|
House Dems may roll back anti-abortion provisions |
|
By Alexander Bolton
|
|
Posted: 06/05/07 07:35 PM [ET] |
Republican opponents of abortion rights expect Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee to alter or repeal several longstanding policy measures restricting federal funding of abortion when the panel marks up legislation over the next two weeks.
President Bush also expects that House Democrats will use the annual appropriations bills to reverse abortion restrictions.
Last month, he sent stern letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promising to veto “any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion.”
This puts Democratic leaders in a difficult position. Many members of their caucus oppose various abortion provisions that Republican regularly included in past appropriations bills. These provisions, called riders, must be re-attached each year to spending legislation, giving the new Democratic majority a chance to kill several controversial abortion policies simply by not renewing them.
Democrats also face pressure from powerful liberal advocacy groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.
A lobbyist for one abortion-rights group identified some restrictions Democrats would attempt to overturn through the appropriations process.
Two such restrictions fall under the purview of the State Department and foreign operations spending bill that Democrats plan to mark up during a subcommittee hearing scheduled for today.
One restriction, known as the Mexico City rule, is a longstanding administrative rule that bars international family-planning services from performing or promoting abortions if they receive federal funds. Another restriction bans federal funding of entities that participate in coercive abortion programs. The rider, known as Kemp-Kasten after its House sponsors, gave Bush grounds to halt funding for the United Nations Population Fund. The U.N. fund has drawn conservatives’ fire for working in China, which has forced women to have abortions for violating its one-couple, one-child policy.
“We’re definitely looking at overseas policy, the Mexico City rule and the U.N. population fund,” said the pro-abortion rights advocate, who referenced the Kemp-Kasten restriction. “Bush canceled funding for that the last five years. That’s another thing that’s really, really important and we’re looking at opportunities there.”
Democrats may not push an outright repeal of the Kemp measure, which dates back to 1985, but they could narrow it significantly. The abortion-rights lobbyist said the provision could be modified to require evidence that the U.N. Population Fund and similar groups are participating in coercive abortion programs and not merely working in a country with “a bad population program.”
Advocates of abortion rights have a strong ally in Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), a former chairwoman of the House Pro-Choice Caucus who now heads the State Department and foreign operations subcommittee.
Proponents of expanded abortion rights are also targeting the so-called Hyde language that traditionally accompanies the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. The Hyde language, named after former Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), prohibits Medicaid from funding abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest.
Democrats may also decide against passing the Dickey-Wicker amendment that is usually attached to the Labor bill, scheduled for a June 7 subcommittee markup. The measure, named after its onetime House sponsors, prohibits federal funding for research that harms human embryos. The House passed legislation authorizing such research earlier this year.
“They’re going to go after Mexico City and the U.N. Population Fund [restrictions],” predicted Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus.
Smith said he expects Democrats to attempt to cast aside most of the policy riders restricting abortion rights that have passed with spending bills in recent years. But he acknowledged that few people know for certain what policies Democrats will try to rewrite until they unveil their legislation.
Lowey’s spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) also failed to respond to a request for comment. Obey is a longtime opponent of abortion who has voted for ban on late-term abortions, though he has also voiced opposition to abolishing abortion rights.
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said that Democratic leaders would be smart to avoid picking a fight over abortion if they want to pass spending bills for the next fiscal year.
“These so-called riders have been carried for decades on [spending] bills; we regard those as default positions,” he said.
“The Democratic leadership wants to show they can make the appropriations train run on time. If they allow attempts to roll back established pro-life riders, they’ll be blowing up their own railroad bridges. The likely result will be to doom certain appropriations bills but not change the policy.”
One hundred fifty-five Republicans in the House and 34 in the Senate signed letters to Bush promising to vote to sustain vetoes of spending bills if they weakened restrictions on abortion.
Over the next week, the House Appropriations Committee has also planned subcommittee markups of the Financial Services and the Commerce, Justice and Science spending bills. Republicans are bracing for Democrats to change the language usually accompanying the Financial Services bill that bans the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program from funding abortions. Changes might also be made to the Commerce bill, which has included language since 1996 that bans abortion funding for federal prisoners.
|
