REPUBLICANS PASS
ABORTION FUNDING BUDGET
REPUBLICANS PASS ABORTION FUNDING BUDGET
The Republican led House Majority passed a budget that guarantees babies will be killed with taxpayer money.
The budget’s abortion funding provision has been used in the past five years resulting in approximately 3,736 babies to be killed by abortion that were made possible by abortion funding budgets.
3,763 taxpayer funded abortions 2018 - 2022
2023: Not Reported
2021: 749 BABIES
2019: 793 BABIES
2022: 758 BABIES
2020: 632 BABIES
2018: 804 BABIES
All six budgets have the same abortion funding provisions:
The Republican Led House Majority passed a budget that guarantees babies will be killed with taxpayer money.
The budget’s abortion funding provision was used in the past five years resulting in Alaskans being forced to pay for approximately 3,736 babies to be killed by abortion.
All six budgets contained similar abortion funding provisions:
No money appropriated in this appropriation may be expended for an abortion that is not a mandatory service required under AS 47.07.030(a). The money appropriated for the Department of Health may be expended only for mandatory services required under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, unless a U.S. Supreme Court decision provides new precedent, and for optional services offered by the state under the state plan for medical assistance that has been approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
No money appropriated in this appropriation may be expended for an abortion that is not a mandatory service required under AS 47.07.030(a). The money appropriated for the Department of Health may be expended only for mandatory services required under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, unless a U.S. Supreme Court decision provides new precedent, and for optional services offered by the state under the state plan for medical assistance that has been approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
“No money appropriated… may be expended for an abortion that is not a mandatory service…”
“No money appropriated… may be expended for an abortion that is not a mandatory service…”
What is a MANDATORY service?
By what standard is it MANDATORY?
What is a MANDATORY service?
By what standard is it MANDATORY?
Alaska Statute 47.07.030(a) says, “(a) The department shall offer all mandatory services required under 42 U.S.C. 1396 — 1396p (Title XIX of the Social Security Act).
Alaska Statute 47.07.030(a) clearly says NOTHING about abortions being MANDATORY.
Title XIX of the Social Security Act says NOTHING about abortions as being either a mandatory or optional service. In fact, the Social Security Act makes NO REFERENCE AT ALL to abortion within the boundaries of State Plans for Medical Assistance.
Alaska Statute 47.07.030(a) says, “(a) The department shall offer all mandatory services required under 42 U.S.C. 1396 — 1396p (Title XIX of the Social Security Act).
Alaska Statute 47.07.030(a) clearly says NOTHING about abortions being MANDATORY.
Title XIX of the Social Security Act says NOTHING about abortions as being either a mandatory or optional service. In fact, the Social Security Act makes NO REFERENCE AT ALL to abortion within the boundaries of State Plans for Medical Assistance.
ABORTIONS are NOT MANDATORY services.
ABORTIONS are NOT MANDATORY services.
Since that is true – ABORTIONS are NOT MANDATORY services, then why do Republicans keep putting meaningless language into the budget?
Since ABORTIONS are NOT MANDATORY services, then why do we keep paying for babies to be killed?
Since we keep PAYING for BABIES to be KILLED, why do Republicans continue to insist that this meaningless budget provision is a pro-life effort?
Do you remember that age-old test of political sincerity? If a politician’s lips are moving…
Since that is true – ABORTIONS are NOT MANDATORY services, then why do Republicans keep putting meaningless language into the budget?
Since ABORTIONS are NOT MANDATORY services, then why do we keep paying for babies to be killed?
Since we keep PAYING for BABIES to be KILLED, why do Republicans continue to insist that this meaningless budget provision is a pro-life effort?
Do you remember that age-old test of political sincerity? If a politician’s lips are moving…
They are LYING TO YOU.
They are
LYING TO YOU.
Differentiating between mandatory and optional services in the budget when there are neither mandatory abortions or optional abortions according to Title XIX of the Social Security Act simply makes no sense.
This is what is referred to as “Intent Language,” which serves no purpose whatsoever because it has not been enforceable for over 20 years.
intent language
intent language
Intent language in the budget is an expression of the Legislature’s intent for the money that is to be spent.
Including intent language in the budget does not bind the State in any way because Article 2, Section 13 of Alaska’s Constitution says, “[b]ills for appropriations shall be confined to appropriations.”
The budget bill can only make appropriations – spending. This is not new.
The rules governing intent language have been around since 2001 when Alaska’s Supreme Court ruled that appropriation bills (budgets) must:
(1) not administer the program of expenditures;
(2) not enact law or amend existing law;
(3) be the minimum necessary to explain the legislature’s intent regarding how the money appropriated is to be spent;
(4) be germane, that is, appropriate, to an appropriations bill; and
(5) not extend beyond the life of the appropriation.
Intent language in the budget is an expression of the Legislature’s intent for the money that is to be spent.
Including intent language in the budget does not bind the State in any way because Article 2, Section 13 of Alaska’s Constitution says, “[b]ills for appropriations shall be confined to appropriations.”
The budget bill can only make appropriations – spending. This is not new.
