Rep. Smith: Saving Our Hyde

While HHS squabbles with Republicans about why taxpayers are footing the bill for abortions under the health care law, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) says that Congress should put the issue to rest once and for all. Instead of worrying about vague language and legislative loopholes, Rep. Smith is calling on members to pass a bill that would guarantee that no federal dollars will be used to take innocent human lives. Today, he and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act which would be a blanket rejection of abortion in every facet of government spending--from the health care law to the Defense Authorization bill and every program in between. If it passes, the Hyde amendment would be permanent, saving pro-life Congressmen from the yearly battle they have over its reauthorization. Never again would members have to debate whether legislation does or doesn't include conscience protections, since this bill would also codify the Hyde-Weldon clause that bars groups from discriminating against people who refuse to provide, refer, or pay for abortions. Other policies, like the amendments that block overseas abortion funding, would also become a concrete part of U.S. law.

This push is especially timely given that a group of pro-abortion Senators are trying to open the doors to abortion on military bases. Meanwhile, HHS officials and other abortion proponents still insist that the new health care law won't fund abortions--despite an independent analysis from Congressional Research Service, which reported that there's nothing stopping the agency from covering the procedure in its high risk pools. Regardless of what Americans think about the legality of abortion, they object to paying for it by overwhelming majorities--which could explain why the Smith-Lipinski bill has such broad bipartisan support. Any member who claims to be moderate on abortion knows that they have to vote for this legislation to prove it. Passing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act is the only way to make pro-life policies permanent and apply them across the federal government. Even the Left should have no trouble supporting a bill that they insist is the status quo. Encourage your member to co-sponsor the Smith-Lipinski bill. Click here to contact them today!

Do Ask, We'll Tell!

Check out today's video clip with ADF Attorney Austin Nimocks for his take on how this repeal would silence Christians in all walks of military life.

Q: How will overturning this law affect military chaplains and other service members with faith-based convictions?

As Bob Maginnis points out in FRC's Mission Compromised booklet, introducing open homosexuals into the military would seriously impact chaplains. They may be censored from speaking against homosexual behavior in chapels or counsel a service member confused about his sexuality to abstain from homosexual conduct. What's more, they could face increased pressure to marry same-sex couples. These threats to religious liberty would make chaplains who stick by their convictions vulnerable, and some of them might choose leave the military altogether.

With Gambling Victory, Frank Bets on the House

"Congress is the one with the gambling problem," or so says the Washington Times after the House Financial Services Committee voted to overturn UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act). Following Rep. Barney Frank's (D-Mass.) lead, members passed H.R. 2267 out of committee, giving the full House a chance to vote on the largest expansion of online gambling ever. "With a $13.2 trillion credit line, federal lawmakers continue to make bad bets, doubling down on spending... in the vain hope that it will somehow pay off," writes the Times. "Laying the foundation for Internet-specific taxes... will only enable... Congress to further jeopardize the country's economic future." Together with its companion bill, H.R. 4976, Rep. Frank claims that legalizing Internet gambling--and taxing it--will raise billions in federal and state revenues. Despite what he says, this bill isn't about protecting free markets, but opening up a new questionable revenue stream for government spending.

For now, the future of Rep. Frank's bill is unknown. Will Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) want to raise this controversial vote in September? Many think it's unlikely. There's a much better chance that she would turn this bill into a lame-duck vehicle. One surprise during yesterday's committee vote was the group of seven Republicans who voted for the bill. Also, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a previous supporter of Rep. Frank's bill, voted "present" once he became aware that this bill would lead to a massive expansion of taxation of Internet commerce. His vote--and the leadership of Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.)--were the bright spots of the day. For more on who voted for an anti-federalist, pro-tax gambling bill, check out The Cloakroom Blog.

In the D.C. Circuit Court We Trust

In a victory that barely cracked the newswire, a federal appeals court threw out a case to strip "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency. An atheist in Texas had claimed that the national motto was unconstitutional, but even the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is comprised of some fairly liberal judges, tossed the lawsuit. Citing a 40-year-old Supreme Court precedent, the judges unanimously agreed that "The Statutes establishing 'In God We Trust' as our national motto and providing for its reproduction on United States currency do not violate the Establishment Clause." Fortunately, the panel's decision did more than protect religious liberty--it spared taxpayers and the courts a long, expensive, and drawn-out lawsuit.

Speaking of the importance of judges, FRC's Church Ministries department has developed a number of resources for pastors on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. We encourage you to forward this link to your church leaders and ask them to share this information with their congregation before next week's confirmation vote on the Senate floor!