2011) (testimony of Richard 
Doerflinger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following public outrage over this proposed change, the 
bill's sponsors claimed that they had no intent to change 
existing law on this issue and removed the word ``forcible.'' 
Yet the Committee Majority made clear in their Committee report 
accompanying the bill that their intent was still to not allow 
funding in cases of statutory rape.\13\ The report incorrectly 
stated that the Hyde Amendment never had been construed to 
permit funding in cases of statutory rape and, therefore, this 
would remain the practice (refusing such funding) under the 
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\H.R. Rep. No. 112-38, pt. I, at 28 (2011) (``Reverting to the 
original Hyde Amendment language should not change longstanding policy. 
H.R. 3, with the Hyde Amendment language, will still appropriately not 
allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of 
statutory rape. The Hyde Amendment has not been construed to permit 
Federal funding of abortion based solely on the youth of the mother, 
nor has the Federal funding of abortions in such cases ever been the 
practice.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 1978 regulation implementing the Hyde Amendment clarified 
that the term ``rape'' includes statutory rape. In that 
regulation, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
responded to comments that ``criticized the regulations for 
including statutory rape within the exception permitting 
Federal funding of abortions for victims of rape.''\14\ As the 
Department explained, both the text of the Hyde Amendment and 
its legislative history demand this interpretation. The text 
itself does not qualify the term rape to distinguish between 
``forcible'' and ``statutory'' rape and Congress rejected a 
proposed amendment that would have limited funding to instances 
of ``forced'' rape.\15\ H.R. 7's proponents continued effort to 
deprive some of the most vulnerable victims--children and teens 
who are the subject of sexual predators--of critical assistance 
finds no support in the text of Hyde Amendment or its 
legislative history and should be rejected by any 
administrative agency or court that is called upon to implement 
the longstanding exception that allows funding in cases of rape 
and incest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Federal Financial Participation in State Claims for Abortions, 
43 Fed. Reg. 31,873 (July 21, 1978).
    \15\Id.; see also Memorandum of National Women's Law Center, The 
House Judiciary Committee Report on H.R. 3 Reflect an Attempt to Narrow 
the Rape Exception Even Though the Statutory Term ``Forcible'' Was 
Removed and Misrepresents Longstanding Policy on the Rape Exception, 
available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
hr_3_rape_language_
memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, section 308(2) will endanger women's lives by 
failing to include the constitutionally required exception to 
protect a woman's health. Although this provision allows 
funding where continuing a pregnancy would ``place the woman in 
danger of death,'' it fails to include the constitutionally 
required exception to protect a woman's health.
    The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was unequivocal: ``A . . . 
criminal abortion statute . . . that excepts from criminality 
only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without 
regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other 
interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of 
the Fourteenth Amendment.''\16\ The Court affirmed this rule in 
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 
explaining that any prohibition must make an exception for 
where an abortion ``is necessary, in appropriate medical 
judgement, for the preservation of the life or health'' of the 
woman.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973).
    \17\505 U.S. 833, 879 (1992) (quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, at 
164-165).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During Committee markup, Democratic Members offered 
amendments to address H.R. 7's failure to include an exception 
to the funding ban that takes into account and preserves 
women's health. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) sought 
to broaden section 308 to allow funding when continuing a 
pregnancy could result in ``severe and long-lasting damage to a 
woman's health.'' Representative Suzan K. DelBene (D-WA) sought 
to amend section 308 to ensure an exception for women with 
cancer who need life-saving treatment that is incompatible with 
continuing a pregnancy. Both amendments were voted down by 
party-line vote.
    Representative Judy Chu (D-CA) also offered an amendment to 
protect women's health by ensuring that nothing in H.R. 7 would 
prevent health care providers from disclosing relevant 
information to patients, and to ensure that principles of 
informed consent and the ethical standards of care are 
followed. Her amendment also was voted down by party-line vote.
    By failing to include an exception that preserves women's 
health, H.R. 7 not only violates long established 
constitutional protections, but jeopardizes the lives of women.
