This is really kind of shocking ... ICE wanted to use ICE funds to provide abortions for ICE detainees. Not enough funds, according to Napolitano, to keep those thousands of felons detained, but enough funding to provide abortions? While anchor babies are part of the immigration issue, it would seem that ICE's primary purpose would not allow funds to be used for abortions (except in the case of health issues for the mother, which would fall under health care of the detainee, as all of our prisons are required to provide health care for inmates.) Or maybe it does make sense? Abortions would preclude the need for additional expenditures for the detainees' babies.
I don't usually read this website, but saw mention of this issue on another site. So, I googled the topic, and easily found a link. I've expressed my varied views on abortion on other threads, but the issue here is not the issue of abortion, itself, it is a matter of law WRT funds appropriation for specific purposes.
Can the agencies (executive branch) simply change the intention of Congress at will? We've seen this happening with immigration already; not to mention the IRS and EPA. We'll be seeing a bunch of the same with Obamacare as well. Where is the line that an agency overreaches?Liberals are more than happy to welcome illegal immigrants to America--it's their unborn children they object to. Last week, Democrats tried to defend taxpayer-funded abortion as part of the long list of "perks" that detainees enjoy in Homeland Security's federal detention center.(Sort of in line with the trend for black babies, as 35% of abortions are black babies, while they only account for 12% of the general population.)
The issue boiled over last spring when the office of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tried to slip new guidelines past Congress that would have extended a host of benefits to illegal aliens that rival the average citizens'! And these aren't your garden variety detainees. Most of the immigrants in ICE's care are convicted criminals who were transferred out of prison, where they were serving time for other charges. Even so, the Left has fought to give these detainees the best care that (taxpayers') money can offer. Before FRC drew attention to the issue last March, ICE was even prepared to offer government-sponsored hormone therapy for transgenders!
Now, the same Homeland Security that claims it doesn't have enough money for detention beds is ready to finance abortions. As Rep. Hal Rodgers (R-Ky.) pointed out, "These are grim budget times. We don't have carte blanche for even our most important security programs." All the more reason, says Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), to put the brakes on ICE's abortion funding. Last Wednesday, Congressman Carter, Chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, introduced language to stop the agency's $46 billion funding bill from getting bogged down with the President's radical social policy.
Under the Carter amendment, co-sponsored by our friends Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) and Rep. Alan Nunnelee, (R-Miss.), Homeland Security would be barred from spending a single cent of government funding on abortion. The Committee passed a similar rider last year, but--like most appropriations measures--the abortion ban didn't carry over from the 2013 funding bill. A day after Rep. Carter offered the amendment, it passed: 25-21. Now it heads to the House floor--along with the rest of the 92-page budget. "I will always support and remain committed to preserving the sanctity of life," Carter vowed, "and as a committed member of the Pro-Life Caucus, I will continue to defend human life at all stages. The provision in this amendment will continue to ensure that federal taxpayer dollars will not fund abortion."
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, who never met an abortion debate it didn't like to distort, criticized the bill for denying access to immigrant abortions. In a press release, the country's biggest abortion cartel intentionally mischaracterized Carter's amendment, claiming that it "prevents immigrant women... from making extremely personal, medical decisions."
False. It only prevents taxpayers from funding those decisions. Women in ICE's custody are not only free to abort at outside clinics--they're assigned government "escorts" for the trip. All House leaders have done is bring Homeland Security in line with the other federal appropriations provisions that block taxpayer dollars for abortion. So it's more than a little ironic when Planned Parenthood complains, "Abortion has no business being debated as a part of a Homeland Security funding bill." We agree! In fact, abortion has no business being debated as part of any government funding bill. That's why FRC supports the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7 and S. 946), just introduced by Rep. Chris Smith and Sen. Roger Wicker.