Federal NRLC Scorecard - 111th Congress, Combined Sessions U.S. House of Representatives 111th Congress, Combined Sessions 1. Foreign Relations Authorization Act (Office for Global Women's Issues) (06/10/2009, Roll Call No. 328) In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 22, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear that the Obama Administration will seek to promote abortion throughout the world. "We are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care," Secretary Clinton said. She also said that the Obama Administration believes that "reproductive health includes access to abortion," and she told pro-life Congressman Chris Smith (R- NJ), "You are entitled to advocate . anywhere in the world, and so are we." In June 2009 the House of Representatives took up the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410), a bill to authorize various State Department activities. The bill contained a section to establish an Office for Global Women's Issues, headed by an ambassador-at-large who will report directly to Secretary Clinton. Given the clear evidence that the Obama Administration State Department is determined to campaign for abortion, NRLC informed House members that NRLC opposed the bill, unless the House added an amendment proposed by Congressman Smith to prohibit the office from engaging in activities to change foreign abortion laws. However, the House Rules Committee -- which is an arm of the leadership of the Democratic majority that controls the House -- refused to allow the House to vote on the Smith Amendment, so NRLC opposed passage of the bill. The bill was approved over NRLC's objections, 235 to 187. The bill was supported by 228 Democrats and 7 Republicans. It was opposed by 18 Democrats and 169 Republicans. Roll Call No. 328, June 10, 2009. 2. District of Columbia funding bill (public funding of elective abortion) (07/16/2009, Roll Call No. 571) The District of Columbia is a federal jurisdiction which, under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, is completely under the legislative authority of Congress. Therefore, the entire budget for D.C. (including locally generated revenues) is appropriated by Congress as part of the annual "Financial Services appropriations bill." For many years this bill has contained language (sometimes called the "Dornan Amendment") to prohibit the use of any appropriated funds to pay for abortions, except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. However, in 2009, at the urging of the Obama White House, the House Appropriations Committee inserted new language in the bill to allow the D.C. city government to use locally generated (but congressionally appropriated) funds for abortion on demand. The House Democratic majority leadership did not allow the full House of Representatives to vote on an amendment to restore the traditional pro-life provision. Thus, NRLC opposed passage of the bill (H.R. 3170), but it passed, 219 to 208. (The Senate later approved the same language, thereby allowing the city government to resume funding abortion on demand.) Voting in support of the bill -- and thus, to allow the use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion on demand in D.C. -- were 215 Democrats and four Republicans. Voting against the bill (the pro-life vote) were 38 Democrats and 170 Republicans. House roll call no. 571, July 16, 2009. 3. Deny certain federal funds to Planned Parenthood (Title X) (07/24/2009, Roll Call No. 643) Title X ("Title 10") of the Public Health Service Act provides funds for "family planning" programs. Although federal law does not permit such funds to be used to pay for abortions, large amounts of Title X funds go to organizations that operate abortion clinics, including affiliates of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation's largest abortion provider. On July 24, 2009, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations bill for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (H. R. 3293), pro-life Congressman Mike Pence (R-In.) offered an amendment to prohibit any Title X funds from going to any arm of Planned Parenthood. The amendment did not reduce the overall amount of money appropriated to Title X by the bill, which was $317 million. The amendment failed, 183 to 247. The Pence Amendment was supported by 20 Democrats and 163 Republicans; it was opposed by 238 Democrats and 9 Republicans. Roll Call No. 643. 4. Stupak-Pitts Amendment (to prohibit federal funding of abortion and federal subsidies for insurance coverage of abortion) (11/08/2009, Roll Call No. 884) On November 7, 2009, during consideration of a massive bill to restructure the health care system, H.R. 3962, the House of Representatives considered an NRLC-backed amendment proposed by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). The Stupak- Pitts Amendment removed two major pro-abortion components from H.R. 3962. Specifically: (1) the amendment would permanently prohibit a proposed new federal government insurance program, the "public option," from paying for abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest; and (2) the amendment would permanently prohibit the use of proposed new federal premium subsidies ("affordability credits") to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was approved, 240 to 194. The pro-life amendment was supported by 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats. It was opposed by 194 Democrats. One Republican withheld his support by voting "present." Roll Call No. 884. (H.R. 3962 was then passed and sent to the Senate, which took up a separate health care bill, H. R. 3590.) For further information on abortion-related issues on the health care legislation, click here. To learn more about other pro- life issues in this legislation, click here.) 5. Obama health care bill: abortion and rationing (03/21/2010, Roll Call No. 165) On March 21, 2010, the House of Representatives approved and sent to President Obama H.R. 3590, a massive health care restructuring bill strongly opposed by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). (The Senate had already approved the bill on December 24, 2009.) House members who voted to pass this bill voted to require certain federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that cover abortion on demand, and opened the door to future direct federal funding of abortion in multiple federal programs, as detailed in a letter from NRLC to the House posted here. In addition, the bill contains multiple provisions that will result in the rationing of lifesaving medical treatment, including provisions that will impede people from spending their own resources for lifesaving medical care, as detailed in material posted here. The bill passed by a vote of 219 to 212. All 219 votes to pass the bill (pro-abortion) were cast by Democrats. Of the 212 votes against the bill, 34 were cast by Democrats and 178 by Republicans. Roll Call No. 165, March 21, 2010. 6. DISCLOSE Act (restrictions on free speech about federal politicians) (06/24/2010, Roll Call No. 391) On June 24, 2010, the House considered the so-called "DISCLOSE Act" (H.R. 5175), a bill crafted by Democratic congressional leaders and the Obama White House in response to the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, handed down on January 21, 2010. In that case, the Supreme Court invalidated certain federal laws and regulations that had prevented an incorporated group called Citizens United from buying TV ads to promote a movie critical of Hillary Clinton while she was running for president. By a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations to spend money on ads or other communications that criticize or praise those who hold or seek federal office. The "DISCLOSE Act" is intended to make it as difficult as possible for corporations (including nonprofit, issue-oriented corporations such as NRLC) to spend money to communicate with the public about the actions of federal officeholders, by applying an array of restrictions on ads, as well as requirements that violate the privacy rights of donors. NRLC expressed its strong opposition to the bill in letters sent to members of Congress on May 27, 2010, and June 15, 2010. NRLC said that the overriding purpose of the legislation is "to discourage, as much as possible, disfavored groups (such as NRLC) from communicating about officeholders, by exposing citizens who support such efforts to harassment and intimidation, and by smothering organizations in layer on layer of record keeping and reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of civil and criminal sanctions." Nevertheless, the House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 206. It was supported by 217 Democrats and two Republicans. It was opposed by 36 Democrats and 170 Republicans. (NOTE: Some of the 36 Democrats who voted against the bill were actually in favor of its major purposes, but voted against it because they objected to a provision that had the effect of exempting the National Rifle Association from most of its requirements. Democratic leaders had added this "NRA carve out" in order to diminish opposition to the bill among NRA supporters in the House.) After passage, the bill was sent to the Senate, where Republicans successfully prevented it from receiving final approval. Roll Call No. 391. June 24, 2010. Congressional Session 1 1 1 1 2 2 National Right to Life Vote Position O O X X O O Alabama Representatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score 1.