    Third, section 309 usurps the right of the District of 
Columbia to determine how to use its own funds and will 
reinstate and make permanent funding restrictions. While some 
Congresses have restricted the District of Columbia's use of 
its own funds, other Congresses have afforded it the same right 
as the states to use local, non-Federal funds for abortion-
related services. Section 309 would impose a permanent ban on 
the District's use of local funds for abortion-related 
services. Like the states, the District of Columbia should be 
able to make its own decisions about how best to serve its 
residents with its own money. As explained more fully in 
Section IV, below, Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking 
Member of the Committee, offered an amendment to remove the 
restriction on the District's use of its own funds. That 
amendment was voted down by party-line vote.
    Fourth, sections 301 and 302 impose a permanent, blanket 
restriction on funding. Sections 301 and 302 are modeled on the 
Hyde Amendment. Enacted in 1979, the Hyde Amendment prohibits 
the use of funds appropriate in particular laws (e.g., annual 
appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services) 
from being used for abortion. But unlike the Hyde Amendment, 
sections 301 and 302 would never expire and would apply to all 
Federal funds, not just funds appropriated for a particular 
agency or purpose.
    Fifth, section 303 bans abortion services in Federal health 
care facilities or by any Federal employee. Section 303 imposes 
a sweeping prohibition on the inclusion of abortion as part of 
any health care service furnished in a health care facility 
``owned or operated'' by the Federal government or by any 
Federal employee. Although Congress previously has prohibited 
abortion services in prisons (though requiring transportation 
from prison when necessary)\18\ and in Department of Defense 
facilities,\19\ H.R. 7 would impose this ban on all Federal 
facilities and all Federal employees. These bans would not 
apply in cases of rape, incest, or where the woman's life is in 
danger by virtue of section 308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 111-117, div. B, tit. II, Sec. Sec. 203-
04, 123 Stat. 3034, 3139 (2009).
    \19\See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1093(b) (2006) (prohibiting the 
performance of abortions in Department of Defense facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sixth, section 304 narrows the Hyde Amendment's broad right 
to use non-Federal funds. The Hyde Amendment recognizes and 
preserves a broad right to use private funds, without 
specifying or limiting items that may be purchased with those 
funds.\20\ Rather than mirroring this language exactly, section 
304 protects only the purchase of ``separate abortion coverage 
or health benefits coverage that includes abortion'' with non-
Federal funds. The impact of limiting a broad, unspecified 
right is unclear but notably places the use of funds for 
abortion (as compared to insurance coverage) at risk, 
particularly when coupled with the bill's unprecedented tax 
penalties on the use of private funds, as codified in title II 
of H.R. 7. Those penalties may make the right allegedly 
protected by section 304 purely symbolic for many women and 
their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 111-117, div. D, tit. II, Sec. 508(b), 
123 Stat. 3034, 3280 (2009) (``None of the Federal funds appropriated 
in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Seventh, section 305 alters Hyde Amendment protections for 
providers who offer abortion coverage. The Hyde Amendment 
broadly preserves the right for ``any'' managed care provider 
to offer abortion coverage,\21\ while section 305 protects only 
the right of a ``non-Federal'' health benefits plan provider to 
offer coverage that includes abortion. It is not clear who 
might fall in or outside this category, and whether any insurer 
who participates in an exchange established under the 
Affordable Care Act might be considered a Federal provider for 
purposes of H.R. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 111-117, div. D, tit. II, Sec. 508(c), 
123 Stat. 3034, 3280 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eighth, section 306 preserves only those Federal laws that 
impose greater restrictions on access to abortion. Section 306 
makes clear that H.R. 7 would supersede any law that does not 
impose equal or greater restrictions on access to abortion. As 
a result of this provision, Congress would be deprived of any 
discretion or flexibility to, for example, provide greater 
protections for a woman's health in a particular setting or 
circumstance.
    Ninth, section 307 allows funding for treatments of 
complications that might arise from abortion. This section 
apparently is intended to protect women against wrongful 
denials of coverage by clarifying that funding restrictions do 
not apply to treatment for complications that might arise from 
an abortion. It is unclear whether section 307 will be 
sufficient to overcome the chilling effect of title I, sections 
304 and 305, and title II on insurers coverage decisions, given 
the broad prohibitions and tax penalties imposed on abortion 
coverage.

