Transcripts For CSPAN House Members At Conservative Policy Summit 20150118

Us so far. Moving from cash up front to cash upon exchange and title, it may offer a few extra days of credit. We are not allowed to put a ship mment q until we have cash in hand. It has allowed us to put the shipping queue, ship the vessel. The transfer of title takes place. That is when we need to have the cash in hand. It offers a tab it the flexibility. Eight had bit of flexible it offers a tad bit of flexibility. It will take an act of congress for us to be able to take advantage of flexible financing terms. To your answer on what we plan to do, the answer is yes, yes, yes, and yes. We have recommendations on what the bill should look like. It is very clean and it is about a page and a half and that would overturn the restrictions and work toward a pathway of liberalization. We would certainly be going up with a consistent voice and having conversations. We do not define this as a republicandemocrat issue. We are of the mind that it is bipartisan. To roberts point, i am glad to hear that you agree. The bulk of the members of congress would tell you that they do not agree with keeping the embargo in place. When he to provide the information, the flexibility have the conversation. We do believe the story will begin telling itself. We are hoping to serve as a catalyst. Again, i am an optimist. We would like to see this in 2015. Unless anyone has a burning comment, i would like to say thank you. Thank you for sponsoring this. Thank you for your participation. I hope you have thank you. [applause] some of the speakers from this weeks Heritage Foundation conservative summit. A look at the impact of the sony cyber attacks. Live at 7 00 your calls and comments on washington journal. Our guest tonight on q a on the frontline battling against infectious diseases. We have drugs right now that when given to people who are hivinfected, i could show you the dichotomy. In the early 1980s, if someone came in to my clinic with aids the median survival would be six to eight months. Half of them would be dead in a months. Tomorrow, when i go back to rounds and someone comes in to our clinic who is 20 plus years old, relatively recently infected and i put them on the combination of three drugs, i could accurately predict and say, if you take your medicine regularly, you could live in additional 55 years. If you take your medicines, you could live a normal life span, a few years less than a normal lifespan, that is a huge advance. Tonight at 8 00 on cspans q a. Remarks by four Republican House members on legislation dealing with abortion restrictions, Child Welfare providers, and advancing the religious beliefs of those opposing samesex marriage. We will hear from work matters mike kelly, and chris smith. They are followed by a Panel Discussion on strategies for dancing a legislation and Prolife Movement. This is part of a twoday summit on conservative policy hosted by the Heritage Foundation. It is about 90 minutes. I will introduce to you mark meadows, one of our great friends here at the Heritage Foundation. He is no longer a freshman of congress. He came in in 2012. And now hes a seasoned vet. And since coming into congress hes immediately taken to the conservative movement and has been always willing to be a leader for us in all the things were working on. In that time frame, 60 million abortions have taken place. 60 million. And the thing that we see happening out there across the country is that more and more people are becoming prolife. More and more people are recognizing that this isnt just a simple decision that is about one person. This is a decision about two people. And a decision about a real child. And so that tragedy has unfolded over the last 42 years. But i have great hope. And i think a lot of our speakers have great hope. And youll see the reason for that as they come up and talk. And also on january 22nd, were going to have the prolife march here on washington, d. C. I remember being a little kid and being bussed up here with my parents for that prolife march. And its always the most cold day of the year by far. But its always a great event. So if youre around and can be a part of that, i would highly recommend it. But for now, lets have congressman meadows come up and talk to us about the fetal pain bill please welcome mark meadows. [applause] well, it is a privilege to be here with you and just share a little bit from my heart as we look at the life issue and truly as we start to address this as tim was mentioning, you know its really the third stool for those that are conservative. And as we start to look at the 42nd anniversary of roe v. Wade, this is one of the few areas as a social conservative there is progress being made and hearts are being changed, lives and in this particular issue, lives are being saved. So, i wanted to just share a little bit. Youve got a panel that will be coming up that will talk about all of the technical detail. But what i want to do is give you a story of hope, a story of encouragement and also about the importance of this particular bill that will be coming up on the house floor here in a few weeks, as we look at hr36 which is the bill really designed to limit abortions for those up to and ceding 20 weeks. When i say that, have i to take you to a story that really transformed my life and made me more prolife. So, i want to take you back some 20 almost 23 years now, take you back, to when my wife was actually pregnant with our firstborn son. So, as we were there. You get excited. Then we were older, firsttime parents. So my wife, as she was carrying my son, it started getting a little bit larger out front. I started talking to my son. And when i would do that, he would move around in the womb. I could feel him press back. I could feel him kick. Then i got to the point where i would actually sing a song to him. And i would sing this song. And when i would do that, there was a response. There was no denying the fact that was life and that there was a response to me. And my wife, who had been prolife for many years fryer that, said, do you realize that it is legal for us to abort this child right now. I mean, that came as an unbelievable shock to me. And i said, well, how could that be true . Because for many people that have the argument about being prochoice, what theyre talking about is, its all about a choice. But for me, when i was in high school, we thought that that choice was within the first trimester. You know, it was only very limited. So all of a sudden my world view started to get challenged. It came to the fact that i was having to wrestle with what i knew was life, what i knew was responding to me and yet having to come to a decision on, how do i address that . Now, technology is helping millions of americans start to have that realization. We have a son oe groomogram that is third and fourth generation. Which is a vivid picture. When they showed me the sonogram of my son 23 years ago i said, which way is up . It was not real detailed. That is not the case now. Technology is starting to tell the story. When we start to tell the truth, the American People are responding. Because unlike many other things on this particular issue, people are starting to say, we need to do something about it. Now, there are studies that would suggest that a baby in the womb can feel pain at this particular point. In the process. And feel it, and feel it in such a way, and youll have technical experts tell you, but feel it in such a way, but maybe a heightened sensitivity to that pain, and yet we are all part of a very compassionate, caring country. You know, when we look at this well have a tsunami that may happen somewhere else and many of us will reach deep into our pocket to give money to help somebody so far away that well never meet to do that, and yet all of a sudden were faced with the reality of this particular issue that we need to identify and approach. And i say that because i want to make this argument more about the people than the policy. Now, were here today to talk about policy. The fact is, we will be debating this on the house floor. I expect it to pass the house as it has before. I expect it to be taken up in the senate. Hopefully well start to see the limitation on this horrific crime against the unborn against someone who doesnt have a voice, be rolled back. And yet for many of us, perhaps you like me, weve been silent for far too long. You know, its been one of those things thaw just dont talk about. You know, you make sure that you just have you your own personal convictions. But you dont talk