Utah Rep. Maloy pushes against amendment to reinstate military reimbursements for abortion travel

WASHINGTON — Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy is pushing back against efforts to reinstate Biden-era policies directing the Defense Department to reimburse costs for service members who travel across state lines to obtain an abortion.
During an appropriations hearing on Thursday, Maloy rejected an amendment seeking to implement a 2022 policy allowing for reimbursements for abortion-related travel and attach it to legislation funding the Defense Department for the 2026 fiscal year. Maloy argued the proposal runs afoul of the Hyde Amendment, a federal statute passed in 1976 prohibiting federal funds from going toward abortion costs, with few exceptions.
'The Hyde Amendment is a clear federal ban on abortion funding, except in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother,' Maloy said in her remarks. 'It's been in place every appropriation cycle for 40 years. And I've been here, I've heard a lot of talk about partisanship and how this should not be a partisan bill, but this is a completely partisan amendment, whereas the Hyde Amendment has been a bipartisan consensus for four decades.'
The amendment, proposed by a Democrat during the appropriations hearing, was ultimately rejected.
The DOD issued a policy shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 that would allow military members to receive travel reimbursements and approved leave for abortion-related reasons. That policy was largely approved to allow service members in states where abortion was banned locally to travel across state lines if needed.
That provision was criticized by Republicans and was rescinded shortly after Donald Trump took office in January and signed an executive order enforcing the Hyde Amendment and restricting taxpayer dollars from being used for any abortion-related reasons.
Maloy pushed against reinstating that policy, arguing it forces taxpayers to fund travel and lodging costs for a procedure they may disagree with.
'The federal government must exercise restraint and respect diverse moral values of American people,' Maloy said. 'This amendment is not in the spirit of that neutrality, not in the spirit of the Dobbs decision or the Hyde Amendment.'
'This would allow the DOD to make federal abortion policy that isn't in keeping with what Congress has done through the Hyde Amendment, and that's a path that I don't think we should start to go down,' she added. 'Federal abortion policy should be uniform like it has been for 40 years through bipartisan consensus in the Hyde Amendment. Abortions, including abortion travel or enhanced leave policies designed to facilitate abortions, have no place in this bill.'
Republicans overwhelmingly rejected the amendment and the House Appropriations Committee advanced the larger bill, the Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Appropriations Act.
The legislation seeks to provide more than $830 billion to the Defense Department and includes policies to increase pay for military personnel, modernize weapons systems, codify some DOGE suggestions to cut 'waste, fraud and abuse' within the department, and more.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

11 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO

(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos

The Hill

12 minutes ago

• The Hill

Hegseth says ‘Iran has a choice,' US not seeking regime change

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday morning that Iran faces a choice between a negotiated settlement or an escalating conflict with the U.S. after strikes hit three nuclear sites in the country on Saturday. 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon along with Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine. 'And I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites, and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities,' he added. Caine said the damage assessment was ongoing but that all three nuclear sites targeted in the strikes sustained 'severe damage and destruction.' Trump on Saturday said the facilities had been 'obliterated.' Iran signaled little interest in diplomacy in the hours after the strikes, dubbed as Operation Midnight Hammer. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Hegseth said Saturday's strikes were limited in scope, but pointed to President Trump's warning on Truth Social that 'any retaliation by Iran against the United States will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' The Pentagon chief said the operation was 'not and has not been about regime change' in Iran. He said it had set back Iran's nuclear timeline. Caine also provided new details about the operation during Sunday's briefing, which he called the largest B-2 bomber operation in history. He said the U.S. dropped 75 guided weapons on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear enrichment and research sites. This included 14 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, the first operational use of the weapon, and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine, he said. A total of 125 aircraft were involved in the mission. The B-2 bombers involved in the operation flew 37 hours non-stop from their base in Missouri, refueling in the air. Caine said that a group of the bombers had been deployed west over the Pacific Ocean as a decoy. The weapons were dropped in a window from 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time. Trump announced the strike via a Truth Social post about 45 minutes later. The American forces appear to have gone undetected in Iranian airspace. Caine said no shots were fired at American aircraft, nor did Iran's missile defense system notice them. 'Throughout the mission, we retained the element of surprise,' he said. Hegseth said Congress was only notified of the attacks after warplanes had dropped their payload and exited Iranian airspace. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle accused the administration of violating the Constitution, which requires congressional approval before entering foreign wars. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted as the news broke. Massie sponsored a House resolution earlier this week to require Congressional authorization for any strike in Iran. Vice President Vance, a veteran and frequent skeptic of foreign intervention, congratulated the troops and others involved in the strike on Sunday morning. 'I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program,' said in an interview on ABC News.