   III. TITLE II OF H.R. 7 WILL INCREASE TAXES AND DRIVE INSURERS TO 
                 EXCLUDE ABORTION FROM INSURANCE PLANS

    Title II of H.R. 7 makes several amendments to the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986. During markup of the bill, Minority 
Members were informed that any amendments to title II would not 
be germane as it falls within the jurisdiction of the Ways and 
Means Committee. In light of the fact that the predecessor to 
this legislation in the last Congress was considered by the 
House under a closed rule, Representative Nadler expressed 
concern that, unless the bill is considered by the Ways and 
Means Committee, Members of the House may have no opportunity 
to amend this legislation's harmful tax provisions that impact 
the rights of all Americans to spend their own money to cover 
their health care expenses as they see fit.
    Even though the tax provisions were outside our power to 
amend through the Committee process, we oppose H.R. 7's use of 
the tax code to penalize private health care choices and 
provide this explanation in the hope that our colleagues will 
join us in opposing this harmful bill.
A. LH.R. 7 Imposes Unprecedented Tax Penalties on Extremely Personal 
        and Constitutionally-Protected Health Care Decisions
    H.R. 7 imposes unprecedented burdens--in the form of tax 
increases and the denial of tax credits--on the use of private 
money to pay for abortion or insurance that would cover 
abortion. Title II is not about Federal money. It is about the 
Federal Government penalizing individuals, families, and small 
employers when they make a particular, constitutionally-
protected health care choice that some Members of Congress 
oppose.
    Under current law, medical expenses (including money spent 
to purchase insurance) receive favorable tax treatment in 
recognition of the fact that they reduce an individual's 
ability to pay taxes and to encourage the purchase of insurance 
that helps ensure health care and reduces the costs--and shared 
burden--of uncompensated care. H.R. 7 radically alters existing 
law by requiring forfeiture of favorable tax treatment any time 
private, non-Federal funds are spent to pay for abortion 
services and in many instances when insurance is purchased that 
would cover such services in the event they were needed.
    Last Congress, the House Ways and Means Committee 
considered the tax provisions that were substantively similar 
to title II of H.R. 7.\22\ Several Democratic Members on that 
Committee filed dissenting views opposing these provisions, 
explaining, among other things, that they ``not only 
represen[t] an unprecedented move down a path that takes the 
Committee's jurisdiction squarely into an extremely private and 
personal decision that a woman and her family may have to 
make--[they] would also increase taxes on women and families 
during that difficult time.''\23\ H.R. 7 would do so in the 
following ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\H.R. 1232, 112th Cong (2011) (ordered to be reported favorably 
by a 22 to 14 vote on Mar. 31, 2011).
    \23\H.R. Rep. No. 112-55, at 28 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            1. H.R. 7 Increases Taxes on Women and Families
    H.R. 7 denies women and their families the itemized 
deduction for medical expenses for any expense that relates to 
an abortion. This singles out a perfectly lawful medical 
procedure for unfavorable treatment simply because a woman has 
made a decision that the legislation's sponsors do not like.
    H.R. 7 also treats as taxable income any distribution from 
a health savings account, an Archer medical savings account, or 
health flexible spending account that is used to pay for 
abortion expenses. An estimated 30 million Americans currently 
use flexible-savings accounts to set aside pre-tax money to pay 
for medical expenses,\24\ and approximately 11.4 million are 
enrolled in health-savings accounts.\25\ H.R. 7 would 
effectively increase taxes for these individuals and families 
if they use the money that they have set aside to cover medical 
expenses to pay for abortion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Jordan Rau, Defending the Flex Spending Accounts, Kaiser Health 
News (Feb. 2, 2011), http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/
48627.html.
    \25\America's Health Insurance Plans, January 2011 Census Shows 
11.4 Million People Covered by HSA Qualified High-Deductible Health 