about it. What happens is with science were now able to start talk become it in real terms in accurate termentz, and were starting to define that in a way thats never been defined before. I say that because i have a great son. It could have been, if we had different views 23 years ago, we may have made a very different decision. Now hes a student in law school and about to get married here in just a few months. And yet we see decisions being made each and every day. We also see horrific things that happen on our tv each and every day. With terrorism and everything else, we see acts of violence that we cant even describe to our kids. And yet this as well has been an act of violence. As tim had shared, some 60,000 people that have been killed since that decision 42 years ago. 60 million. Excuse me. When we look at that, its time the American People stand up and say enough is enough. Were here in the house and you have a very large prolife caucus. Its not enough to just talk about being pro life. Its time we put actions to those words. Among a number of us, there are a few champions. Youll hear from a number of them later today. Chairman chris smith has been a real advocate for life. And every single aspect of what he does. Hes a good friend of mine and works real solidly on this particular issue. But i share that because its easy to give up hope and say its not a fight worth fighting. Theres no way to win. Theres no way to accomplish it. Im here to tell you, thats not the case. Were seeing incremental changes each and every day that are making a big difference. So, i want to close with a couple other notes and one story. When we start to look at this particular issue, it is important that we understand the potential pain that so many of our neighbors and friends may have. My wife as i was sharing today i was coming here to give a speech on this, she said, did you know so and so had an abortion . Did you know this person had an abortion . And i had no idea. As they would talk together and as they would share, but some of the emotional scars that are deepseeded and lasting are still there. I see that. Thats something we dont talk about enough either. Heres what i would ask you to do. I would ask you to not give up hope. Youve heard from a lot of great speakers on the last 24 hours or so. Youve had potential candidates. Youve had unbelievable people who are active in both the senate and the house. But really were only a reflection of how active the people we represent really are. Im fortunate enough to serve one of the greatest places in the country. The beautiful mountains of Western North carolina. Some of the greatest people. But my power rests in them as your representative and as your senator, their power rests in you. So, im going to close with this particular story. Its a story about not giving up hope. Its one where we know the ending and i love to share this story because were right now celebrating the anniversary of the star spangled banner. And that anniversary really talked about the stars and stripes and where it got the beginning. For most of those that know the story, know its about ft. Mchenry. The bombarding was going over and over and over again. For 25 hours, it kept on going. And Francis Scott key, looking at that, seeing in the morning expected to see what . A white flag of surrender. And yet when he looked out that morning, what he saw were the stars and stripes still still streaming. And when we see that, we can take that vision each and every day as we sing the star spangled banner. That doesnt tell the whole story. Because the whole story really is the bombardment that was taking place there at ft. Mchenry, was because the british ships couldnt get close enough to really make those boms effective. And the reason they couldnt do that because 22 people sunk their boats in the harbor so that ship couldnt get close enough to make it effective. 22 patriots sunk their boats for a lost cause. 22 patriots were probably told by their friends, what are you doing . Its a lost cause. Youre sinking your boat pipts your livelihood. Many of them were fishermen. Yet 22 patriots decided they needed to act. Now, i share that because many of you may have friends who are telling you that youre fighting for a lost cause. And im here to tell you just as were about to sing the starspangled banner, 22 patriots did an act, we dont know their names, perhaps youre working with 20 of your fellow comrades to work on a particular issue that is not winnable might be winnable. Im here today to tell you the voice of the American People has never been stronger. Its never been stronger on this particular issue. Its never been stronger really when it comes to just letting people know they love their country and theyre willing to fight for it. I see over to my left, youre going to get to hear from a great gentleman. I have a great deal of respect for congressman mike kelly. What can we do to be more pro life and active . Im here today to ask you, are you willing to be one of the 22 who are will to stand up and work arm and arm with somebody else to fight for, perhaps, what some people call a lost cause . Because if you are on this particular issue, theres 60 million lives that could have been changed if we had just gotten to work a little sooner. Its an honor to serve you. Its an honor to be here today. I thank you so much for letting me come and share a little bit from my heart. God bless you. [applause] thank you very much congressman meadows. That was wonderful. Now i got to introduce congressman mike kelly. The Pittsburgh Tribune review refers to representative kelly as Straight Talker. Pittsburgh tribune review is my home paper. Any encounter with kelly has the ability to erupt into a pep rally for his enthusiasm and rapid fire communication. Thats great news for us because Straight Talk is what we need more of in washington, d. C. Its the duplicity and double speak people are tired of. That is just very refreshing for us. Hes establishing himself as a capable communicator and that is a very good thing. Today hes going to talk about the Child Welfare inclusion act which will protect Child Welfare providers from being discriminated against based on religious beliefs or moral contributions. The Catholic Bishop said this about kellys bill. Our religious liberty is to be enjoyed by all americans including Child Welfare providers who serve the needs of our most vulnerable, children. The inclusion act would remedy this unjust discrimination by enabling all providers to serve the needs of parents and children in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions. We are proud to be strong supporters of this piece of legislation. Please welcome the congressman to the stage. Thanks. I really appreciate that. Thank you all for being here. I spent last summer. One day i had a chance to sit down with dr. Forner at a memorial service. Really had a chance to talk to the doctor a little more. I think what heritage does is so so important. I dont know of another organization that protects the fundamental rights of who it is we are as American People. That was really important for me. And our staff, tom worked here. Isaak thong worked here, isaak smith worked here. We have a strong Heritage Foundation inside our staff. And a young lady by the name of suh and shes been working on this piece for quite some time. I think sometimes its hard for us to understand, why is it you have to enact legislation that basically just says who we are as a people. Who weve always been as a people. Yet, weve seen something morph into Something Different than we ever thought would happen. When we talk about the Child Welfare inclusion act, i really find it hard to understand that in a town where policy is so important, we sometimes let politics overrun the basic politics. It just doesnt make sense. Its not who we are as a people. Its not who we ever will be as a people. As long as theres people like heritage, we can make sure those thicks go on all the time. In fact, the opportunity for all in favoritism to none is pretty much right in the wheelhouse of what this piece of legislation talks about. I will tell you this, though in my family, my brotherinlaw david and strrnl michelle have a son eric, whos adopted. My daughterinlaw and brother don have a daughter. My brotherinlaw and sister have v. K. And taylor who are adopted. These are all people who wanted to have children. For one reason or another, they werent blessed with that. But they went to a faithbased organization in order to go through the adoption process. In our own office, tim butler, who works with