Committee approves proviso to bar funding for abortion providers after debate over "other services"

The House Ways and Means committee voted to prohibit state funding for abortion providers after an exchange among members about what the amendment would mean for non‑abortion health services.

Representative Long explained the amendment as a measure to conform budget language to the governor’s executive action and to existing agency practice. "This is consistent with what the governor has done by executive order," Representative Long said, adding the amendment "conforms to the law."

Representative Cobb Hunter asked whether the change had already been implemented, noting past actions on the issue. "Haven't we already done this? Tell me why we need to do this," Cobb Hunter asked. Representative Long replied that the executive order and court actions have addressed the issue but that the amendment would make the prohibition explicit in the budget language and would be subject to any contrary court ruling.

Representative Dillard pressed the author on the meaning of "other services," asking whether non‑abortion care such as wellness checks or pap smears could be affected. Representative Long responded that the amendment targets funding to organizations that provide abortion services and that the state should not fund what the author described as the facilities’ abortion‑related operations. "There is funding for 'other services' ... to keep the lights on at Planned Parenthood and other ... clinics," Representative Long said, asserting the amendment would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding those operations.

Dillard said she was concerned that the change could deny low‑income women access to basic health care provided by some clinics. Representative Long replied that required health services would continue to be provided by other providers in many suburban and urban areas, and said the proviso was intended to prevent tax dollars from funding abortion‑related operations.

The committee approved the amendment by voice vote. The amendment’s author characterized it as preemptive and conforming to applicable federal and state court rulings; committee members’ questions focused on whether services unrelated to abortion would be inadvertently affected.

Ending: The committee added the funding prohibition to the budget provisos and moved on to other amendments. The committee record shows the amendment passed by voice vote and that members requested clarity about the amendment’s scope for non‑abortion services.