District of Columbia: A Brief Review of
Provisions in District of Columbia
Appropriations Acts Restricting the Funding
of Abortion Services
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy
July 31, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41772
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
District of Columbia Appropriations Acts Restricting the Funding of Abortion Services
Summary
The public funding of abortion services for District of Columbia residents is a perennial issue
debated by Congress during its annual deliberations on District of Columbia appropriations.
District officials have cited the prohibition on the use of District funds as another example of
congressional intrusion into local matters. Since 1979, with the passage of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act of 1980, P.L. 96-93 (93 Stat. 719), Congress has placed some
limitation or prohibition on the use of public (federal or District) funds for abortion services for
District residents. For instance, when Congress passed and the President signed the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act of FY2010, the city was allowed to use its own funds, but not
federal funds, for such services.
Subsequently, in public laws appropriating funds for the District of Columbia for FY2011 and
FY2012, Congress included provisions prohibiting the use of both District and federal funds for
abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother was endangered.
In an effort to reach final agreement on a FY2011 budget, in order to avert a government-wide
shutdown, the Obama Administration and Senate and House leaders agreed to include a provision
in H.R. 1473, a bill making full year appropriations for FY2011, prohibiting the District of
Columbia from using federal and District of Columbia raised funds for abortion services, except
in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life was endangered. The inclusion of the provision
generated protest by city officials on the grounds that the restriction on the use of city funds is a
violation of home rule. The bill, including the abortion services provision, was signed into law on
April 15, 2011, as P.L. 112-10. Congress continued this prohibition on the use of District and
federal funds for abortion services with the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2012, P.L. 112-74, which was signed by the President on December 23, 2011.
The authority for congressional review and approval of the District of Columbia’s budget is
derived from the Constitution and the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government
Reorganization Act of 1973 (Home Rule Act). The Constitution gives Congress the power to
“exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” pertaining to the District of Columbia. In
1973, Congress granted the city limited home rule authority and empowered citizens of the
District to elect a mayor and city council. However, Congress retained the authority to review and
approve all District laws, including the District’s annual budget.
This report includes a brief overview of the District of Columbia appropriations process and a
discussion of the current debate and legislative history of the abortion provisions included in
District of Columbia appropriations acts. It will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
District of Columbia Appropriations Acts Restricting the Funding of Abortion Services
Contents
Recent Developments ...................................................................................................................... 1
Congressional Oversight of the District of Columbia...................................................................... 2
Appropriations Process and Components ........................................................................................ 2
Abortion Provision in Appropriations Acts ..................................................................................... 2
Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds: 1979-1988............................................................... 3
Restrictions on the Use of Federal and District Funds: 1989-1993........................................... 3
Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds: 1994-1995............................................................... 3
Restrictions on the Use of District and Federal Funds: 1996-2009........................................... 3
Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds: 2010........................................................................ 4
Current Congress ............................................................................................................................. 4
Restrictions on the Use of Federal and District Funds: 2011 and 2012..................................... 4
FY2013 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 5
Stand-Alone Measures ........................................................................................................ 5
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 6
Congressional Research Service
District of Columbia Appropriations Acts Restricting the Funding of Abortion Services
Recent Developments1
The public funding of abortion services for District of Columbia residents is a perennial issue
debated by Congress during its annual deliberations on District of Columbia appropriations.
Congress has exercised its constitutional prerogative with respect to this issue by including
language in the general provisions of appropriations acts for the District of Columbia. Since 1979,
with the passage of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1980, P.L. 96-93 (93 Stat.
719), Congress has placed some limitation or prohibition on the use of public (federal or District)
funds for abortion services for District residents. Since the passage of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act of FY2011, the city has been prohibited from using District and federal funds
for abortion services, except in instances of rape, incest, or the life of the mother was threaten if
the pregnancy was taken to term.
On April 7, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1363, a short-term continuing
resolution intended to fund the federal government through April 15, 2011. The measure, which
passed the House by a vote of 247 to 181, included $12 billion in spending cuts and would have
appropriated full-year funding for the Defense Department. Immediately following the House
vote, the President signaled, through the issuance of a Statement of Administration Policy, his
intent to veto the measure should it reach his desk.2 Some Senate Democrats also voiced
opposition to the measure. Among the most controversial provisions included in the bill was
language that would have restricted the use of both federal and District funds for abortion
services. Those provisions were removed from the temporary continuing budget resolution, H.R.
1363, signed into law as P.L. 112-8 by the President on April 9, 2011.
As part of final negotiations over the full-year FY2011 budget, a provision was included in H.R.
1473, prohibiting the use of federal and District of Columbia funds for abortion services, except
in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother.3 The inclusion of the provision, as
well as another providing federal funding of a school voucher program, sparked protest from
District leaders claiming that such acts are an infringement on local government autonomy and
home rule. On April 15, 2011, the President signed the bill into law as P.L. 112-10. The act
included the provision restricting the use of federal and District funds for abortion services to
only those instances involving rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life.4 In December 2011,
the House and Senate approved a Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2012, H.R. 2055, that
continued the restrictions on the use of both federal and District funds for abortion services,
except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother.5 The measure was signed into
law as P.L. 112-74 by the President on December 23, 2011.