us every day from erie, pennsylvania, his family at one time, at one time his mom had three foster care daughters and as timmy i didnt know this. We were at a parade one day and he said, i want you to meet my brother, zion. I said, its good to meet you. How are you doing . I didnt realize zion isnt his biological brother. Its his adopted brother through a faithbased organization. So, that brings us today. What is it about the child back, scratch my head, raise my shoulders, this cant possibly be happening during our times and our country. Why is that so important . This is so important because theres a move afoot right now. Its so it goes against everything i think we believe that if youre faithbased f youre a religious organization, in some states you wont get to use that funding. If you fundamentally believe that a child should be raised in a home, Traditional Home, with a mom and a dad, that somehow youre not the type of people who should be aloyaledlowed to do that work. Why all of a sudden are we discriminating against faithbased people. Why are we discriminating against religious organizations . What about the children that didnt have a momma or family to grow up in . Its our religious conviction. Thats just who we are. We take care of the most vulnerable. Some people just feel comfortable about saying part of our agencys work is we believe placing a child in what we consider to be a Traditional Home with a mother and father is the way we should go. Some say no. If you dont believe in some of the things we believe, then you shouldnt be allowed to do that kind of work. You say, my goodness, this is not the way it was ever designed. Why would that be a problem . Why would you be willing to exclude faithbased and religious organizations . Why would do you that . You dont believe what we believe . You believe in Something Different than we believe. So were going to penalize you for being that way. Were not going to allow you to participate or have the funding. It doesnt happen everywhere . No, it doesnt happen everywhere. But it is happening in San Francisco francisco. It is happening in illinois. It is happening in massachusetts. And its happening right here in washington, d. C. Really . Because of our rjsz convictions . Were being excluded . Were being told you cant participate . You cant look out for these children . You cant give them a home . You cant be an adoptive parent or a foster care parent . Why . Simply because you dont agree with what we state. Now, i dont know why that would be. Quite frankly, the piece of legislation that were talking about is called the allinclusive allinclusive. It excludes none. It doesnt say if you dont believe what i believe, then you should be on the outside looking in. Thats not what it says. All it says is, everybody, everybody gets a seat at table. If you want to go through a churchbased organization, a faithbased organization, then fine, thats fine. Because thats fundamentally how it all started. By the same token, if we dont stop this now, think of the implication as we go forward. I represent a district back home. Theres a place called erie, pennsylvania, and a big part of erie, pennsylvania, is prescow. They worry about sand replenishment. As the whatevers come in, the waves leave, they take part of the shore with them. The same thing is happening with our policies. Its not the first wave thats the problem. Its the continual battering of the shores thats the problem. Im talking about fundamentally what we believe. If we dont stop it now. If we dont change the tide, if we dont stand up and say who it is that we are, not just from time to time, but every day, then were going to lose. Just fundamentally who we are. Our First Amendment rights. Why would anybody be able to step in and say, no, you dont get the funding . Quite frankly ive never understood it. I dont discriminate against anybody. I really i know what i believe. I know how i was raised and i know what works. Other people have different ideas. I have no problem. This is america. Im not going to condemn you for that. Im certainly not going to exclude you from any conversation. So all of a sudden why would the tables turn . Why would we allow that to happen . I mentioned sue ann earlier. Three years ago we sat down and we started listening to what was going on. Heres what i thought, and i mean this, im a father of four. Been blessed with ten grandchildren. And i cant tell you how much i enjoyed being with them. This past christmas, the oldest is george. Theyre all santa claus people. They absolutely believe santa claus comes. Theyre so excited about it. Theyre so excited, making their lists. They have to be good. If youre not good, santa wont take care of you. But i watch their faces. And i think, how lucky am i to have that opportunity to see that . Thats the way i was raised also. But then i think about, how many children just went through this past holiday that dont have that family feeling . Dont have that table to sit at . Dont have that tree to look at. Dont have that opportunity to come down Christmas Morning and be just overwhelmed by the joy of christmas. And then the other part of it, and quite frankly, the most important part for me s to go and celebrate our saviors birth and say, yeah, its fine to be excited about santa claus but when we also understand the other part of what christmas is. Then you start to really getting meaning of it. Im an automobile dealer so i want you to understand that sometimes i Start Talking about products and i really think have you to be able to sell the features and the benefits and the value. In order to make the sale or close the sale. I want you to think about this Child Welfare inclusive. The features and the benefits in there are for children. But not only for children. Theyre also for foster parents and adoptive parents. The joy that you have out of raising children, the joy that you have out of watching them grow, the feeling that you get of having made a difference in somebodys life, it should never be exclude that because you dont believe what i believe, you dont get to do that. Federal taxes we collect over the 50 states, i dont think San Francisco or illinois or massachusetts or washington d. C. Has the right to tell you that your organization you no longer are going to participate in this funding. If we ever think the smaller fight isnt important, then were ceding who we are. It starts with one grain of sand. Have you to protect it all the time. Our piece just says this, look if you want to do that, if you want to discriminate, if you want to be that entity, heres the trouble, you lose 50 of your funding. I firmly believe until you hit people in the wallet, you can tell them, i dont think what youre doing is right. Theres a penalty for doing it the wrong way. We dont think you should be discriminatory. We think everybody should be included. Every child should have an opportunity. Every family should have an opportunity. To adopt or to be foster parents. It should not be based on religious beliefs. And so i think that as we move forward on this, i just i look at it and i think were challenged almost every day now as to who we are. We look back on it. 66 years old, i looj look back on my life and i was truly so fortunate to grow up in the best town at the best times with best parents and preachers and teachers and coaches that a child could have had. They were all people that had to come out of the great depression, had come through world war ii. Had made it through the really dark nights and had come through it basically the way most of us do, thats on both knees. My dad used to say all the time, and i can remember gathering down as a family in the bed with my parents, the five of us with my mom and dad saying our night prayers. People say, thats corny. No, thats not corny. Thats who we are. Its what we believe. I said earlier, we can never walk away from that. We can never, ever think the fight we fight today is unimportant. That somehow we allow ourselves to be marginalized or to be discredited. I will fight for everybodys rights to be human beings. In this case we will stand up and be counted. We will make sure faithbased and religious organizations are not penalized for believing what they believe. Its fundamentally who we are. Our First Amendment addresses it very clearly. I want to thank heritage for giving the opportunity to be aring here. I want to thank our staff because, have i to tell you, they do marvelous work. Three of them coming from this organization, it just is who we are. Its part of the fabric that weaves our office together. So, heritage has been