Plans (2011), http://www.ahipresearch.org/hsacensus.html.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. LH.R. 7 Denies Middle- and Lower-Income Families the 
                    Premium Tax Credits That They Need To Buy Insurance 
                    If That Insurance Covers Abortion
    Under the Affordable Care Act, income-eligible women and 
families (those under 400 percent of the poverty line, which 
was $89,400 for a family of four in 2011) are eligible for a 
premium tax credit. H.R. 7 would require forfeiture of this tax 
credit if a woman chooses insurance that covers abortion.
    Denial of this tax credit will mean that some women and 
families are forced to choose insurance that excludes abortion 
coverage. For example, a single mother with two children who 
earns $24,000 a year is eligible to purchase insurance through 
an exchange under the Affordable Care Act. If the family's 
health insurance plan includes coverage for abortion, title II 
requires them to forfeit the premium assistance credit that 
makes it possible to purchase this insurance. This effectively 
forces them to purchase insurance that excludes abortion 
coverage, making the right allegedly protected by sections 304 
and 305 of title I, which purport to protect the right to use 
one's own funds to contract for and purchase insurance that 
covers abortion, purely symbolic for this mother and her 
family.
            L3. H.R. 7 Increases Taxes for Small Business Employers
    The Affordable Care Act provides a tax credit for small 
business contributions to purchase health insurance for 
employees. H.R. 7 would require that credit to be forfeited if 
the insurance offered by a small employer covers abortion.
    The Council of Economic Advisors estimates that 4 million 
small businesses are eligible for a tax credit under the 
Affordable Care Act if they provide health care to their 
workers, and that ``millions of workers at small firms and 
their families would be eligible for their own tax credits to 
purchase coverage through the Exchange if their firms did not 
offer coverage.''\26\ All of these businesses, individuals, and 
families would lose their tax credits under title II of H.R. 7 
if their insurance covers abortion, thus raising taxes on 
potentially millions of small businesses and their workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Christina Romer & Mark Duggan, Council of Econ. Advisors, 
Health Insurance Reform Will Help Small Businesses (Feb. 26, 2010), 
available at www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/26/health-insurance-
reform-will-help-small-businesses. Appointed by the President with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, the Council of Economic Advisors 
offers the President objective economic advice on foreign and domestic 
economic policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LH.R. 7 Will Drive Insurance Companies To Drop Coverage for Abortion 
        Altogether
    H.R. 7 creates a number of penalties and disincentives for 
insurance companies that provide abortion coverage as part of 
their basic health insurance plans. For example, and as 
described above, the bill disallows premium tax credits under 
the Affordable Care Act for coverage that includes abortion. As 
our colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee observed 
in their dissent to substantively similar legislation last 
Congress, ``insurance companies would respond in the individual 
market by solely offering coverage that does not include 
abortion services given the value of the premium tax 
credits.''\27\ H.R. 7 similarly denies tax credits to small 
employers who offer coverage that includes abortion, making it 
likely that such employers will seek products that exclude 
abortion and that insurance companies will drop abortion 
coverage from their plans as a result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\H.R. Rep. No. 112-55, at 26 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Testifying before the Constitution Subcommittee, Professor 
Susan Wood explained how the tax penalties contained in H.R. 7, 
particularly when added to the restrictions already in the 
Affordable Care Act that impose significant accounting and 
administrative burdens, could lead insurers to stop offering 
coverage that includes abortion.\28\ Because the vast majority 
of insurance plans currently cover abortion services, this 
would have a significant impact on millions of American women 
and their families. She explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\H.R. 7 Hearing (written statement of Susan Wood, at 2-3).