1 The discussion in this report deals exclusively with the funding of abortion services as they relate to provisions
included in the District of Columbia appropriation acts. For a discussion of the abortion services issue beyond the scope
of this report see the following CRS reports: CRS Report 95-724, Abortion Law Development: A Brief Overview, by
Jon O. Shimabukuro; CRS Report RL33467, Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response, by Jon O.
Shimabukuro; and CRS Report RL34703, The History and Effect of Abortion Conscience Clause Laws, by Jon O.
Shimabukuro.
2 Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy: H.R. 1363 – Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act of
2011, April 7, 2011, http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USEOPWHPO/2011/04/01.
3 H.R. 1473, Division B, §1572.
4 P.L. 112-10, Division B, §1572.
5 P.L. 112-74, Division C, Title VIII §811; 125 Stat. 942.
Congressional Research Service
1
District of Columbia Appropriations Acts Restricting the Funding of Abortion Services
Congressional Oversight of the District of Columbia
The authority for congressional review and approval of the District of Columbia’s budget is
derived from the Constitution and the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government
Reorganization Act of 1973 (Home Rule Act).6 The Constitution gives Congress the power to
“exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” pertaining to the District of Columbia. In
1973, Congress granted the city limited home rule authority and empowered citizens of the
District to elect a mayor and city council. However, Congress retained the authority to review and
approve all District laws, including the District’s annual budget.
Appropriations Process and Components
As required by the Home Rule Act, the city council must approve a budget within 56 days after
receiving a budget proposal from the mayor.7 The approved budget must then be transmitted to
the President, who forwards it to Congress for its review, modification, and approval.8
District of Columbia appropriations acts typically include the following three components:
1. Special federal payments appropriated by Congress to be used to fund particular
initiatives or activities of interest to Congress or the Administration.
2. The District’s operating budget, which includes funds to cover the day-to-day
functions, activities, and responsibilities of the government; enterprise funds that
provide for the operation and maintenance of government facilities or services
that are entirely or primarily supported by user-based fees; and long-term capital
outlays such as road improvements. District operating budget expenditures are
paid for by revenues generated through local taxes (sales and income), federal
funds for which the District qualifies, fees, and other sources of funds.
3. General provisions are typically the third component of the District’s budget
reviewed and approved by Congress. These provisions can be grouped into
several distinct but overlapping categories, with the most predominant being
provisions relating to fiscal and budgetary directives and controls. Other
provisions include administrative directives and controls; limitations on lobbying
for statehood or congressional voting representation; congressional oversight;
and congressionally imposed restrictions and prohibitions related to social policy,
including abortion services, medical marijuana, needle exchange, and domestic
partners.
Abortion Provision in Appropriations Acts
The public funding of abortion services for District of Columbia residents is a perennial issue
debated by Congress during its annual deliberations on District of Columbia appropriations.
6 See Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, and Section 446 of P.L. 93-198.
7 120 Stat. 2028.
8 87 Stat. 801.
Congressional Research Service
2
District of Columbia Appropriations Acts Restricting the Funding of Abortion Services
District officials have cited the prohibition on the use of District funds as another example of
congressional intrusion into local matters.9 Since 1979, with the passage of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act of 1980, P.L. 96-93 (93 Stat. 719), Congress has placed some
limitation or prohibition on the use of public (federal or District) funds for abortion services for
District residents.
Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds: 1979-1988
From 1979 to 1988, Congress restricted the use of federal funds for abortion services to cases
where the mother’s life was endangered or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The
District was free to use District funds for abortion services.
Restrictions on the Use of Federal and District Funds: 1989-1993
When Congress passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1989, P.L. 100-462
(102 Stat. 2269-9), it restricted the use of District and federal funds for abortion services to cases
where the mother’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were taken to term. The inclusion
of District funds, and the elimination of rape or incest as qualifying conditions for public funding
of abortion services, was endorsed by President Reagan, who threatened to veto the District’s
appropriations act if the abortion provision was not modified.10 In 1989, President George H. W.
Bush twice vetoed the District’s FY1990 appropriations act over the abortion issue. He signed
P.L. 101-168 (103 Stat. 1278) after insisting that Congress include language prohibiting the use of
District revenues to pay for abortion services, except in cases where the mother’s life was
endangered.11
Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds: 1994-1995
The District successfully sought the removal of the provision limiting District funding of abortion
services when Congress considered and passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY1994, P.L. 103-127 (107 Stat. 1350). The FY1994 act also reinstated rape and incest as
qualifying circumstances allowing for the public funding of abortion services.
Restrictions on the Use of District and Federal Funds: 1996-2009
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-91), and
subsequent District of Columbia appropriations acts, limited the use of District and federal funds
for abortion services to cases where the mother’s life was endangered or cases where the
pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
9 Ben Pershing, “GOP Bill Would Block D.C. Abortion Funding,” Washington Post, January 21, 2011,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2011/01/locals_decry_gop_bill_to_block.html.
10 “District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLIV (1988), p. 713.