a big part of what ive learned early on. Also what you all do is incredibly important. I just want you to know, theres quite a few people who believe the things we believe. We dont always get a chance to stand up and talk about it, but when we do, we have to make the most of it and youve heard, is there anything more fundamentally american than that . Thank you for the opportunity to be here. And i know i guess were going to take some questions and answers. This is pretty fundamental stuff. What im talking about is nobody, i mean nobody, is going to be able to exclude us nobody. By the same token were not saying we should exclude anybody else either. Ly tell you, the people ive already told you about, i know them. Ive seen them every day since the time they were tiny babies. Ive been to their baptisms, first communions, graduations and school plays. You would not know they were not the biological children of the people that adopt them. So, i just want to make sure we keep a very broad view of what were trying to do. If there is some questions were going to take, please. One question. First time decision is honestly, i mean this unless you hit somebody in the wallet, they dont respond. I guarantee you, theyll change. Its just its just the way i found out in my lifetime the way things work. What we say is, listen, these are federal funds that are collected, given to the states and the state passes them out. Were asking the states, dont mess with our folks. So we try to its a 15 penalty if they do those things. I would hope this starts to sink in. It started off with these four but doesnt everything start off small and then get big . Lets make sure we stand up for who we are all the time. Not just partly. Thanks so much. Tim, thanks so much. Pleasure being with you. Thank you. Tom used to work with me. Thank you, congressman. Sorry we didnt have time for more questions. Were recognizing that weve got two more great speakers here who have to vote very soon, so wed like to get them on. Our next speaker, congressman raul labrador, the lead in the house on the marriage and religious freedom act. The marriage and religious freedom act would prohibit the federal government from going after people based on their very simple belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Tremendously important piece of legislation, unfortunately. Its sad we need it, but we do need it. Were at a place in time right now in our country where we need leaders who will stand up and who will protect folks who have who basically just want religious freedom. Who want to worship and live their lives as so socalled. Congressman labrador is a leader among conservative movement. Hes a bright, young rising star in the conservative movement, who is a very communicator and often talked about as a potential leader in the future. I think all of those whispers are very warranted. Please welcome congressman labrador to the stage. Good afternoon. Its really great to be here and great to talk about these issues. Let me start by thanking heritage for putting on this summit. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and talking to you and sharing ideas what i believe will be one of the most important issues we must address. Regardless of where you stand on the political specter religious freedom is one of our foundational values. Yet, like many of you, i am deeply concerned that this Administration May begin to use the federal government to discriminate against individuals and organizations who believe in traditional marriage for religious reasons. The administration already has a history of imposing their ideas on sxrjs faithbased institutions. We know about the hhs mandate on contraceptions. We remember how the irs targeted conservative and tea party groups, trying to take away their nonprofit status as part of a coordinated agenda. We should not assume the irs or other federal agencies will be any friendlier to organizations that support and want to continue practicing traditional marriage. In fact, at the state level weve seen numerous examples how this is already moving in the wrong direction. In my district n idaho, we had a christian couple who performed over 35,000 marriages in the resort city. Recently they had to refile their tax status as a Nonprofit Religious Corporation after some in the city argued they could be compelled to issue samesex marriages. There are cases involving christian adoption and foster care. I think we heard some of those a few minutes ago. Foster care agencies that have been forced to stop providing services because they object to placing children in samesex households. Other cases include a baker, a florist, a bed and breakfast, a tshirt company, a student counselor and the salvation army. In 2013 the California Senate passed legislation that would have removed from the boy scouts of america certain state level Tax Exemptions and threatened similar groups who hold traditional views about marriage and sexual morality. It passed in california by a vote of 279 before being tabled in the state assembly. These attacks are creating a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. I realize the examples ive cited concern state law. My intent is to ensure that the federal government could not use federal law to threaten those institutions and individuals who believe in traditional marriage. Last year i introduced marriage and religious freedom act. The bill had bipartisan support and over 100 cosponsors. My looking forward to reintroducing the legislation soon and i expect robust support in congress and a robust debate. The new bill will be narrowly tailored to prohibit the federal government from inappropriately targeting organizations or individuals who hold that belief that marriage is the belief of one man, one woman. Hr3133 prohibited the federal government from making taxexempt status contingent on a groups belief about marriage. No group should be denied or Tax Exemption because it beliefs marriage is one man or one woman or sexual relations should be reserved for marriage. My bill would also ensure the federal government cannot deny or exclude a person from receiving any federal grant, contract, loan, license, certification, accreditation employment or other similar position or status. Taxexempt status isnt just for those groups who win the favor of a particular government administration. While americans are free to structure their personal relationships as state law permits, they should not penalize those who think or act differently. Protecting religious liberty and right of conference does not infringe on anyones freedom. All people should be treated with dignity and respect. To be clear, our bill will protect the religious freedom of anyone who believes marriage is the unity of one man and one woman and does not seek to take anything away from anyone. This is a great bill that conservatives, independents, libertarians can rally around. It can generate support in both parties and that can actually i think it can actually pass both houses of congress and become law. And with your support, i think it can. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. Congressman labrador. Were actually going to do it. Were going to get all these guys to their vote on time. Pretty impressive. As congressman med dose just said, congressman chris smith has been a lifelong advocate for prolife issues. Elected in 1980, serving his 19th term 18th term in the house, he spent 32 years chairing the bipartisan pro life caucus. Hes a lead advocate not just on life issues but on the issues of Human Trafficking as well. We are very excited to have him here today. Were big supporters of his legislation. Please welcome him to the podium. Thank you, tim. Thank you, heritage, for hosting this important meeting. The elections have made a huge difference. I am more optimistic than i have ever been and ive been in congress. The life issues, the respect for sanctity of human life and for marriage is something especially given the fact that this administration and this president , and he is the abortion president , we are in the process of turning this around. Of course, its been through your help and through the grassroots and the nerveending work of the Prolife Movement that has been the greatest human rights struggle every. As i think you know on 2009, president obama told lawmakers at a specially called congress that health care reform, under our plan, as he put it, no federal dollars will be used to Fund Abortion. In an 11th hour the president issued an executive order on march 24, 2010 and said, and i quote, the act maintains current