The rules governing intent language have been around since 2001 when Alaska’s Supreme Court ruled that appropriation bills (budgets) must:
(1) not administer the program of expenditures;
(2) not enact law or amend existing law;
(3) be the minimum necessary to explain the legislature’s intent regarding how the money appropriated is to be spent;
(4) be germane, that is, appropriate, to an appropriations bill; and
(5) not extend beyond the life of the appropriation.
In other words, provisions (appropriations/expenditures) in the budget MUST assign dollar values (spend/appropriate):
Medicaid Services
$2,400,471,700 [Medicaid Budget]
[$1,000,000 Abortion Services]
In other words, provisions (appropriations/expenditures) in the budget MUST assign dollar values (spend/appropriate):
Medicaid Services
$2,400,471,700 [Medicaid Budget]
[$1,000,000 Abortion Services]
Likewise, budget provisions MUST NOT administer the program as the Republican Majority’s abortion provision does:
No money appropriated in this appropriation may be expended for an abortion that is not a mandatory service required under AS 47.07.030(a). The money appropriated for the Department of Health may be expended only for mandatory services required under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, unless a U.S. Supreme Court decision provides new precedent, and for optional services offered by the state under the state plan for medical assistance that has been approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Likewise, budget provisions MUST NOT administer the program as the Republican Majority’s abortion provision does:
No money appropriated in this appropriation may be expended for an abortion that is not a mandatory service required under AS 47.07.030(a). The money appropriated for the Department of Health may be expended only for mandatory services required under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, unless a U.S. Supreme Court decision provides new precedent, and for optional services offered by the state under the state plan for medical assistance that has been approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Next, the budget provision (appropriation) must be the minimum necessary to explain the legislature’s intent regarding the spending. An example of the minimum necessary to explain the legislature’s intent would be:
Medicaid Services Related to Abortion
$1,000,000 (approximately what Alaskans paid for abortions last year)
Assigning a $1,000,000 appropriation would be an honest way for Republicans to make an abortion appropriation since that is what we were forced to pay last year, and it is likely what we will be forced to pay this year as well.
Next, the budget provision (appropriation) must be the minimum necessary to explain the legislature’s intent regarding the spending. An example of the minimum necessary to explain the legislature’s intent would be:
Medicaid Services Related to Abortion
$1,000,000 (approximately what Alaskans paid for abortions last year)
Assigning a $1,000,000 appropriation would be an honest way for Republicans to make an abortion appropriation since that is what we were forced to pay last year, and it is likely what we will be forced to pay this year as well.
Finally, the expenditure must be appropriate to the appropriations bill:
Medicaid Services Related to Abortion
$1,000,000 (approximately what Alaskans paid for abortions last year)
Abortion payments have historically been paid from the Medicaid portion of the Health and Social Services budget, making the appropriation suitable to the budget bill.
Finally, the expenditure must be appropriate to the appropriations bill:
Medicaid Services Related to Abortion
$1,000,000 (approximately what Alaskans paid for abortions last year)
Abortion payments have historically been paid from the Medicaid portion of the Health and Social Services budget, making the appropriation suitable to the budget bill.
A DIFFERENT APPROACH
A DIFFERENT APPROACH
We see above that there is a way to make an appropriation for abortions that eliminates the funding for babies to be killed.
A budget that appropriates $0.00 for babies to be killed is not intent language beyond the legislature’s intent that $0.00 be spent for abortions. It is no different than any other line in the budget where spending is set – both authorized and limited – to a certain dollar amount. So that is what we did.
Medicaid Services Related to Abortion
$0.00
We see above that there is a way to make an appropriation for abortions that eliminates the funding for babies to be killed.
A budget that appropriates $0.00 for babies to be killed is not intent language beyond the legislature’s intent that $0.00 be spent for abortions. It is no different than any other line in the budget where spending is set – both authorized and limited – to a certain dollar amount. So that is what we did.
Medicaid Services Related to Abortion
$0.00
THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY AND
PLANNED PARENTHOOD JOIN FORCES
THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY AND
PLANNED PARENTHOOD JOIN FORCES
On April 4th and again on April 6th, abortion de-funding budget amendments like the example above were tabled (killed) by Planned Parenthood endorsed abortion advocates aided by House Republicans.
Amendment Number 36, was offered and tabled (killed) by Planned Parenthood endorsed abortion advocates aided by House Republicans.
Amendment 36 would have:
- Reduced the amount the State could spend on abortion to $0.00.
- Reduced the Medicaid budget by $1M, approximately the amount spent on abortions in 2022.
- Prohibited transfers to the Medicaid account for or relating to abortion appropriations.
Planned Parenthood endorsed abortion advocate CJ McCormick led the amendment killing charge by moving to table (kill without debate) Amendment 36. McCormick and the other Planned Parenthood endorsed abortion advocates were joined by:
Republican Majority Leader Dan Saddler of Eagle River
Representative Prax, North Pole
Representative Sumner, Wasilla
Representative Ruffridge, Soldotna
Representative Stutes, Kodiak
Amendment 36 was killed by five Republicans who joined Planned Parenthood’s abortion advocates in the House to protect their abortion funding budget.