          If Congress enacts this bill, you are taking away 
        coverage from women who live in places where private 
        insurance plans that include abortion coverage are sold 
        today[.]

                                *  *  *

        Further changing the tax benefits for employees and for 
        employers providing health coverage as proposed in H.R. 
        7 could create a tipping point in the nature of 
        insurance whereby women lose abortion coverage because 
        insurers may no longer provide plans that include it.
          Since approximately 60 percent of women of 
        reproductive age, 37 million women, get their health 
        care coverage through private insurance, this 
        legislation could have a far-reaching effect. It 
        represents more than just meddling in their personal 
        decisions, by making it unaffordable, it effectively 
        bans abortion for some women.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\H.R. 7 Hearing at 29-30.

    A Majority witness at the hearing, Richard Doerflinger, 
frankly acknowledged the likelihood that the bill will alter 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
existing insurance coverage:

        [T]he new legislation when combined with existing laws 
        may produce a `tipping point' where coverage without 
        abortion becomes the usual norm for health insurance; 
        coverage that includes abortion will be permitted but 
        rare.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\H.R. 7 Hearing (written statement of Richard M. Doerflinger, at 
9).

In fact, Mr. Doerflinger expressed no concern for the millions 
of American women and families whose current insurance coverage 
would be changed when he stated, ``My response to this 
prediction is that I hope it is correct.''\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress should not embrace such cavalier disregard for the 
well-being of millions of American women and their families who 
currently have insurance that covers abortion services.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\A federally supported study conducted by the Guttmacher 
Institute found that 87% of typical employer-based insurance plans 
covered abortion, and a 2003 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation 
found that 46% of insured workers had coverage for abortion. See 
Guttmacher Institute, Memo on Insurance Coverage of Abortion (updated 
Sept. 18, 2009), http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/
index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. LH.R. 7 Places Women at Risk of Intrusive ``Rape Audits'' by the 
        Internal Revenue Service and Insurance Companies
    H.R. 7 has absolutely no corollary in existing law. It is a 
completely novel and untested use of the Internal Revenue Code 
that places women at risk of intrusive auditing by the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS).
    As Professor Susan Wood testified during the Constitution 
Subcommittee hearing on the bill, women might be required to 
document a rape or incest for the IRS or their insurance 
company. As she further explained, the burden and risk placed 
on insurers having to make coverage decisions (i.e., whether a 
particular expense falls within the exception for rape, incest, 
or where the life of a woman is endangered and can be covered 
without penalty or the need to segregate funds) likely will 
drive insurers to drop abortion coverage altogether.

          Mr. Nadler. So last year we had concerns give the 
        unprecedented tax provisions in the bill that this 
        could require some pretty invasive regulatory 
        enforcement procedures for women who are pregnant as a 
        result of rape or incest and for women whose lives are 
        endangered if they continue pregnancy. Is this a 
        concern?
          Ms. Wood. Absolutely. Having to make that 
        determination is not something that either the IRS, 
        insurance companies or Congress should really be 
        involved in.
          Mr. Nadler. And setting aside the privacy concerns, 
        how might uncertainty over how an expense might be 
        treated by the IRS impact women and how might it impact 
        insurers?
          Ms. Wood. Well, I think impacting women, to have to 
        document a rape or condition of incest is traumatic at 
        the minimum. I think in terms of insurers, they do not 
        want to be in the place of having to make a 
        determination of which is an acceptable exception to 
        the ban on coverage, or whether it needs to be covered 
        by either the woman herself or by this potential rider 
        that would then need to be coordinated with the base 
        plan.
          This raises a lot of regulatory and oversight and 
        implementation concerns that insurers have 
        traditionally never been involved in and would--in 
        their traditional way would be to just cut out that 
        entire set of coverage entirely and not want to go into 
        making those determinations, leaving all abortions 
        uncovered.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\H.R. 7 Hearing at 44.