height amendment restrictions governing abortion policies and extends those restrictions to newly created Health Insurance exchanges. Turns out those ironclad promises by the president himself are absolutely untrue and ranks right up there with the president s offstated deception that if you like your Health Care Insurance plan, you can deep it. Dubbed politifaxes lie of the year. At at core, the amendment has two indisputable parts. It prohibits direct funding for abortion and funding for any Insurance Plan that includes abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or the life of a mother. Obamacare violates the hyde funding by funding Insurance Plans and by paying for abortion on demand. Sdit an appalling degree of nontransparency bied Obama Administration, an extensive audit by Accountability Office found in september that 1,036 Obamacare Exchanges covered elected abortion. Again, he said that wouldnt happen. They also found separate billing of abortion of the abortion surcharge required by the act is not being enforced and the abortion funding premium again, this is in 2015 now, is being illegally rolled into the total plan cost. Health care consumers are buying little or no knowledge they are purchasing abortion subsidizing plans. In my own state of new jersey, every single plan on the exchange pays for abortion on the plan. When it comes to public funding for abortion the 2015 open enrollment is at least as bad if not worse than last year. Again president obamas solemn promise not to Fund Abortion on demand has been broken with impunity. Its not just a lie that was done once. It gets replicated year in and year out because what he said got the votes to procure enact enactment of that aggress youjly flawed legislation. Obamacare. Com obamacareabortion. Com is a website, and i encourage to you take a look at it. A very useful tool for Health Care Consumers and is created by the Family Health Research Council and charlotte loziir institute. The cover upis absolutely unnecessary, unacceptable and it is unconscionable. Consumers have a right to know abortion is not health care. It dismembers and chemically poisons defensive unborn children and hurts their mothers. And the culture of denial that refuses to look at that fact and the fact these children are killed and their mothers wounded needs to be displaced in this congress as an opportunity to bring legislation to the floor, which we will. That will allow to seek to protect and seek to educate. Last year the house passed hr7, no taxpayer funding for abortion abortion insurance full disclosure act which would end public funding for abortion while alerting in 2015, while alerting consumers which plans in 2014 had abortion in them. As you all know, harry reid refused to allow a vote on that legislation and the president issued a statement of Administration Policy saying he would veto it. This congress should be different. We hope senate will take up the legislation. We will take it up as well and hopefully this legislation will even if the president vetoes it, it will be another step and another move in the direction of finally ceasing killing of unborn children. When the legislation was going through the senate, there was a big discussion about the nelson amendment that said two separate payments had to be made by the purchaser of that health plan. One for the premium itself and one for abortion. The abortion surcharge. This administration and the gao has confirmed this, but anyone whos in it knows it as well and has a plan that includes abortion, makes no effort to enforce the law and actually has admonished and advise the providers of Health Insurance on how they can how they can conceal this. Roll it all into the premium. If they want to disclose it, can you. Certainly not in an effort to follow what the law clearly said now. Ben nelson on the floor of the senate who made it very clear and said, have you to write two checks. One to the Insurance Company for at boergs coverage and the other one for the rest of the premium. Thats not happening. That disclosure, we believe, would have made at least some difference with people saying, im not writing a check to procure the death of unborn children. Another important piece of abortion coming up is the whole issue of conscience rights. Theres a Massive Movement in the United States and worldwide to compel all of us to be complicit in abortion. No matter how much objection whether it be obgyns, Health Insurance providers, whether it be a purchaser of a premium, all of us need to be involved and we cant, triindicate ourselves from that complicity. The there was a recent large meeting at georgetown and Oneill Institute and others put out a massive book on this attack on conscience rights. And were seeing it happen here, seeing it happen everywhere. On august 22nd, california their department of managed health care issued a new decree that says, all of those plans under their authority, and thats just about every plan in california, Must Immediately effective on august 22nd, pay for abortion on demand. That move move, as i think most if not all of you know violates the weldon amendment, passed by congress repeatedly since 2004. That legislation was authored by congressman weldon of florida, a doctor himself. And it protects empty tis of all kinds, including individuals, from being compelled to be involved with abortion. The problem is, it has one flaw. We were unable to fix it for years in the appropriations process. The only remedy for an aggrieved party, an individual like a nurse in new york who was compelled to participate in a gruesome dismemberment abortion took four years for her to get any kind of relief at risk of losing her job and many others who have been compelled. In california, all the Health Insurers including catholics christian, evangelicals, every faith denomination are being told now that your plan has to pay for abortion on demand. This isnt the exchanges. This isnt obama care. This is the existing plans private sector plans and Public Interest plans like religious organizations. And the remedy is to go to the department of health and Human Services have and have their offices on civil rights adjudicate indicate the matter. Dont hold your breath on that one. The remedy also is for hhs to withhold funding in california. Do you think thats going to happen . It will not. We have legislation that with strengthen the amendment, the nonabortion discrimination act. Congressman mremg and diane black, shes the primary sponsor of it, an excellent bill weve tried repeatedly to get passed in the senate. We will pass it, i believe, in the house. That provides a right of private action so the church the individual, the nurse, the doctor, whoever it might be, can assert their very substantial rights contained within the weldon amendment so they dont have to be complicit in any way, shape or form with the killing of unborn children and the woungd of their mothers. That legislation will be upcoming soon in the house. I believe it will get a vote in the senate because it must get a vote in the senate. This is unconscionable to believe pierce are being coerced. Whats all this choice talk when youre coerceing people to be involved in abortion at every stage. Funding it, providing facility for, it enabling it or as a going back several years ago to show you this is nothing new there was an effort that on if you wanted to be an obgyn, before you were certified, there was a Clinton Administration effort to say that wannabe doctor has to perform an abortion. Otherwise you dont get certified. It was a terrible move by the Clinton Administration. Tom delay offered the amendment in the appropriations process, into a bill, that stopped that. So, this idea of coercion is imbedded in the pro abortion movement. My wife and i have been in pro life collective for 82 years. The abortion itself is coercive for the baby. It certainly hurts the mother. They want us to be come police at in it. It is a serious, serious attack by the proponents of abortion. Am i out of time . One last thing is, our leadership, and i want to thank Kevin Mccarthy for, one, keeping us in session for the march for life. Something we had pleaded with previous leaderships and didnt always get, so that members can talk and those who march in the march for life can talk to their individual senators and house members. Hes also scheduled for next week. Important legislation authored by trent franks that will do what some states have already done and that is ensure that capable unborn children defined in the bill as approximately 20 weeks, i do believe pain can