On April 4th and again on April 6th, abortion de-funding budget amendments like the example above were tabled (killed) by Planned Parenthood endorsed abortion advocates aided by House Republicans.
Amendment Number 36, was offered and tabled (killed) by Planned Parenthood endorsed abortion advocates aided by House Republicans.
Amendment 36 would have:
- Reduced the amount the State could spend on abortion to $0.00.
- Reduced the Medicaid budget by $1M, approximately the amount spent on abortions in 2022.
- Prohibited transfers to the Medicaid account for or relating to abortion appropriations.
Planned Parenthood endorsed abortion advocate CJ McCormick led the amendment killing charge by moving to table (kill without debate) Amendment 36. McCormick and the other Planned Parenthood endorsed abortion advocates were joined by:
Republican Majority Leader Dan Saddler of Eagle River
Representative Prax, North Pole
Representative Sumner, Wasilla
Representative Ruffridge, Soldotna
Representative Stutes, Kodiak
Amendment 36 was killed by five Republicans who joined Planned Parenthood’s abortion advocates in the House to protect their abortion funding budget.
Had Speaker Tilton led just three of her Republican colleagues in voting for life, the House Budget would look significantly different, and babies waiting to be born would have a chance of being protected from taxpayer-funded abortions.
One must ask: if Speaker Tilton were truly pro-life, and if Speaker Tilton were really interested in stopping tax payer funded abortions, then why did she allow a budget come to the floor with intent language that guarantees babies will be killed with your money and mine?
On April 6th, a similar abortion de-funding amendment was offered to HB 41, the Mental Health Budget which is part of the overall Medicaid Budget. Amendment 2 was tabled (killed) by Republican Sarah Vance of Homer and aided by Speaker Tilton in a shocking violation of House Rules and protocols. Amendment 2 fell on a 36 to 4 vote with every Republican voting to preserve their abortion FUNDING budget.
Had Speaker Tilton led just three of her Republican colleagues in voting for life, the House Budget would look significantly different, and babies waiting to be born would have a chance of being protected from taxpayer-funded abortions.
One must ask: if Speaker Tilton were truly pro-life, and if Speaker Tilton were really interested in stopping tax payer funded abortions, then why did she allow a budget come to the floor with intent language that guarantees babies will be killed with your money and mine?
On April 6th, a similar abortion de-funding amendment was offered to HB 41, the Mental Health Budget which is part of the overall Medicaid Budget. Amendment 2 was tabled (killed) by Republican Sarah Vance of Homer and aided by Speaker Tilton in a shocking violation of House Rules and protocols. Amendment 2 fell on a 36 to 4 vote with every Republican voting to preserve their abortion FUNDING budget.
As you can tell, Speaker Tilton’s interruption was planned and coordinated – especially when you watch Representative McCabe’s reactions to things not going according to plan, and then he objects to Representative Eastman’s appeal to maintain his right to speak.
Continue watching below as the drama plays out or you can watch the entire exchange HERE.
As you watch, please keep in mind that the fight is not for a simple amendment, but for the opportunity to protect babies from being killed.
Conversely, Speaker Tilton, Representatives Vance, McCabe, Johnson, and all the others that vote to break the House Rules and table the Amendment are fighting to preserve their budget that pays for babies to be killed.
Now that you have read the budget provisions that guarantee babies will be killed with taxpayer money…
Now that you have seen that votes that killed our amendments that could have protected babies from being killed…
Now that you have seen the way House Republicans flaunt the rules – the law, no less – so that they can kill an amendment that would challenge their abortion funding budget…
Please send a message to Speaker Tilton and every House Majority Member and let them know that voting to kill abortion de-funding legislation is an unacceptable betrayal of their constituents, the Republican Party, and of the babies who’s deaths will be made possible by their abortion funding budget.
DEAR READER,
Do you pray for an end to abortion in Alaska? If so, there is something urgent that you need to know…
Even though Roe v Wade is in the dustbin of history, the abortion industry is ramping up its efforts here in Alaska with more chemical abortions than we’ve ever seen along with more abortion advocates in the Legislature than at any time in Alaska’s history.
We will fight to protect babies until every child is ensured the right to life, equal protection, and equal justice as both God and our Constitution require.
This is where you come in.
With lives hanging in balance, I hope you will sign this urgent pledge and commit to stand for life!
Please take 30 seconds to add your name by clicking the button below:
DEAR READER,
Do you pray for an end to abortion in Alaska? If so, there is something urgent that you need to know…
Even though Roe v Wade is in the dustbin of history, the abortion industry is ramping up its efforts here in Alaska with more chemical abortions than we’ve ever seen along with more abortion advocates in the Legislature than at any time in Alaska’s history.
We will fight to protect babies until every child is ensured the right to life, equal protection, and equal justice as both God and our Constitution require.
This is where you come in.
With lives hanging in balance, I hope you will sign this urgent pledge and commit to stand for life!
Please take 30 seconds to add your name by clicking the button below: