The Daily Signal - BONUS: Rep. Beth Van Duyne Discusses Her Pro-Life Amendment to the Spending Bill

Episode Date: June 25, 2024

A Republican congresswoman from Texas succeeded in amending the annual National Defense Authorization Act to prevent the Pentagon from subsidizing abortions with taxpayer dollars.  Rep. Beth Van Duyne's amendment to the $883.7 billion fiscal 2025 NDAA would block President Joe Biden’s Defense Department from using federal funds to reimburse abortion-related expenses. Van Duyne told The Daily Signal her amendment would roll back Biden's illegal Department of Defense travel policy issued in a memo on Oct. 20, 2022, which she said was "in clear violation of historic bipartisan norms and current law." Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get you and your crew to the big shows with Go Transit. Go connects to all the main concert venues like TD Coliseum in Hamilton and Scotia Bank Arena in Toronto. And Go makes it affordable with special e-ticket fares. A one-day weekend pass offers unlimited travel across the network on any weekend day or holiday for just $10. And a weekday group pass offers the same weekday travel flexibility from $30 for two people and up to $60 for five. Buy yours at go-transit.com slash tickets. Welcome to the Daily Signal podcast. This is a special bonus episode with Texas congresswoman Beth Van Dine and my colleague Elizabeth Troutman. Representative Beth Van Dine sponsored an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act to block the Pentagon from funding abortions with taxpayer dollars.

The amendment to the $883.7 billion act blocks President Joe Biden's administration from using taxpayer funds to reimburse abortion-related expenses. The defense bill passed the House of Representatives on Friday in a 214-207 vote. The Congresswoman sits down with Elizabeth Troutman today on the show to discuss the future of the bill how it supports pregnant women and why federal funding for abortion violates longstanding law. Stay tuned for their conversation after this. We get it.

With big media bias, it's hard to find accurate, honest news. That's why we've put together the Morning Bell newsletter, a compilation of the top stories and conservative commentary. To subscribe, just head to DailySignal.com slash morning bell subscription or visitdailySignal.com and click on the connect button at the top of the page. Thank you so much for joining us today. Of course. Happy to do it. What was the purpose of this amendment? Really, we wanted to ensure that DOD dollars were being spent on national defense. this is just simply rolling back Biden's illegal DOD abortion travel policy.

He issued it under in October 2022 in a memo, but this was going totally against the Hyde Amendment, which has been in practice for decades. I mean, literally over 50 years that both Democrats and Republicans have agreed on. And again, we already have stretched DOD resources, so it just seems like underwriting abortions through funding for flights and hotels, it's just pandering to the abortion lobbyists and does nothing to increase our national security. Could you tell us about what the Hyde Amendment does and why taxpayer-funded abortions at the Pentagon violates it?

So the Hyde Amendment actually present taxpayer-funded, taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. and what the rule that Biden had established in her memo again in October 2020 was to use DOD dollars to pay for women who want to travel to get abortions, to go to other states to get abortions. And so the High Amendment was one thing that had been agreed upon for 50 years. There was also an additional law that would prevent DOD dollars from going to be spent on abortion. So the memo that this administration is put into place actually contradicted to standing, and standing literally decades long standing on law.

And you've said that this bill with your amendment supports pregnant women throughout their pregnancies and even after, instead of encouraging them to travel to get abortions. How does it support women and why is that important? Well, what I've said is when you look at Democrats' radical agenda first, abortion. And you look at where they have come. And one of the first things that was passed when I got elected in 2021 was they passed a bill that would have allowed taxpayer-funded abortions up until the moment of birth. And this is what we're seeing from the Democrats. Not just, you know, these are not talking points. This is actually bills that they have passed on the floor of the U.S.