be felt before there is some scientific evidence, but at least at 20 weeks onward, those children would not be subjected to d xs that are horrific procedures and violence. We know beyond a recent doubt children feel it, at least in the beginning. Dr. Sonny anaud that was involved in anesthesia for unborn children and many others that have come forward and said, when they do prenatal surgery, microsurgery and do things that are lifeenhancing for the unborn child, there needs to be anesthesia because we now know the Child Experiences pain and its pain that exceeds what even a newborn or 5yearold or people of our age might experience because the pain receptors are so close to the skin. And to think that that child would be subjected to a process, a procedure that is anything but benign, that dismembers the arms, legs, decapitates, it is barbaric, the d x methods, as are other methods. At least under this method under 20 weeks they would not be permitted except in the most extreme cases. Thats a huge step in the right direction. Trent franks was the prior sponsor last congress. We got a majority vote in the house and this time it will come up and i i believe next week, it will pass. Because people are waking up. The culture of denial is being replaced with culture of enlightenment and abortion is violence against children and in injure yous to moms. Thank you for your passion. Were happy to be fighting with you. Hopefully you make your vote. Now well take the two panels we had combined for this afternoon and two panels we had this afternoon and combine them into one. I would like to invite our panelists. Ryan anderson is the will yaj e. Simon fellow in religion and free society here at the Heritage Foundation. Kerri kupec is from Alliance Defending freedom. Chuck donovan is president of Charlotte Lozier and heritage alum. And sarah torre is policy analyst here at Heritage Foundation. We would like to have each give ab introductory comment. Well go with sarah, chuck kerri and ryan. Any members you have for the panel, can you ask afterwards. Ill focus in on basically the details of some of representative chris smiths remarks. Chuck here has done an incredible amount of work on the 20week bill. Hell go more into detail with that. I would like to specifically focus on the last piece of legislation that representative smith mentioned, the abortion nondiscrimination act. This is not just an issue in california, as he mentioned. Over the past five months, both california and d. C. Have passed mandates and pieces of law that would basically force prolife americans to enroll in a health plan and pay for a health plan that covers surgical abortions. Over the past year or so weve had a lot of discussion about the hhs mandate, about being forced to provide coverage of the abortion, inducing drugs. Here were talking about surgical abortions. The kind of abortions representative smith and meadows were just talking about. These dangerous and very violent procedures. This is a clear violation of conscience for people who believe and know the truth that these children are human beings, who have an inherent life to right, inherent worth and dignity dignity. Weve done a couple interviews here with a couple of churches actually, in california, who are being forced to provide coverage of surgical abortions even though it goes against their deeply, deeply held beliefs. Just this past month in d. C. The council there also passed a bill that would force employers to cover elective abortions in their plans. There are no religious exemptions to what is called the Reproductive Health nondiscrimination act, a very illnamed act. It basically would prohibit employers from discriminating in any compensation terms, conditions, privileges of employment on the basis of an individuals Reproductive Health decisionmaking. Which includes very specifically the termination of a pregts pregnancy. This is a clear violation of what representative smith mentioned as the weldon amendment that protects the conscience rights of americans and all americans to be forced to participate in, whether its through just providing Health Care Coverage or actually participating in abortion. Protects their conscious rights not to be forced to that. It would provide the ability of for individuals to go into court to have that rectified. You wouldnt have to wait on what is basically the dmv of conscience in the department of health and Human Services that takes about one to three years to actually respond to complaints of having your conscience rights violated. So, this is one of the primary things the Prolife Movement will be working on this year. Really marks a trying to get back to a truce in the debate over abortion over the past 40 years has been regardless of what you think about it, politically or morally that we should all agree that no one should be forced to pay for or participate in an abortion. Thats what this law protects against and hopefully a slight tweak to it will protect against even more. Ill let chuck talk more about the 20week bill as well. Thank you, sarah. I want to thank the Heritage Foundation for reserving time today for discussion of the one of the most important pieces of legislation, i think, congress has ever considered. Why is there capable legislation pending in the congress . Probably the chief insta gags of that was the trial of dr. Kermit gausnal several years ago, a physician in philadelphia who committed atrocities regulated in the state where he ended the lives of babies on the brink, being able to survive outside the womb, a couple of whom he was convicted capable of living did live outside the womb. And he ended their lives. In the international perspective, this is one of the studies the Lozier Institute has done, and the paper i recommend to everyone by angelina nguyen, we stand in the International Stage as a radical nation with respect to our abortion law. I dont think Many Americans reflect on this, but there are only four countries in the world where abortion on an elective basis is permitted up until birth. Canada is the other democracy that allows this. The other two countries are north korea and the peoples republic of china. There are three other countries that permit it after 20 weeks, so even if we certainly Hope Congress will pass this legislation, will still be among the seven most permissive nations in the world with respect to these laws. Its a mark of shame upon us. I like to think about all the times people a little left of center in political life ahave pointed to International Standards and said, whether its torture, whether its capital punishment, whether its a whole set of rights some of which we have contests over, we should adopt the international norm. Well, when it comes to this issue, the United States is radically out of step with the international norm. And my final point about this, i think its pretty straightforward, we never got to the National Policy on abortion by an act of the American People. It was done by our courts, same way canada did it. And i think its apparent from the 230 prolife laws passed this policy never would have been adopted by the consent of the American People acting through the congress or through state legislatures. So, what the congress is doing by addressing the scientifically sound situation of paincapable children, is beginning the process of redressing a grievance when this issue was taken out of the realm of recent debate and turned into an issue for judges to decide. In this case, they made a very radical call that the American People are signaling time and again, went way too far. Its not where we are. Its not our character. We need something better. So, hopefully acting beginning next week, the congress will adopt this legislation and put the American People and legislation back on sounder footing in defense of vulnerable children. My name is kerry kupek. I work for Alliance Defending freedom, which is a nonprofit First Amendment law firm. Right now were seeing a very concerning trend. Within the areas of religious freedom and speech. And as representative labrador alluded to, were seeing the government coming in and essentially strongarming private citizens to promote or celebrate messages with which their religion and conscience just dont allow them to do. Were seeing this specifically in the area of samesex weddings. I would like to share a story of one of our clients, which were waiting for any minute from a ruling from the judge out in Washington State, this is our 70yearold. Shes been in the floral industry for 40 years. The floral industry for 40 years. She loves designing