President Joe Biden (D) has been advocating on behalf of his budget request, but many aspects of the budget have been at odds with Republicans. One such aspect that Florida Rep. Greg Steube (R) is now arguing against is taxpayer funded abortions. In a letter directed to the President, Steube joined a number of his Republican colleagues to voice their disapproval of the measure.
On Twitter, Steube shared the letter directed to the President, and he also shared some words regarding the initiative.
President Biden's budget request calls for the removal of several longstanding pro-life protections, including the Hyde Amendment. Under no circumstances should taxpayer dollars pay for abortions. I joined colleagues in urging him to restore pro-life protections in this proposal. pic.twitter.com/RSGAbu5XzU
— Congressman Greg Steube (@RepGregSteube) July 7, 2021
“President Biden’s budget request calls for the removal of several longstanding pro-life protections, including the Hyde Amendment.” Asserting that “under no circumstances should taxpayer dollars pay for abortions,” Steube expressed that the reason for the letter is to urge President Biden “to restore pro-life protections in this proposal.”
In the letter, the Republican lawmakers share their disappointment, calling “the removal of the Hyde Amendment and several modest, longstanding pro-life protections” “an affront to the majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars funding abortion on demand resulting in the death of children in the womb.”
The lawmakers also note that the budget request would remove pressure from the Communist Party of China as the “State Department budget targets $56 million in funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has been widely denounced for its involvement in the Chinese Communist Party’s birth-limitation policy that relies on coerced abortion.”
Although a longstanding political discussion that has divided lawmakers and the American population, the issue of taxpayer funded abortions has even contributed to the argument of “court packing” in recent years.