Legislation

“A future pro-life president should not be precluded by any law including H.R. 8373 from reestablishing the Protect Life Rule or any similar policy…”

By Rep. Chris Smith 

These remarks were made during debate in the House of Representatives on H.R. 8373 —the so-called Right to Contraception Act—on July 21, 2022.

Madame Speaker, several pro-abortion policies are embedded in H.R. 8373, including Section 4(b)(1) which states that “health care providers who provide contraceptives” may not be “singled out” through “any limitation or requirement.”

What does that language mean?

Simply put: any federal or state policy that ensures that taxpayer funded family planning clinics are not co-located—under the same roof—with abortion clinics would now be absolutely prohibited if H.R. 8373 is enacted into law. 

By way of background, in February of 2019, President Trump promulgated the Protect Life Rule—reestablishing Ronald Reagan’s modest Title X rule that prohibited taxpayer funding of the hundreds of family planning clinics that are co-located with abortion clinics.  Any funds denied to abortion clinics were then redirected to other family planning programs.

Created by Congress in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act authorized taxpayer funds to assist “voluntary family planning projects” but made absolutely clear in the statute that Federal funds were prohibited from being spent in “programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”

As Title X was administered over the years, however, that didn’t happen. 

So, President Ronald Reagan issued a rule in 1988 that included physical separation of abortion activities from federally funded family planning clinics.

In response, the abortion industry sued to get hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollar subsidies—and they lost.  In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan affirmed the constitutionality of the Reagan Title X Rule.

The Trump/Reagan policy—the Protect Life Rule—ended co-location but was overturned by President Biden last October. 

A future pro-life president should not be precluded by any law including H.R. 8373 from reestablishing the Protect Life Rule or any similar policy.

Madame Speaker, no one can seriously deny anymore that unborn children are alive, dynamic, precious, a miracle, and defenseless. 

Title X was intended to be about family planning—prevention—not the hideous dismemberment, beheading, chemical poisoning, or deliberate starvation and forced expulsion of a defenseless unborn baby. There is nothing benign or compassionate about exterminating an unborn baby girl or boy.

Recent Posts

Heading into the mid-term elections, fresh data offers real reason for pro-life optimism 

By Dave Andrusko The last few days have produced stories that have the potential to… Read More

2 days ago

The abortion industry and its allies in the Democrat party want abortion for any reason

The country is deeply divided on whether unborn children should be protected as the unique… Read More

2 days ago

Are Democrats crying wolf or do they really fear a “surge” in Republican turnout on November 8?

By Dave Andrusko You have to take what a Democratic group that coordinates get-out-the-vote efforts… Read More

2 days ago

Ultrasounds not only save lives but also help preserve families

By Maria V. Gallagher, Legislative Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation Editor’s note. This appears in the… Read More

2 days ago

PPFA stealth edits fetal development page, now says no heartbeat at 6 weeks

By Dave Andrusko The headline almost says it all: “Planned Parenthood edits fact sheet to… Read More

2 days ago

With Roe v. Wade’s reversal, state pro-life group experienced upsurge in the numbers of students contacting them for information and elucidation

By Maria V. Gallagher, Legislative Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation I will never forget a gentleman… Read More

2 days ago