    Our colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee have 
also noted that intrusive abortion tax audits are likely. As 
they explained last Congress,'' the Internal Revenue Service 
would be required to use the tools currently available as part 
of its tax enforcement duties, including the Internal Revenue 
Service's ability to audit taxpayers, to determine whether tax 
benefits had properly or improperly been claimed with respect 
to expenses related to abortion services.''\34\ The burdens 
that H.R. 7 would impose on a woman's right to abortion and her 
access to health care services related to that 
constitutionally-protected choice should be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\H.R. Rep. No. 112-55, at 28 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. LH.R. 7 Is At-Odds with Congress's Longstanding Tax Treatment of 
        Private Funds in Other Circumstances
    There is no precedent for the position that the tax 
treatment of private funds--whether through exemption, 
deduction, credit or any other favorable treatment--converts 
money that the government has decided not to collect from 
individual taxpayers or businesses into Federal funds. That 
position, adopted to justify H.R. 7's tax penalty on the purely 
private funding of abortion, directly conflicts with Congress's 
and the courts' longstanding view of the tax treatment of 
private funds.
    Under this theory, for example, favorable tax treatment for 
religious organizations or for individual contributions to 
religious organizations would qualify as Federal funding of 
religion, raising First Amendment Establishment Clause 
concerns. Of course, the Supreme Court has never considered the 
favorable tax treatment of private funds to constitute Federal 
funding in that context:

        The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship since 
        the government does not transfer part of its revenue to 
        churches but simply abstains from demanding that the 
        church support the state. No one has ever suggested 
        that tax exemption has converted libraries, art 
        galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put 
        employees 'on the public payroll.' There is no genuine 
        nexus between tax exemption and establishment of 
        religion.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 675 
(1970) (upholding property tax exemptions for religious organizations); 
see also Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. V. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436 
(2011) (finding that--because tax credits do not involve the 
expenditure of government funds--Arizona taxpayers lacked standing to 
challenge a state law providing tax credits for individual or business 
contributions to a private ``school tuition organization that, among 
others, awarded grants to students attending religious schools).

    Just as favorable tax treatment does not convert private 
funds paid to religious organizations into Federal funding of 
religion, allowing private funds paid for abortion-related 
services to be treated as permissible medical expenses under 
the Internal Revenue Code does not convert those private funds 
into Federal funding of abortion. Title II does not target 
Federal funds but, instead, targets and penalizes the use of 
private funds. H.R. 7 is a radical departure from current tax 
treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage; and it is 
not justifiable nor necessary to prevent Federal funding of 
abortion.
IV. LH.R. 7 SINGLES OUT WOMEN AND FAMILIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
        FOR PARTICULAR HARM, UNJUSTIFIABLY RESTRICTING THE DISTRICT'S 
        USE OF LOCAL FUNDS
    H.R. 7, through the provisions of new section 309 of the 
United States Code, singles out the District of Columbia and 
places additional limits on the District's use of its own, non-
Federal funds for abortion-related care or coverage. Because of 
H.R. 7's unprecedented impact on her district, Representative 
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) asked to testify before the 
Constitution Subcommittee at the January 9, 2014 hearing on 
this legislation. Breaking with the Committee's past practice 
of granting other Members with a particular interest in a bill 
or issue the opportunity to testify, the Majority refused our 
colleagues' request.
    Having been denied the opportunity to appear, 
Representative Norton submitted a prepared statement, 
explaining among other things, how H.R. 7 imposes unique harms 
on her district:

        H.R. 7 would permanently prohibit the District of 
        Columbia government, but no other local government, 
        from using its local funds for abortion services for 
        low-income women, uniquely denying the District 
        government the right local and state governments 
        exercise to protect the reproductive rights of their 
        female residents. . . . In particular, the bill, 
        subject to very limited exceptions, would ban abortions 
        in facilities owned or operated by the Federal 
        Government, which, by definition in H.R. 7, would ban 
        abortions in facilities owned or operated by the D.C. 
        government. Moreover, the bill would prohibit a 
        physician or other individual employed by the Federal 
        Government from performing an abortion, which, by 
        definition in H.R. 7, would prohibit a physician or 
        other individual employed by the D.C. government from 
        performing an abortion. The contortions upon which this 
        provision depends undermine any basis for its 
        legitimacy.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\H.R. 7 Hearing (written statement of Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton 
(D-DC), at 1-2).

