PHILADELPHIA—Thomas W. King III, special counsel for the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm, states that the allocation of public funds for abortion violates both the federal Hyde Amendment and Pennsylvania’s state version of the legislative provision.
“It is against the law to expend public tax dollars for abortions, except in very limited circumstances, under the Hyde Amendment,” King told The Epoch Times, “Both the Federal Hyde Amendment and the Pennsylvania Hyde Amendment restrict the expenditure of public funds for abortion, except in limited circumstances. It’s very important that people understand that.”
The Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion in the United States, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. The original Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976 and was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois.
“There have been attempts by the Democrats to undo the Hyde Amendment, which have been unsuccessful so far. It certainly has been a subject of lots of discussion across the United States,” King continued.
Pennsylvania Version of Hyde Amendment Also Bars Public Funding
King explained, “In Pennsylvania, we have a similar law, typically called the Pennsylvania Hyde Amendment, [which states that] abortions cannot be funded by public tax dollars. The only exceptions are to save the life of the mother or for rape or incest. Other than that, public tax dollars cannot be expended in this way to pay for people’s abortions.”King said he believes a lawyer’s responsibility is to uphold the law: “I try to go by my life, following the law, representing people who want to uphold the law, and challenging those things that I don’t think are legally accurate or correct.”
The plaintiffs in this case, Charles P. Kuhar, Sr., and Theresa M. Kuhar, are active in the pro-life movement in Philadelphia.
A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 31 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
The Epoch Times reached out to Philadelphia Mayor Kenney for comment. The Mayor’s Office of Communications replied, “Since this is pending litigation, we are unable to comment.”