Republicans have been so focused on tax reform that they don’t want to think about the next crisis barreling down the track. Even if the GOP manages to pass its IRS overhaul today, there’ll be precious little time to celebrate now that there’s another government funding fire to put out. Friday’s deadline is breathing down everyone’s necks — with a new batch of shutdown rumors making the rounds.

As if the Democrats’ demands weren’t tricky enough to navigate, GOP leaders complicated matters with the deals they cut over tax reform. “Each side has promised its members things that won’t fly in the other chamber,” Politico warns. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) got liberal Republican Susan Collins (R-ME) on board with the legislation by giving his word that the Senate would hold a vote on an Obamacare bill that would “reimburse insurers for giving discounted deductibles and copays to low-income patients.” The idea, hatched by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA), was already controversial with Republicans. But now that word is getting around that the plan is an open door to taxpayer-funded abortion coverage, the legislation is toxic.

“Simply put, it’s a stone-cold non-starter without the Hyde language, as all conservatives will feel pressure to oppose,” said one House GOP appropriations aide. Even if the Alexander-Murray proposal could squeak through the Senate, it’s dead-on-arrival in Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) chamber, where the House leader said he isn’t bound to uphold a deal he was never a part of. After all, most conservatives already opposed the idea of keeping Obamacare afloat, especially when, as the Congressional Budget Office points out, it’s a “windfall for insurance companies.” “Leadership might be able to peel off some opposition by adding [pro-life protections],” the House aide went on, but the issue will be a flammable one regardless.

At least 60 national, state, and local groups agree and sent a clearly worded warning to the Senate. In a letter to all 100 of the chamber’s members, FRC and others made it quite clear: “We are strongly opposed to Obamacare stabilization funding unless amended so such funds cannot be used for plans that include elective abortion. In addition, we will oppose any larger legislative package that includes stabilization funds for abortion-covering plans.” Our friends at Susan B. Anthony List are prepared to join us to take Congress to the mat over the issue, shutdown or no shutdown. “Let’s be very clear about this: A vote for Alexander-Murray (which is not covered by the Hyde Amendment) would not only be a vote to sustain the largest abortion expansion since Roe, but would also be voting to directly appropriate tax dollars for insurance that covers abortion,” they argued.

A much better idea would be to pass the alternative by House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Senate Finance Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT), which states up front that their plan does include Hyde-like language. For Sen. Hatch, this has been a concern since Obamacare was first debated. The Federalist’s Christopher Jacobs reminds everyone that Hatch sounded the alarm about this deadly loophole back in 2009. “Obamacare’s abortion funding restrictions are ‘significantly weaker’ than the Hyde Amendment — a provision designed to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion since 1976 — making them ‘completely unacceptable’ in Hatch’s view and in the view of most pro-lifers.

Now, ironically, some of the more moderate Senate Republicans are trying to persuade everyone that this problem doesn’t exist. They say that the administration can "fix this,” the same phony reassurance offered to Rep. Bart Stupak by Barack Obama. Obviously, we’re glad that Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is enforcing the “separate” abortion surcharge requirement for federally subsidized plans. That helps with transparency about the coverage, but the accounting gimmick that’s in place now assumes that taxpayer dollars are subsidizing plans with elective abortion coverage in the first place. Republicans criticized Stupak in 2009 for caving to these same claims that the White House could fix this. Why would they fall for that same line now? Echoing the sentiment of most pro-lifers, Jacobs says it’s offensive. “Senate Republicans should not attempt to insult voters by pretending that those efforts will succeed legally, or that the ‘completely unacceptable’ abortion ‘protections’ Hatch described in 2009 are now sufficient.”

Fortunately, the speaker gets it. Politico’s John Bresnahan tweeted yesterday that “Ryan also told House Rs that Alexander-Murray won’t pass House without Hyde abortion language.” Help send your senators that same message by calling their offices (202-224-3121) and emailing them before Friday’s deadline.

Originally published here.

In Illegals’ Case, ACLU Takes One for the Teen

Pro-lifers were worried that if the government facilitated the abortion of an illegal teen, it would create an opening for other moms to demand the same. It didn’t take long for the Left to prove them right.

When the ACLU scurried Jane Doe away for the procedure early one October morning, the Justice Department was outraged. Although the courts had given the green light for the abortion, the DOJ was still in the middle of an appeal. To stop the DOJ from filing it, the ACLU is being accused of lying to Justice officials about the timing of the appointment. “The government asked to be kept informed of the timing of Ms. Doe’s abortion procedure, and one of respondent’s counsel agreed to do so,” the Department argued. In a rare and commendable move to hold the ACLU accountable, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s team is taking the matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they’re demanding disciplinary action.

In the end, though, the 17-year-old got the abortion: destroying her innocent unborn baby and effectively turning the United States into a sanctuary country for abortion. Now, at least two more illegal immigrants want to follow in Doe’s footsteps. In a pair of lawsuits, anti-life activists are lobbying the courts to give these minors — who didn’t enter the country legally — access to abortion (potentially funded by taxpayers). On Monday, a federal judge was all too quick to comply, insisting that if these girls were “forced” to “remain pregnant against their will” (as the ACLU phrased it), they “will both suffer irreparable injury in the form of, at a minimum, increased risk to their health, and perhaps the permanent inability to obtain a desired abortion to which they are legally entitled.”

The ACLU’s own terminology in this case (“pushed further into their pregnancies”) shows the pro-abortion lobby for what it is, FRC’s Travis Weber points out — “a morally bankrupt cause in which harm is good, up is down, dark is light, and death is life. Such a perspective is completely bereft of moral substance, and reveals a callousness toward human life which we will look back on 50 years from now and ask: What have we done?”

Trump’s HHS, which is the agency overseeing the girls’ care, released a statement after the decision expressing their frustration with the judge’s activism. “We are deeply disappointed in the decision to grant a temporary restraining order that will compel HHS to facilitate abortions for minors when they are not medically necessary. HHS-funded facilities that provide temporary shelter and care for unaccompanied alien minors should not become way stations for these children to get taxpayer-facilitated abortions.”

Even so, the White House isn’t giving up. After Monday’s ruling, the administration continued to argue that it “has strong and constitutionally legitimate interests in promoting its interest in life, in refusing to facilitate abortion, and in not providing incentives for pregnant minors to illegally cross the border to obtain elective abortions while in federal custody.” Despite a narrow 24-hour window for appeal, Sessions’s attorneys did. Now they await the fate — not just of their case but of two innocent lives who should have never had to fight for safety on American soil to begin with.

Originally published here.

Welcome to Heritage, Kay Coles James

The Heritage Foundation has a new leader at the helm — and she’s no stranger to FRC! Kay Coles James, a deeply respected voice in the conservative movement, has been tapped to lead one of the most prominent conservative think tanks in DC. James, who worked under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, also served as vice president at FRC during the Gary Bauer years and at the Regent University School of Government.

After heading up Heritage’s search committee for Jim DeMint’s replacement, the Washington Examiner explains the almost comic turn of events. “James actually ran the search committee earlier this year, a process she said employed ‘more than 200 names.’ Eventually, that search yielded one name: hers.”

Those of us in the conservative movement couldn’t be happier. Our coalitions have crossed paths with Kay for years and we’ve appreciated the valuable part she’s played in so many Republican administrations, most recently helping Donald Trump’s Office of Management and Budget transition team. Congratulations to Kay and The Heritage Foundation! We look forward to continuing our partnership on some of America’s most important issues.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.