GOP Rep. Joe Pitts: My Side has "Momentum" on Abortion

Saturday marked the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision declaring that a woman's right to an abortion is constitutionally protected. The anniversary is being marked by opponents of abortion rights, who are holding their annual March for Life on the National Mall today.

Abortion rights opponents have a lot to cheer about this year, in large part because the new Congress includes a greater percentage of lawmakers that are on their side. House Republicans last week introduced two bills to scale back federal involvement in abortion services, and House Speaker John Boehner called the issue a top priority.

Republican Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, a sponsor of one of the bills, said today on "Washington Unplugged" that "the momentum is on the pro-life side" -- and that there's no reason President Obama should reject his legislation.

Pitts, head of the Health panel in the Energy and Commerce Committee, sponsored the Protect Life Act, a bill that would restrict federal funding of any kind for abortions in any of the programs enacted in President Obama's health care reforms. His legislation was introduced in conjunction with Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.)'s "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which would impose a permanent bar on any federal spending for abortion care, including tax credits for plans that cover abortion.

The bills also include so-called "conscience protections" that would empower courts and ensure that doctors, nurses and other health care professionals can opt out from having to perform abortions.

Republicans have argued that the two bills would simply codify the government's commitment to the Hyde amendment, which bans federal funding of abortions. (Lawmakers need to renew the amendment each year.) Mr. Obama signed an executive order last year to clarify that the new health care reforms will follow the Hyde amendment, but Republicans say an executive order is not good enough.

"This is a partial repeal to do something the president said he is for with his executive order," Pitts said of his bill. "That is, to ban government abortions. We want to make it statutory."

Currently, the heath care reform law would allow insurers to offer abortion coverage in the new health exchange marketplaces, which will be set up in 2014, as long as they collect separate premium payments for that coverage and keep those funds separate from federal premium payments and credits.

The new Republican legislation put forth by Pitts and Smith, by contrast, would deny tax credits or subsidies for any private health insurance plans that include abortion coverage, even if the cost of the abortion coverage is paid for with private funds. Most insurance plans include abortion coverage, meaning that many women would have to pay more for their plans to keep them in tact.

"Individuals still have choice, only it would have to be done with their dollars, not with taxpayer money," Pitts said. Republicans "think there should be more competition in the public sector and the private sector, but we don't favor using taxpayer funds to fund the abortion industry. Abortion is not health care."

The results of last year's midterm elections seem to back up Pitts' claim that the "momentum" is on the side of abortion rights opponents. The anti-abortion rights group the Susan B. Anthony List told Politico that the House saw a net gain of 50 pro-life members. Meanwhile, the Senate is made up of 46 members who oppose abortion rights, 40 who support them and 14 wtih mixed records, according to the abortion rights group NARAL.

Even as the economic recovery remains the most pressing issue in Washington, social conservatives continue to highlight the abortion issue.

"Some would have us focus our energies on jobs and spending," Republican Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), a possible 2012 presidential contender, said today at the "March for Life." "We must not remain silent when great moral battles are being waged."

Since Pitts' bill only modifies laws enacted through the Democrats' health care reforms, it serves as part of the Republican effort to dismantle the new laws piece by piece. Like the House's repeal of the entire reform package, it's unlikely that the abortion bills will pass through the Democrat-controlled Senate -- if they even come up for a vote.

Pitts maintains there's still a chance for the repeal bill to at least come up for debate in the Senate.

"There are 23 senators up for re-election in 2012, so they ignore this at their peril," he said.

[jared-s]

There should be no question mark after "There are videos of abortionists trying to escape abortionist tools." Typo.

[jared-s]

You know,for all the talk about "hate-speech" created the right, I am looking at amazement with all the misinformation and lack of civility by some of the pro-choice commentators below.

First of all, Brian Norwood, of course we are going to focus on life issues because the Right to Life is the basis of all other rights. It doesn't make sense to say you have a right to health care if qualify it by saying "of course, this right is conditional. Only if your not killed in the womb will we give you this right." What doesn't make sense is to focus on other rights while ignoring the right upon which all other rights are based.