floral arrangements. This is her life and passion. She had a long Term Customer named rob identified as a homosexual and he and his partner would come in. She provided flowers for them for i think about nine years. They developed a close relationship and she will tell you that theyre good friends. Well rob decided to get married to his partner and they came in and they asked her if she would do the flowers for their wedding. This was not an easy decision for her. She has a close relationship with this man and she would tell you if she was here she really agonized over it. Its easy to talk about these things from a distance. But when youre close to someone who you care about and love, this is a hard decision. But she prayed about it and as she told rob when he came in because of her relationship with jesus, she said she couldnt do it. She felt badly about it but she couldnt do it because of her faith and conscience. Rob said he understood. Disappointed, she referred him to other florists in the area, they hugged and that was it. Well, the attorney general got wind of this in the media and decided to sue her. Unfortunately right after that rob and his partner decided to sue her as well. We have baker, florists, photographers, people who have an event venue that host wedding, this is a unique lawsuit and its very concerning because the attorney general is currently suing bernel in her business form and in her personal capacity. If she loses this case, she just doesnt stand to lose her business and her source of income. Shes going to lose her house and everything she owns. This 70yearold woman who took over this floral business from her mother who had alzheimers this is her love and passion. Because she holds a christian view on marriage is now looking to lose her house. The judge just ruled last week this this suit can go forward. But this is something very concerning because i think wed all agree if the government can force any one of us to celebrate, promote a message which our faith and conscienceness says, surely they can force us to do anything. And right now the hot topic message im sorry discussion is samesex. But in 20 years from now who is to say what thats going to be. At that point its too late. The door will be open and the precedent set and the government can proforce anyone to promote a message thats at odds with their believes. I want to say a couple of things about the two pieces of legislation that were spoke on. The Child Welfare inclusion act and the freedom act are common sense pieces of legislation that more or less protect the way that america has operated for the past 200plus years. They take away nothing from anyone and they protect the rights of americans who believe that marriage is a union of man and a woman and they seek to lead their lives in accordance with that belief, to run their businesses in accordances with that belief, and to run their businesses in accordance with that belief, free from government harassment, pnlts andenalties and coercion. These are bills that should garner support from all americans whether youre personally in favor of redefining marriage or whether you prefer the historic definition of marriage. All americans should agree that the government shouldnt be discriminating against americans to believe what every american has believed about marriage up until a decade ago. This is something the nation can rally around to find a peaceful coexistence, a way of pluralism as we work through the issue. The story that keri just told us out f Washington State need not happen. It should not happen. We should see policy enacted at the state level and the local level. The piece of legs las vegas that representative labrador will introduce in this congress would prevent it from happening from the federal government. Prevent the irs from stripping someones tax status and prevent the government from discriminating against institutions who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Likewise on represent kellys bill, the Child Welfare inclusion act this will hopefully prevent some of the discrimination weve seen at the state level. This uses this funding neckism to say in the state is going to discriminate against a cast lick adoption agency, theyre going to lose 15 of their federal money. You cant take federal money and discriminate against adoption agencies that are seeking hoepgs for married moms and dads for children. This does nothing to help children who need families. All it does a score a point in an adult culture war. These are good pieces of legislation. But i want to close just by saying one thing that kind of unifyies all of the issues on this panel. And it unifyies it with the theme of the policy summit which has been opportunity for all, favoritism for none. One way, probably the primary most foundational way that the government can protect opportunity for all is by protecting the opportunity to be born. The reason that chris smith spoke about the 20week paincapable abortion ban is to protect every childs right to life. Right now the common sense piece of legislation is to protect the childs wieth to life at week 20. Ideally we want to see every child welcomed in life protected by the law. Thats what opportunity for all looks like. And preventing favoritism, favoritism to anyone, favoritism to the abortion lobby couldnt use the government to force other people. On the marriage front how do we protect funt for all . Its by protecting the institution of marriage, to maximize the likelihood that every child has the opportunity to be raised by his or her married father. How do we fight against favoritism by some . By preventing the government by forcing the evangelical florist to violating her believes. No one has the right to have the Government Force other people into celebrating their relationships. Thats one way of looking at how the phrase unifies the issue. With that well open it to the floor for any questions. The members of congress had to go back to vote but the Panel Panelists will do our best to answer your we. You in the back. The opportunity for all, why should that exclude the children who are conceived in rape . In theory, in a practice it shouldnt. I think we all can name at least, if youve read any large body of literature, a wide number of people who were conceived in rape. Their stories are as compelling as anyone. I like to point out the fact that were all agreed that in terms of planned pregnancyies and so forth, a good 15 to 20 in a room, it was a bit of a surprise to parents. Im not asking you to hold up your hand. You may not know. But if you live any length of time, you know that ideal conception is a little bit different from the real world. We want to translate our revulsion, our appropriate revulsion, complete revulsion at several things, that rape exists, thats largely underreported. It is certainly underprosecuted. In terms of things that are prosecuted, its exceptionally grueling for the woman to have to go through a trial in which everything about her will be questioned. And thats reflected in all of the data. So theres a tendency, i think and its proven in polls, i suppose, that the public want to make an exception there. They dont want the woman to have to go through that. They also think that the government really cant get at protecting the life of the child. My question for people who say its okay. Would you go back and take the life of ethel waters . How about jesse jackson. Well were conservatives. No humor is permissible here. At the end of the day we protect life because it is life. At the end of the day when we treat children equally accepting some, i think our country is cheapened by that. And we do need to find a way to speak about it and a way to speak about that we passionately care about the fact that there is no much demeaning of women in our society and that rape is a prevalent problem. There is just something that we have to do an awful lot better job because were harming women and really disrespect them at all levels by saying these crimes cannot be prosecuted well, we cant prevent them and cant protect the unborn child who is occasionally conceived in these situations, which certainly happens. Yes, sir. Here and then here. Privileged status in the United States. I would like to respond. The big problem with that statement is that we cherish and value religious freedom in this country. Thats the reason the country was founded in the first place. People came oef because they didnt have that freedom anymore. To say thats what is going on with that, it undermines the very core of this nation. But also, its a big concern. Right