Bad Proposals in U.S. House

By Liberty Counsel —— Bio and Archives January 3, 2019

Comments | Print This | Subscribe | Email Us

Washington, D.C. – Today, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House is pushing a bad bill and resolution that could have significant negative impact. The bill is the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 that has a number of strident pro-abortion measures including one that would allow government funding locally and internationally of abortion and require no less than $595 million of American tax dollars be given to those who perform abortions. The second is House Resolution 6 which adds the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" and would force members of the House to employ staff who are sexually confused.

“The new Democratic leadership is obsessed with abortion and sexual anarchy. Of all the good things that could be done on the first day of the new House, the Pelosi-led radicals prioritize death and the LGBT agenda. Today provides a glimpse into the soul of this new House leadership," said Mat Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action. "These are not the core principles of America! Liberty Counsel Action is on Capitol Hill reminding our legislators that life, liberty, and religious freedom are our most foundational rights. This is what our founding fathers gave their lives to establish and protect," concluded Staver. Liberty Counsel Action is actively working on Capitol Hill to educate legislators about the moral and financial dangers in this bill. The majority of Americans disagree with such legislation. A recent study by MsLaughlin and Associates showed that only 28% of Americans want their tax dollars paying for abortions. There are three main aspects in the first bill that are deeply concerning to Liberty Counsel Action. 1) The bill seeks to repeal Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) formerly known as the expanded Mexico City Policy. (Section 7071(a) on pg. 1021-1022) PLGHA requires foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to agree, as a condition of their receipt of global health assistance grant money, not to perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. Reinstated and modernized by President Trump, the policy now applies to all global health programs (nearly $9 billion). If NGOs choose to stop doing abortions, they can remain eligible for federal grant money. The choice has been up to the NGO – either change business practices or forego funding from the United States.

2) The bill appropriates no less than $37.5 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). (Section 7071(b) on pg. 1022-1023) This represents a $5 million funding increase for UNFPA (from $32.5 million in current law to a minimum of $37.5 million). Members have opposed funding UNFPA because of its involvement in China’s birth limitation policy, which relies on forced or coerced abortion. 3) The bill appropriates no less than $595 million for family planning/reproductive health programs. (Section 7058(a) on pg. 986) This represents an increase of $20 million (from $575 million in current law to a minimum of $595 million). Even if the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance remains in place, this funding stream can support domestically-based NGOs that support the global abortion industry. By setting a minimum funding level of $595 million, the bill would effectively allow unlimited spending in this area. House Resolution 6 is part of the basic rules to govern the operations of the House. It is generally adopted from the previous Congress with minor changes. However, this year Democrats are attempting to insert a prohibition on discrimination by any member, delegate, resident commissioner, officer, or employee of the House, "on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." This is the first time this has ever appeared in the House Rules. Seventy percent of Americans believe the government should allow employers to be free to express their beliefs on marriage in their office and businesses and not be forced to hire sexually confused employees, according to a study by McLaughlin and Associates. For conservative legislators who are supporting a conservative view on marriage, being forced to employ those who are actively opposed to his or her views as a legislator to act as an ambassador to their constituents is a dangerous infringement of the free speech of our nation’s leaders. These proposals must be stopped.