ToolManger1, that is a judgmental, presumptuous statement. You don't know what's going on in other people's hearts.

Henri_Rochard
Abortion is not just a religious issue, it's a human rights issue. I remember once reading about an atheist or agnostic who was pro-life.

I was at the March for Life yesterday, and there is a strong momentum. Many of the people were young, like myself (and, yes, there were a ton of women and girls there). People are starting to realize that much of the lingo used by pro-choice supporters just cover-up reality. Women do have choice, but not the kill other people (and some of those that are aborted are girls; what about there choice? There are videos of babies trying to escape the abortionists tools?). Abortion also deeply harms women. It is anti-woman. If you don't believe, then watch the new movie Blood Money.

[brian_norwood]

Here we go again. Barely two weeks since being sworn in, and the GOP is back to the Terry Schiavo, Roe v. Wade stuff.

Will they ever learn?

[Multi-Basking]

Here we go again. Whenever the Repubs need a distraction or political support, they drag that tired old abortion dummy out of the closet to parade in front of the American people. Question to all the repubs: You DO know that Bush had a majority in the Senate and majority in Congress a few years back? Yes? So tell me. Why wasn't abortion dismantled then when they had the power to do so? Figure it out yet? OK, I'll type slow... B-e-c-a-u-s-e t-h-e-y n-e-e-d t-h-i-s t-o-o-l e-v-e-r-y s-o o-f-t-e-n t-o k-e-e-p a-l-l t-h-e o-t-h-e-r t-o-o-l-s i-n- l-i-n-e.

[mick7744]

Since my doctor has advised me that I can never get pregnant (I'm a male...a condition I contracted more than a few decades ago) I've always felt that any opinions I might entertain on the subject of how a woman chooses to deal with her own body would be irrelevant and presumptuous on my part.

BUT...should it somehow turn out that my doc erred in her diagnosis, if I do somehow manage to get myself knocked up at this late date...any bible-thumping clown who tries to tell me what I MUST do...or what I absolutely CANNOT do...is going to catch a severe beating about the head and shoulders.

I will extend no mercy to sanctimonious bullies whose implied political platform seems to be, "SUPPORT PRO-LIFE POLICIES OR I'LL KILL YOU"

[WeHappyFew]

mick, you legend!

[jimbom121]

Perhaps he should read the Hyde Act, which prohibits federal funding for abortions. Where are the jobs!!!

[afmcalax]

How would these self-righteous religious wing-nuts and their hypocritical Republican allies feel about the following idea? If abortion is made illegal once again or restricted so most cannot financially obtain one, then ...

to pay for the the children these polticians have forced upon these women, they also agree to pay for raising the child, housing the child, providing medical care, providing a first class education, subsidize the mother for lost wages over her life time, and generally step up and provide GOOD, middle class lives for all these "saved" zygotes.

to fund this I propose to eliminate all tax breaks and tax write offs for all religious institutions and activities. Churches pay full taxes on property, wages, etc. and church goers lose their ability to write off their offerings and tithing to the church. Use this increasedd tax revenue to then support those saved "zygotes" and the women forced to give birth. I wonder how many of these self-righteous would lose interest if it cost them money to back up their supposed principles.

[bigsk8fan]

the republicans did NOT do anything when they controlled the senate, house and white house during the reign of dubya. what makes this republican think any momentum he feels will go anywhere with nowhere near the clout the republicans had back then?

[Deogarber]

If we were talking about restrictions on gun ownership and use rather than abortion, I suspect that Congressman Pitts would be screaming about the Constitutional right to bear arms. Well, Mr. Pitts, women have as much of a constitutional right to abortion as NRA members have to their guns. If the one cannot be abridged by legislative restrictions, neither can the other. If one argues that abortion is based on an incorrect constitutional decision of the Supreme Court, one can make exactly the same argument for the right to bear arms outside of state militias.

[Henri_Rochard]

I'm surprised that the abortion was never taken to the Supreme Court.

It's clearly a religious issue and anti-choice/anti-abortion laws should be tossed out on the grounds that these are religious beliefs being forced on others.