Similarly, District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray 
``express[ed] outrage'' about the fact that H.R. 7 ``contains 
language extremely offensive'' to the District.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Letter from Vincent C. Gray, Mayor of the District of Columbia, 
to Representative Trent Franks, Chair, Subcomm. on the Constitution and 
Civil Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Jan. 8, 2014) (on file 
with H. Comm. on the Judiciary Democratic staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While some Congresses have restricted the District's use of 
its own funds, others have accorded the District the same 
respect afforded to the states with regard to decisions about 
the use of local funds. If H.R. 7 should become law, the 
District's discretion to make the funding decisions that best 
serve the needs of its residents will be permanently 
restricted.
    During the Committee's markup of H.R. 7, Ranking Member 
John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) offered an amendment to prevent 
imposition of this permanent restriction. Expressing his 
disappointment that the Committee had not honored 
Representative Norton's request to testify, Ranking Member 
Conyers sought to ensure that, as with constituents in other 
Members' districts, the women and families who reside in the 
District of Columbia should have the same assurance that their 
elected representatives can spend local funds to serve their 
best interests, not those of certain Members of Congress. He 
explained:

          My Amendment removes the permanent ban on the 
        District's ability to spend its own local taxpayer-
        raised funds as it chooses. . . .
          Just because we can interfere by virtue of our unique 
        power with regard to the District of Columbia does not 
        mean that we should. I have long supported statehood 
        for the District of Columbia because of these types of 
        egregious examples of Congress overriding and 
        restricting the reasoned judgment of District Officials 
        about how best to serve Americans who live here in the 
        city to which we are all visitors.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Unofficial Tr. of the Markup of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding 
for Abortion Act, by the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2014) 
(written statement of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member, H. 
Comm. on the Judiciary).

Unfortunately, his amendment was rejected by a vote of 11 to 
19.
    H.R. 7's permanent restriction on the District's use of its 
own local funds should be rejected. Women and families who live 
in the District should not be subject to additional harm simply 
because of where they live. They deserve the same guarantee 
afforded to constituents elsewhere: the fundamental assurance 
that their local elected representatives will act in their best 
interests or answer to the democratic process. We would never 
tolerate Congress treating our own constituents this way; we 
should show the same regard for the Americans who live in the 
Nation's Capitol.

                               CONCLUSION

    H.R. 7 is not a modest effort to codify existing 
restrictions on Federal funding of abortion. Rather, it is part 
of an aggressive campaign to roll back women's rights in 
complete disregard for the impact it would have on women's 
health, lives, or families. H.R. 7's aggressive tax provision 
has no corollary in existing law. It is an untested and 
unjustifiable penalty on privately-funded health care choices 
that some Members of Congress oppose.
    Through Federal funding restrictions that have been in 
place for more than three decades, Congress has used economic 
coercion in an effort to limit women's access to abortion. 
Until now, that coercion has been directed against the poor and 
women dependent on the Federal Government for health care. Now, 
all women and their families have been targeted.
    Women in America have the fundamental right--guaranteed by 
the Constitution that we take an oath to support and defend--to 
make the profound and deeply personal decision of whether to 
carry a pregnancy to term. H.R. 7 burdens that right in a 
variety of ways that have nothing to do with Federal funding of 
abortion.
    For these reasons, we respectfully dissent and urge our 
colleagues to oppose this bill.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Steve Cohen.
                                   Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.
                                   Judy Chu.
                                   Ted Deutch.
                                   Luis V. Gutierrez.
                                   Karen Bass.
                                   Cedric Richmond.
                                   Suzan DelBene.
                                   Joe Garcia.
                                   Hakeem Jeffries.
                                   David N. Cicilline.