Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-10), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, stated his vehement opposition to H.R. 7, which would impose unacceptable limits on a woman’s reproductive rights. At a Constitution Subcommittee hearing on the bill, the Subcommittee’s first hearing of this session of Congress, Congressman Nadler railed against this attempt to roll back hard-won reproductive rights, and against cynical Republican mischaracterizations of their intent. 

 “At today’s hearing we saw the latest round in the Republican war on women and a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make decisions about her own body. This bill seeks to burden all women’s health care choices in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with Federal funds,” said Congressman Nadler. “It seems that many Republicans believe in freedom provided no one uses that freedom in a way that they do not approve. That is a strange understanding of freedom.”

 H.R. 7 would deny premium tax credits to income-eligible women and families if insurance they obtain under the Affordable Care Act covers abortion. It would impose an unprecedented tax penalty on individuals and small employers who use their own money to pay for abortion or to purchase insurance that would cover abortion. Sponsors of the bill also intend to narrow the definition of rape and will endanger the lives of women with high-risk pregnancies.

 
The following is the text of Congressman Nadler’s opening statement:

 “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

             “Today’s hearing concerns what may be the most difficult and divisive issue we will have the opportunity to consider – a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body.  The right of a woman to decide whether to become pregnant and whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy is protected by the Constitution.  Whether or not you think that is a good idea, or a fair reading of the Constitution, it remains the law of the land.  The Supreme Court has also determined that neither congress nor a state may place an ‘undue burden’ on that right.

             “Now comes H.R. 7, the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’ which is misleading and misnamed, because the bill seeks to burden all women’s health care choices in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with Federal funds.  Contrary to the assertions of its supporters, H.R. 7 is not the mere codification of existing law. 

             “This bill seeks to extend current funding restrictions in the Hyde Amendment that are limited in time and scope and apply them to all Federal laws, without any effort to determine how such a sweeping and permanent expansion would impact American women and their families.  If this were all, that would still be reason enough to oppose it, but H.R. 7 actually goes much further.  This bill – for the first time ever – denies tax deductions and credits for women who use their own money to pay for abortion or to purchase insurance that covers abortion and – in so doing – increases taxes for women and families with respect to one of the most personal and private decisions that they may face.

             “In particular, H.R. 7 denies the itemized tax deduction that otherwise is available for medical expense if the expense is abortion, and treats as taxable income any distribution from a flexible spending account or health savings account that is used to pay for abortion expenses.  H.R. 7 denies small employers the ability to use tax credits to provide health coverage if that coverage includes abortion.  The bill also denies income-eligible women the use of premium tax credits available under the Affordable Care Act if selected insurance coverage includes abortion.

             “In first opposing, and then voting to repeal, the Affordable Care Act – not once, not twice, but I think we’re up to 47 times now – my Republican colleagues have complained that government should not meddle in the private insurance market, or in private health care choices.  But this legislation obviously is designed to do just that.  It seems that many Republicans believe in freedom provided no one uses that freedom in a way that they do not approve.  That is a strange understanding of freedom.

             “Even more stunning, this bill increases taxes on families, businesses, and the self-employed if they spend their own money – let me repeat that:  their own money – on abortion coverage or services.  As we know, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and, here, the taxing power is being used to destroy the right of every American woman to make private health care decisions free from government interference.  And this tax increase is being championed by Republicans, almost all of whom have taken a pledge not to raise taxes on individuals or businesses. 

             “I am equally surprised to find out that my Republican colleagues think that a tax exemption or credit is a form of government funding.  Should we now consider every tax exemption or credit as a form of government funding for the recipient?  I’m sure that there will be many businesses, charities, and religious denominations that will be alarmed to discover this. 

             “I also join many other Americans in being absolutely horrified that the Majority of this Committee seem not to know what rape is. 

             “When this bill was introduced in the last Congress, its sponsors sought to limit the Hyde Amendment rape exception to instances of ‘forcible’ rape.  Many in Congress and across America were outraged.  According to the bill’s champions, date rape drugs and sex with minors were not really rape.

             “In the face of public outcry, the Majority removed the term “forcible” from the bill before this Committee marked it up in the last Congress. 

             “But let no one misunderstand or be fooled by that change.  My colleagues still seek to narrow the rape exception, as they made clear in the Committee report accompanying H.R. 3 in the last Congress (House Report No. 112-38).  As they explained:

             “‘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.’  

             “The Majority’s assertion – as explained in a memo from the National Women’s Law Center – is false.  In fact, a 1978 regulation clarified that funding is required for all cases of rape, whether statutory or forcible.  Nothing in the language of the Hyde Amendment qualifies the term ‘rape,’ and Congress rejected a proposal to limit the Amendment to cases of ‘forced’ rape.  As explained in the 1978 regulation, and as remains true to this day, Congress’s ‘failure to use the word ‘forced’ in [the Hyde Amendment] when referring to rape is conclusive evidence that congress intended funding to be available for victims of statutory, as well as forced, rape . . .’ I ask unanimous consent that the National Women’s Law Center memo be entered into the record. 

             “In their Committee report, my colleagues displayed their true intent with regard to the exception for rape, which is to remove federal assistance for children and teenagers who are the victims of predators. 

             “They have not been as transparent about the overall intent behind this bill.  But it is nonetheless clear:  it is to end insurance coverage for medically indicated abortions for all women, whether or not they obtain their insurance on an exchange, and even if they use their own money to purchase the insurance. 

             “My colleagues in the majority believe that if you like your insurance coverage, you should get to keep it, unless it is for choices that they don’t like. Then, they have no qualms about taking your coverage away.

             “That is the intended and likely result of this bill. Currently, the vast majority of insurance products cover abortion services.  But, as Professor Sara Rosenbaum of George Washington University’s School of Public Health testified in the last Congress, insurance companies will respond to the tax penalties this bill imposes by dropping coverage for abortions from all of their plans.  This will have a significant impact on all women, not just lower income women who have long felt the brunt of federal restrictions on their health care choices.

             “My colleagues blithely assert that coverage will be available, if in no other way, through supplemental insurance policies.  But – as Professor Wood, the witness invited by the Minority can explain – there is no evidence that such product lines are being developed.  

             “H.R. 7 is not codification of existing law, nor is it just another attempt to enact the approach taken in the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the House-passed Affordable Care Act.  H.R. 7 is a radical departure from current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage; and it is neither justifiable nor necessary to prevent Federal funding of abortion.

             “I yield back the balance of my time and look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.”

                                                                     ###