Don't Restrict Access to Abortion Services for D.C. Women
WASHINGTON - Today, U.S. Representatives Mike Quigley (IL-05) fought against efforts to restrict the right to choose for women living in the District of Columbia during consideration of the FY14 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill.
OPENING STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which I am offering with my friend from California, Ms. Lee, is very straightforward. It simply inserts the word "federal" in section 8-10 of the bill to clarify that local D.C. funds can be used as the elected officials of D.C. see fit. In this instance, it would allow them to use locally raised funds on abortion services.
Now I understand those who don't support abortion and oppose tax dollars going toward abortion services. Even though I personally oppose it, my amendment would not affect the current ban on federal dollars being used for abortion services. It would, however, allow local D.C. dollars to be used for such services. At its core, this is not just an issue of choice, it's an issue of whether the members here today truly support local autonomy and a federalist system. I'd respectfully ask them, when you wake up in the morning are you a federalist or are a state's rights person? Or does that change with what's on the agenda? When it comes to a woman's right to choose, suddenly the decisions of local elected officials are superseded by the decisions of federally elected officials such as needle exchange, guns and gays and lesbians rights.
Imagine for a minute if you can, that this committee had jurisdiction over funding in your district and we were making prescriptive decisions previously left to you and the local elected officials back in your state. Every other state in the U.S. has the right to use its local funds as it sees fit, but we somehow have decided to constrict the revenues collected by D.C. I know everybody in this committee wants to pass this bill, and yet they continue to attach controversial riders. Which is the next point.
The chairman and I have had discussions in this committee about the fact that getting to that big bill, getting that very difficult decision making done, is complicated. It's already complicated enough. I've re-read all the pledges to America that my party made and that your party made. If you read it again, one of the things it says is that in financial issues, in must pass bills, we're not going to put riders like these in there. It has been our pledge not to do that. It's not that we can avoid confronting those issues, but why do we need to make an already extraordinary set of decisions even more difficult. So let's be consistent, lets avoid complicating matters, let's not restrict the rights of what has become a near colony by an imperialistic federal government at this point. It's hard to imagine saying that here in committee, but it's becoming the case. We are dictating local policy.
And finally, having a right and being able to access that right they're two very different things. The sad truth is that women with the resources can choose whether or not to grow their families. While women without these resources, many of whom live in the District of Columbia, are left with no choice while they struggle to make ends meet. At the heart of this issue is choice, but it's not a choice for us to make. It's a choice for women and their families and a choice for the local elected officials of D.C. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
CLOSING STATEMENT
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I've now worked in this job a little over four years, but I've finally got an apartment, so I reside a lot in D.C. and I like spending time here, but I'm not sure I'd want to live here. I'd prefer to live in a free state.
It's interesting, in 1973 Congress passed the "Home Rule Act," quote "grant the habitants of the District of Columbia the power of local self-government and to relieve Congress of the burden of legislating up on essentially local District matters." As Justice Thurgood Marshall said, "Policy such as the Hyde Amendment are a form of discrimination repugnant to the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution and represents a cruel blow to the most powerless members of our society." Well, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we're doing to the women of D.C. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.