House of Representatives. So there's that contrast to what Republicans are trying to. to do, which is support women who will find themselves in the position of being pregnant when they don't necessarily plan it. And so what I believe Republicans have been doing is trying to support women. So whether or not that's looking at our tax relief for American Families and Workers Act that we passed out of Congress earlier this year, that was pro-family and it had pro-life provisions, including an improved child tax credit, or whether or not that, That was Michelle Fishbox bill supporting pregnant and parenting women and families act,

and that protected funding for pregnancy resource centers, or it was the act that I had introduced the Caring for Mothers Act, which would allow women, gave pregnant women access to health care by allowing families who are adopting a newborn child to actually put the pregnant mother onto their insurance plan during the time of pregnancy and for one year postpartum. those are bills, those are acts, those are legitimate policies that would support women who find themselves in unwanted pregnancies, as opposed to what we're seeing from the radical left, which is supporting abortion, which is finding ways of allowing abortions taxpayer-funded up until the moment of birth.

And I just find that to be a complete and utter contrast between the two. approaches. One Democrat, Representative Henry Quaylor of Texas supported the amendment. Why should Democrats support this bill with the language you sponsored? Well, one, it's following the law. I mean, you're holding an administration accountable for following the law. Two, this has been practiced. This has been agreed upon by administrations from both parties, from representatives from both parties for 50 years because it's common sense. Three, if you're really, concerned about national security and supporting our military when you already have a stretched DOD budget, it does not need to be going to fund abortion.

And does requiring American taxpayers to fund abortion violate their religious freedom? I believe it does. What's next for this bill now that it has passed the House? We'll see. It's going right now. It's part of the National Defense Authorization Act. It's going over to the Senate. What we've been told is the Democrat-run Senate is going to strip it out.

We'll see what happens. But I can tell you, I've talked to many of my colleagues on the floor that if this gets stripped out, they may not support the National Defense Authorization Act. Two Republicans voted against the amendment. Why do you think that is? I don't know. I spoke to John Duarte briefly beforehand. I believe that he thinks that he is supporting what his district would want.

Are there other departments, agencies, or branches of government that have similar policies to this Pentagon abortion policy? We know that they're fighting for that. Again, when you look at the bill that was passed in 2021 out of the House, and that's what they tried to do was actually have legal abortions up until the moment of birth taxpayer funded. That wouldn't just be on DOD budget, but you're looking at CMS as well. And do you or other House Republicans have any plans to challenge efforts like that?

I think we just did. I mean, look at the contrast. You know, Republicans are trying to think about ways to be able to support women who find themselves in unwanted pregnancies. And you're seeing Democrats who are encouraging abortions. And I just think it's a day and night difference. But using taxpayer-funded dollars, you know, to encourage women to get abortions, I think it's fairly anti-woman. It's anti-family. You know, we had some of the arguments on the first.

floor during the debate was that they claim that we're preventing women from accessing health care and medical care. And I would argue abortion is not medical care. I mean, it's a brutal procedure. It ends the life of an unborn child through suction dismemberment or chemical poisoning. And it's not medical care for the mother either. There's been several studies that have shown that abortion is a woman who has an abortion is four times more likely to die than a woman who has a full-term pregnancy.

These are not positive things that are taxpayer dollars to be paying for. And again, you're just going to see Republicans that are continuing to stand up and fight for life, fight for mothers and fight for families. Awesome. Thank you so much for joining us today. Awesome. Take care. Thank you. And with that, that's going to do it for today's show. Thanks so much for joining us for this special bonus episode from the Daily SIGO podcast. Make sure that you hit that subscribe button so you never miss out on content just.

like this. And we'll see you right back here for top news around 5 p.m. These are the headlines that you don't want to miss to stay informed on what's happening in our world. Thanks again for being with us today. We'll see you back here at 5. The Daily Signal podcast is made possible because of listeners like you. Executive producers are Rob Bluey and Kate Trinko. Hosts are Virginia Allen, Brian Gottstein, Mary Margaret O'Lehann, and Tyler O'Neill. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more or support our work, please visit dailysignal.com.