Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Abortion Amendment Bill”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1995

House refuses to remove ban on abortions in overseas military hospitals.

On June 15 (1995), the House voted 300-126 to adopt the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bill (HR 1530), which approves $267 billion for fiscal year 1996. During debate, members rejected an amendment to maintain the current policy allowing privately funded abortions at overseas military hospitals. Offered by pro-choice Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the amendment was defeated 196-230; the National Security Committee had rejected an identical proposal in a 20-32 vote on May 24. The final bill revises the existing statutory ban on the use of agency funds to "perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered" by explicitly expanding it to encompass "medical treatment facilities or other facilities of the [DOD]." In previous years, the prohibition on non-life-saving abortions at overseas military hospitals was implemented through a 1988 agency memo interpreting the funding ban to extend to military facilities outside of the continental US. In January 1993, President Clinton reversed that interpretation.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1994

House subcommittee rejects effort to remove abortion coverage.

On May 12, (1994) a subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee voted 16-11 in support of retaining abortion coverage in the President's proposed health care plan. With its vote, the Labor/Management Relations subcommittee rejected an amendment by Representative Ron Klink (D-PA), which would have allowed insurers to cover abortions only in cases of forcible rape or incest, or life endangerment. Two Republican Representatives joined 14 Democrats voting against the amendment, while 3 Democratic Representatives were among the 11 people supporting the Klink amendment. The subcommittee also defeated an amendment introduced by Representative Dick Armey (R-TX), which would have prohibited any language in a health care reform bill from overruling constitutional state laws restricting abortion. 14 subcommittee members voted against the Armey amendment; 11 voted in favor. The subcommittee is not expected to act on a final health care measure before the Memorial Day recess. In related news, a Veterans' Affairs House subcommittee voted 11-8 on May 11 to prohibit the performance of abortions at Department of Veterans' Affairs Hospitals or the coverage of abortion services by VA funds. The amendment was introduced in the Hospitals and Health Care subcommittee by Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ). Neither subcommittee action represents a final decision on abortion coverage in health care reform and none of the 5 Congressional committees considering health reform is expected to finalize their proposals before the Memorial Day recess. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee started work on health care reform on May 18. The Senate Finance Committee has only been meeting privately thus far, while neither the full House Education and Labor Committee nor the House Energy and Commerce Committee has met.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1997

Ohio House approves two restrictive abortion bills.

A bill prohibiting the use of state funds to pay for state employees' health benefits related to "nontherapeutic abortions" passed the House on September 9 by a vote of 60-34. The measure, HB 395, defines a "nontherapeutic abortion" as a procedure performed when the life of the mother would not be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term; the bill was amended to exempt victims of rape and incest from the funding restriction. Under HB 395, the state would pay for benefit plans that allow state employees to purchase an optional rider for abortion coverage. Also on September 9, the House passed HB 421 by a vote of 66-28. The measure amends Ohio's informed consent law for abortion by requiring a physician, but not necessarily the same physician who will perform the procedure, to meet with the patient in person and in a private setting 24 hours prior to the procedure. Just before the vote was taken, an amendment was offered and approved 68-26 which changes Ohio's parental notification law to parental consent. Both bills have been referred to the Senate for consideration.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1994

Anti-choice amendment to foreign funding bill fails in Senate.

In a 42 to 58 roll call vote on July 14, the Senate rejected an anti-choice amendment introduced by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) during floor debate on the fiscal 1995 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The amendment would have proscribed the use of federal dollars for lobbying foreign governments to change their abortion policies. Among the activities that would have been prohibited were efforts by federal agencies and officers of the executive branch, including support for resolutions or participation in activities of multilateral organizations that seek to change or alter abortion laws. In addition, the amendment sought to forbid the use of federal funds by any multilateral or private organization that seeks to alter abortion laws or policies. Many members of the Senate opposed the amendment because it would have restricted United States involvement in the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which will be held in Cairo, Egypt, in September 1994. The amendment was also seen as an attack on the Clinton Administration's policy that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1993

Bioethical catch-22: the moratorium on federal funding of fetal tissue transplantation research and the NIH revitalization amendments.

In 1988, a moratorium on the use of federal funds for fetal tissue transplantation research (FTTR) halted the promise of a cure for millions of Americans suffering from Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and other debilitating conditions. Since the moratorium began, private and international experimentation continues with mixed success. In the foreground, however, the debate rages over federal funding for fetal tissue transplantation from induced abortions into humans. In the House of Representatives and the Senate, the debate culminated with the passage of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Amendments. In addition to authorizing NIH programs, the $5.4 billion bill included measures designed to overturn the moratorium on federal funding for the transplantation research. Brimming with controversy, the bill was forwarded to the White House where it met President Bush's promised veto. The veto was sustained when the House failed to rally the two-thirds majority vote necessary to override a veto, leaving the moratorium intact and the controversy alive. Modified measures were introduced in both Houses of Congress, but a Senate filibuster in the last hours of the session foreclosed a second veto and placed the bill on the 1993 calendar. The field of fetal tissue research, currently a fraction of human health research but with the potential for a six billion dollar industry, is the focus of inevitable controversy. FTTR, as a sub-field, presents a volatile combination of the politics of abortion, the international research race, and the cries of millions of Americans suffering from Parkinson's disease and other crippling debilitations. Thus, using fetal tissue as a potential cure commands the interest and the passion of many. FTTR from induced abortions distinguishes itself from federally approved fetal tissue research because it connects a potentially beneficial health pursuit with a critically divisive moral issue of our day--abortion. By its very nature, FTTR cannot automatically enjoy the approval given to other research pursuits, primarily because at its very core lies an unresolved ethical issue. This issue is found in the connection between the procedures of aborting the fetus, harvesting the tissue, and transplanting it into a needy recipient. Unlike transplantation from ectopic pregnancies or spontaneous abortions, which are permitted by the ban, FTTR directly links decisions and procedures immersed in the moral controversy over induced abortion. This Comment outlines the debate over the transplantation research affected by the moratorium on the use of federal funds for FTTR. Whether fetal tissue from induced abortions should be procured for transplantation into humans, and if so, how its use can be regulated is a significant contemporary challenge for public policy makers. Part I of this Comment delineates the formation of public policy on the issue. Part II explains the content of the NIH Amendments as a new direction for public policy. Part III discusses the potential benefits and risks of federal funding of FTTR. Finally, part IV addresses whether the executive ban or the legislative measure is a sound, farsighted public policy.

Aborted Fetus↗