11 “D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLV (1989), p. 757.
Congressional Research Service
3
District of Columbia Appropriations Acts Restricting the Funding of Abortion Services
Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds: 2010
P.L. 111-117, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2010, removed the prohibition on the use of
District funds for abortion services, but maintained the restriction on the use of federal funds for
such services except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother. This was
consistent with provisions included in House and Senate measures (H.R. 3170 and S. 1432)
appropriating funds for the District of Columbia for FY2010. As part of its budget submission for
FY2010, the Obama Administration included in its budget appendix language that would have
prohibited the use of federal funds for abortion services, including payment under any health
insurance plan that may be funded in part with federal funds. However, this restriction would not
have applied if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or the woman suffered from a
disorder, injury, condition, or illness that endangered her life. The provision included a clarifying
clause that noted that the restriction on the use of federal funds would not prohibit the use of
District or private funds for abortion services, except the District’s Medicaid matching fund
contribution.12
Current Congress
Restrictions on the Use of Federal and District Funds: 2011 and 2012
The Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget request included a provision that would have
prohibited the use of federal funds for abortion services except in cases of rape or incest, or when
the life of the mother would be endangered. The provision would have allowed the District to use
locally raised funds for abortion services. During negotiations over the FY2011 budget,
government funding of abortion services became a contentious issue. In an effort to reach final
agreement on a FY2011 budget, in order to avert a government-wide shutdown, the Obama
Administration and Senate and House leaders agreed to include a provision in H.R. 1473, a bill
making full year appropriations for FY2011, prohibiting the District of Columbia from using
federal and District of Columbia raised funds for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest,
or when the mother’s life was endangered.13 The inclusion of the provision generated protest by
city officials on the grounds that the restriction on the use of city funds is a violation of home
rule. On April 11, 2011, Capitol Hill Police arrested 41 individuals, including the mayor of the
District of Columbia, for unlawful assembly during a rally protesting the inclusion of the
provision in H.R. 1473.14 On April 15, 2011, the President signed H.R. 1473 into law as P.L. 112-
10. The law includes the provision restricting the use of federal and District funds for abortion
services, except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother.15
The Obama Administration’s FY2012 budget included language that would have prohibited the
use of federal funds for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life
12 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States; Appendix, Washington, DC, May 16, 2009, p. 1209,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/oia.pdf
13 H.R. 1473, Division B, §1572.
14 Ben Pershing, “Mayor, Council Members Are Arrested; D.C Rally Protest Budget Bill Riders that Restrict City
Spending, “Washington Post, April 12, 2011, p. A11, http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper?dt=2011-04-12&
bk=A&pg=11.
15 P.L. 112-10, Division B, §1572.
Congressional Research Service
4
District of Columbia Appropriations Acts Restricting the Funding of Abortion Services
would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. The Administration did not include
language prohibiting the use of District funds for abortion services.
In December 2011, the House and Senate approved a conference measure (H.R. 2055) that
continued the restrictions on the use of both federal and District funds for abortion services,
except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother.16 On December 23, 2011, the
President signed the measure into law as P.L. 112-74. The restrictions on the public financing of
abortion services in the District of Columbia included in the public law were consistent with
language included in earlier versions of the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act of FY2012, H.R. 2434 and S. 1573, as reported by the their respective
Appropriations Committees.
FY2013 Appropriations
The Obama Administration’s FY2013 budget request includes a provision that would prohibit the
use of federal funds for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life
would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. Consistent with its FY2012 budget
submission, the Obama Administration did not include language that would prohibit the use of
District funds for abortion services in its FY2013 budget request. Whether the Administration will
continue to support the use of District funds for abortion services is unknown at this time.
Stand-Alone Measures
In addition to provisions included in FY2013 appropriations bills, two other bills have advanced
in the House that would ban or restrict the provision of abortion services in the District of
Columbia. On May 4, 2012, the House passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions
Act. The measure includes a provision, Section 309, that would permanently prohibit the use of
federal and District funds for abortion services, except in instances of rape, incest, or a threat to
the life of the woman.
On June 17, 2012, the House Judiciary Committee ordered reported H.R. 3803, the District of
Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The bill would permanently ban doctors
and health facilities from performing abortions in the District after the 20th week of pregnancy,
except when the pregnancy will result in the woman suffering from a physical disorder, injury, or
illness that endangers her life. It would impose fines and imprisonment on doctors who violated
the act and would allow the pregnant woman, the father of the unborn child, or maternal
grandparents of a pregnant minor to bring a civil action against any person who performed an
abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. The act would require any physician that performs an
abortion to report specific information to the relevant health agency in the District., including
post-fertilization age of the fetus and the abortion method used. The District health agency is
required to compile such information and issued an annual report to the public. The District’s
delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, though not allowed to testify before the
Committee, spoke out against the measures as infringements on home rule.
16 P.L. 112-74, Division C, Title VIII §811; 125 Stat. 942.
Congressional Research Service
5
District of Columbia Appropriations Acts Restricting the Funding of Abortion Services
Author Contact Information
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
Policy
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689
Congressional Research Service
6