now were seeing a complete unbalance. There should be a balance. Its tricky. Everyone has First Amendment rights. How does this play out sometimes. This is where it can get challenging. Right now were seeing the scales sort of go like this where people who have deeply held religious believes and convictions and just these these things that they have lived out their entire lives are suddenly being told by judges and state governments too bad doesnt matter. Your First Amendment rights dont matter anymore. Thats a big problem. Thats why the freedom of restoration acts, what they do is restore balance in the problems and they allow it to go to court, if it should go there, and that gets all diced out. Right now theres a complete lack of balance and a complete discrimination, really effort against those people who live according to their faith and conscience. One comment to that. Ill read you the last two sentences sentences. It says i support the right of people to believe what they do say what they wish in their pews, homes and hearts. But outside of those places you must put up with me just as i put up with you. And there are two fundamental problems with this. The free exercise of religion, what the founders intended to protect is not limited to our homes, pews and hearts. Michelle obama said this best when he said religious faith is also what we do monday through sad. Its not just showing up on sunday for a good meal and music. Its what we do monday through saturday as well. We seeing theres a redefinition of religion to the mere freedom of worship. That what you do sunday morning in your church or home or heart, thats protected. But once you step out into the marketplace and the public scare square, you have to leave your faith behind. The First Response of the nimes is that youve simply gotten the law wrong. The second, you must put up with me just as i put up with you. But thats not really what hes asking for. What hes saying is ahave a right to force you to bake my wedding cake, take my wedding photos, this that and the other thing. The live and let live position here is the position of keris client. Shes saying im not going to interfere with you and your wedding ceremony. Just dont make me complicit in it. Shes shes not saying no baker in washington can bake them a wedding cake. In this case its making the floral arrangements. Because these cases involve so in professionals. And the pins. Ed solution is a live and let live solution in which if youre in favor of samesex wedding, bake the cake or take the flowers. But if youre against them dont bake the cake. The bills that the representatives have mentioned would help define that situation. Were going to go right here. This is a complicated question. Bear with me. I know that religious conservatives keep expressing indick nancy about having to support latex barriers that hinder the movement but they seem to have no problem wanting the taxpayers wanting to spend billions of dollars on steel and concrete barriers. Would not a better use of latex preclude having to spend more on seal and concrete layer along our borders . Why do they want to be open to the creation of new human life if they decide that life is such a nuisance we have to build expensive barriers to control the movement of that life. Ill take a stab at that. I think one of the main things that governments do is to protect our National Security and part of that is to protect our national boundaries. Protecting the border is a legitimate function of government. We take no position here at the Heritage Foundation about the morality of contraception and its completely legitimate for people to have sues about it without the government coercing them. The problem with the mandate the good thing about the hobby lobby ruling is that the government would trying to control people and right now we see the Little Sisters of the poor are still in federal court seeing the Obama Administration because the Obama Administration is coercing them about their believes about contraception. It is appropriate for the government to care about our National Security and our borders. Yes, right here. Thank you so much. Could you briefly comment probably ryan and keri on the recent expansion of states writs become legal to have samesex marriage due to the supreme courts inaction and kind of where were headed from here with that . I think it goes back to the idea of government coercion. And the thing is, the big picture, taking a step back, again from samesex marriage and everything else, if the government can come in and force someone to celebrate a message, to paint a picture, to design a tshirt, to create a floral arrangement, to bake a cake that has to promote something that is completely at odds with their faith, were heading for big trouble. Right now that looks samesex marriage is really something that is right there. Its the hot button issue. For instance, in colorado our client, jack, a baker, Masterpiece Cake shop, the Civil Rights Commission out there actually compared him to a nazi on a slave owner for declining to bake a wedding cake for a sairks couple. This guy has his shop closed on sundays. He doesnt create halloween goodies, i guess and now hes being compared to a nazi. This is a big problem and its very concerning. And again, its a speech issue. Its religious freedom issue. With the government coming to force them to do that, who is to say in 20 years what the government can force any of us to do. And the smaller question of what are the future of the state marriage laws, there are really two questions in this debate. One is who what is marriage and then the other is who gets to decide what marriage is. Marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives. Unelected judges should not be striking down good state marriage laws and then redenining marriage for that state. Thats what weve seen in a host of court cases over the past two years is people went to the polls, debated, voted about marriage, defined what the marriage is and then unelected judges threw those votes out. The right to vote, be a member a participant in the political process has been discarded by the courts. What we would like to see is the courts to respect the Constitutional Authority of citizens and their elected representative to make marriage policy and we would like to see the citizens make the marriage policy based upon the truth of what marriage is as a union of a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, a mother and a father. Other questions. Yep. All the way back here. With millennials being brought up on a steady dead by of political correctness, my concern is the issues youre talking about, were dying off you know, like the generations that care about this, theyre dying off. And so we have these millennials now. How are you guys winning them over with this. I dont think the idea of saying that marriage is between a man and a woman to a 20yearold and i had my niece just recently freak out when i said that, like i was a horrible person for saying that and old and draconian. How are you making them understand were not bad people because we have certain religious convictions or certain traditional values . Ill take a first stab at that. I notice you directed that question on the marriage side of thing and not the right to life side of thing. All right. I would put it this way. I could envision someone asking a question very much like your right after the roe v. Wade situation, look at all of the young people, theyre turning against you on the right to life. The only people opposed to abortion are the elderly and a generation from now there would be a Prolife Movement. That could have been a possibility but instead courageous prolifers got to work. 42 years later, next week, well have another march for life. And when you look at this youll see several hundred thousand people marching and the vast majority of them will be millennials. Thats how its been more or less since the beginning. Whats amazing right now is when you look at the Public Opinion polling on abortion, my generation is more prolife than my parents generation. So theres in reason why the same thing cant happen on the question about marriage. My generation has never had to think through very critically what marriage is. Weve largely lived in a culture thats made a mess of marriage. We come of age of the sexual revolution, after the introduction of nofault divorce where the majority of our contemporaries are born outside of marriage. Its not surprising that were confused about what marriage is. But thats no reason to give up on it. Serious work can be made