Family Research Council
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 10, 2013
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866) 372-6397

Family Research Council Calls on House to Oppose Rule on Continuing Resolution, Urges Defunding Obamacare


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) today announced its opposition to the House of Representatives' Rule as reported in the news that provides for a short-term Continuing Resolution to fund the government.

FRC has been at the forefront of opposing Obamacare over what can only be described as a government takeover of healthcare. FRC rallied opposition to the taxpayer funding of abortion contained in the law, set to begin enrolling people October 1, and has opposed the administration's HHS mandate which violates the fundamental right to religious freedom.

Of the House Rule on the Continuing Resolution, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

"The House Rule on the Continuing Resolution spending bill purports to 'defund Obamacare' but only provides a cover vote on defunding Obamacare without any teeth. The Rule simply does not stop this onerous law from going into effect.

"We support defunding Obamacare, as that would stop funding for abortion which this law forces on Americans. However, the Rule provides for a side-by-side provision to defund Obamacare that when sent to the Senate can be ignored by Senator Harry Reid.

"This Rule also does not provide the necessary protections for religious freedom, a fundamental constitutional right, since the HHS mandate is already forcing companies to violate their religious freedoms and will harm non-profit religious organizations beginning next year. Obamacare will fund and subsidize abortion, violate religious liberties, and will impose government control over Americans' health care.

"We must defund or repeal this abortion-funding and religious freedom-gutting health care law whether on the CR or other must-pass legislation. Congress must get serious about defunding this law and about protecting religious freedoms. This Rule provides for neither and we urge opposition to it," concluded Perkins.

-30-