Which basically makes this meaningless. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) admits on TV that the executive order can’t change the law.
Now she references the Hyde Amendment language, but what she fails to say is that has to be renewed every year. Do you think she’ll vote in favor of doing that? Please. But the fact also remains that the bill before Congress doesn’t contain any such language.
NRLC’s March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, summarizing the seven major pro-abortion components in H.R. 3590, is posted here.
It should be noted that all of the problems listed in the NRLC letter — with the possible exception of no. 5 (pro-abortion administrative mandates) — would be created by and controlled by the proposed statutory language of H.R. 3590. If the bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise. Lawmakers will be responsible for the law that they vote for, and cannot hide behind hollow assurances from the President.
Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, today sent Congressman Stupak an illuminating letter regarding whether the $7 billion in funds directly appropriated for Community Health Centers, in the Senate health bill (H.R. 3590), could be or would be spent for abortions. We have posted the letter here.
It looks like Representative Bart Stupak and his cohort just got duped.