Restricting Public Funds for Abortion (1977)

for Public Broadcasting. (opening music) Jim Lehrer: Good evening, Robert McNeil is off and so is the Congress of the United States having recessed Friday for three weeks, they went away without resolving the real sweat issue of the session abortions, specifically whether federal money can be used to fund abortions for the poor through Medicaid. The House passed the Hyde amendment which forbids such payments, but the Senate rejected it, opting for a more liberal version. And for the last four months, off and on, back and forth, fight and scramble, House and Senate conferees have been trying to reach a compromise with no luck. Because the amendment is to an appropriations bill, emergency funding had to be voted

three times just to keep several government agencies functioning. Late Friday, just before adjournment, it did look like a breakthrough agreement had been reached, but that fell through the legislative cracks at the last minute, the House refusing to budge a final step for the Senate and vice versa. Tonight, a look at the congressional politics of this non-compromise and at the practical effect it's having outside Washington. One of those non-budgers on the House side is Congressman Robert Baumann, Republican of Maryland. Congressman, the Hyde amendment would forbid Medicaid payments for abortion except when the woman's life is in danger. Is that your no compromise position? Congressman Robert Baumann: Well, I don't think it's a no compromise position. It certainly is my position, but it's also the position that was upheld by a majority of the House of Representatives in two congresses on nine occasions, upheld by the Senate of the United States last year prior to the Supreme Court's decision, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. So I would hardly say that it's a no compromise position. It's one that is written into current law and is in effect today in federal statute.

Jim Lehrer: All right, but no compromise from the standpoint of working out an agreement in this particular case that we're talking about between the House and Senate. Congressman Robert Baumann: Well, that's the very minimum that I would concede personally, yes. Jim Lehrer: All right. As I understand it now, the Senate was willing to go along with language that would forbid abortion funding except in cases of rape or incest or when a woman would suffer, quote, severe or long lasting physical health damage. You will not accept that. Speaking over each other: The severe end long lasting. And long lasting. Or long one or the other. Jim Lehrer: Yeah, there were some dispute about whether an and or an or got in there. Congressman Robert Baumann: No, because the basic premise on which I view this is the preservation of life, the life of the child and the life of the mother. And any exception which expands the number of babies that will be killed by abortion to me is repugnant and I don't support it. Jim Lehrer: What about the rape incest part? Congressman Robert Baumann: Well, the House had offered language regarding rape and incest which required prompted reporting of the incident so that some determination could have been made whether or not the pregnancy had actually occurred and it did not rule out the possibility of a medical procedure at

that point. But the problem you face with rape or incest is that several months later, anyone can claim that they have been a victim of this type of attack and it would be almost impossible for anyone to prove that and as we read this, it could be interpreted to allow an abortion in a death. Jim Lehrer: Always a loophole in other words, in the prohibition. Does that same thing apply, same objection applied to the words severe and long lasting physical health damage? Congressman Robert Baumann: I think you have to view that in the context of the way it would be administered because severe and long lasting can be any number of conditions which would not in any way affect the birth of the child. There are many things related directly that would affect the mother, would be severe and long lasting but still a child could be born and could live and so I think that too is a rather broad phrase and as Chairman Flood of our conference committee said, we have no idea to what extent this would be broadened by individual doctors administering the law or the bureaucrats who write the regulations.

Jim Lehrer: Congressman, is your basic objection to this based on, I know you're a fiscal conservative..... Is it based on money things or is it a moral question as far as abortion generally? Congressman Robert Baumann: No, it's a moral question and certainly money does not enter into my argument again for the right to life. I definitely feel that abortion is murder. Just as surely as if I were to draw a pistol for my coat and shoot you, a baby is being killed and abortion occurs and therefore I don't think that the federal taxpayers have any reason to have to spend their tax money to promote murder on a massive scale, 300,000 deaths a year. Jim Lehrer: But what would you say to those who say who would point out that abortion as a procedure is completely legal, fully legal in the United States? So why should this procedure, legal procedure be denied to the poor? Congressman Robert Baumann: Well, the Supreme Court said in 1973 that abortion was now a right that a woman had but she didn't, the court didn't say and subsequently ruled that there was no requirement of the taxpayers to finance abortions in the United States. So there are many things that are rights in the United States but which the government

is not compelled or required to pay for. Jim Lehrer: All right. Congressman, thank you.