22 minutes ago

'This Week' Transcript 6-22-25: Vice President of the United States JD Vance, Sen. Tom Cotton & Rep. Jim Himes

A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, June 22, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive. JONATHAN KARL, ABC "THIS WEEK" CO-ANCHOR: Mr. Vice President, thank you for joining us. The big question right now is the United States -- J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thanks, Jon. Thanks for having me. KARL: Sure thing. The big question, is the United States now at war with Iran? VANCE: No, we're not at war with Iran, Jon. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program. And I think the president took decisive action to destroy that program last night. If I could step back a little bit. We have to give an incredible amount of gratitude to the troops who did an amazing thing last night. Think about this, Jon, they threw -- they flew thousands of miles away, a 30-hour non-stop flight. They never touched down on the ground. And they dropped a 30,000-pound bomb on a target about the size of a washing machine. No military in the world has the training, the skills and the equipment to do what these guys did last night. I know the president and I are both very proud of them. And I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program. The president's been very clear about this. And thanks to the bravery and competence and skill of our great pilots and everybody who supported this mission, we took a major step forward for that national objective last night. KARL: It certainly was a complex and overwhelming mission, 125 aircraft involved, we are told. Can you say definitely that Iran's nuclear program has -- has now been destroyed? VANCE: Well, Jon, I don't want to get into the sensitive intelligence here, but we know that we've set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night. Whether we -- whether it's years or beyond that, we know it's going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to. But I actually think that raises the most important question. The president talked about this last night. We want Iran to give up their nuclear weapons program peacefully. But there is no way that the United States is going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. And so, they really have to choose a pathway, Jon, are they going to go down the path of continued war, of funding terrorism, of seeking a nuclear weapon, or are they going to work with us to give up nuclear weapons permanently. If they're willing to choose the smart path, they're certainly going to find a willing partner in the United States to dismantle that nuclear weapons program. But if they decide they're going to attack our troops, if they decide they're going to continue to try to build a nuclear weapon, then we are going to respond to that with overwhelming force. So really what happens next is up to the Iranians. KARL: So -- but -- but let me drill down on what was accomplished, because there's a -- there's a report this morning in 'The New York Times' that Fordo, that deep, underground enrichment facility, was severely damaged, but not fully destroyed. But the president said last night the enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Can -- can we say that definitively, or are we just not sure yet? I mean, have those facilities been obliterated? VANCE: Well, Jon, severely damaged versus obliterated, I'm not exactly sure what the difference is. What we know is we set their nucleal program back substantially. KAR: Well -- well, one -- I mean -- VANCE: And I -- again, Jon, I don't want to get into very sensitive intelligence about what we know, but I feel extremely confident, and I can say to the American people with great confidence that they are much further away from the nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago. That was the objective of the mission, to destroy that Fordo nuclear site and, of course, do some damage to the other sites as well. But we feel very confident that the Fordo nuclear site was substantially set back, and that was our goal. KARL: The -- the UN's atomic energy watchdog said that Iran had 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium. What -- do we know what has become of that? Is -- was it destroyed in this attack? Do we know? That's a big stockpile. VANCE: Well, we're going to work in the coming weeks -- yes, Jon, we're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel. And that's one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about. But what we know, Jon, is they no longer have the capacity to turn that stockpile of highly enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium. And that was really the goal here. Uranium is not that difficult to come by, Jon, but enriching uranium up to the point of a nuclear weapon, that is what the president put a stop to last night. KARL: This morning, the Russian reaction caught -- caught my eye. Dmitri Medvedev, of course, the former president, prime minister of Russia, now, the deputy chairman of Russia's security council, said the enrichment of nuclear material, and now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads. What do you make of that Russian response? And are they -- they off base? I mean they're -- they're saying that the nuclear program in Iran is -- is still well underway. VANCE: Well, first of all, I think it's a bizarre response, but I also don't know that that guy speaks for President Putin or for the Russian government. One of the things that we've picked up, Jon, in our conversations with the Russians over the last few months, despite our many disagreements, of course, with the state of Russia, they've been very consistent that they don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. And -- and this is what I think many commentators underappreciated about what the president did last night. Iran having a nuclear weapon, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, is a disaster for pretty much everybody. It's one of the few issues where Russia, China and the United States have broad agreement is that we don't want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. So, what the president did was very important. I'll -- I'll let President Putin speak to what the official Russian position on this is. But I feel very confident that both for Russia, for China, and most importantly, of course, for us, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And I think that that goal is going to continue to animate American policy for the next few years. KARL: Well, President Trump, last night, also threatened additional military action if Iran retaliates or if peace does not come quickly. How quickly are we talking about? Are we talking about days? Are we talking about weeks? VANCE: Well, look, Jon, I'll let the president make those determinations, actually. But we're now going to have a serious conversation about how to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons program permanently, meaning they have to choose not to have a nuclear weapons program, and they have to give this thing up. Now, if you go back a little bit, Jon, what we have said consistently and repeatedly is, they cannot have a nuclear weapon. We accomplished the goal of putting them back substantially last night. But there are two big things that the Iranians are going to have to choose from here. Number one, do they attack American troops in the region? If they do, as the president said, you're going to see overwhelming force from the Americans. If they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon, you're also going to see overwhelming force from the American people. So, we've got really the ball in Iran's court here. If they make smart decisions, I think they're going to find us willing to work with them. If they continue to support terrorism, nuclear weapons programs, then they're going to find overwhelming American force from the American military. That is really the choice before the Iranians. And that's a choice only they can make. KARL: So, what retaliation are you expecting? I mean I know what you're hoping for, but they have vowed retaliation. What are you prepared for? What are you expecting from the Iranians? VANCE: Well, it's always hard to guess what the other side is going to do. But what we're prepared for is, if they attack us in a maximal direction, first of all, we have got maximum defensive posture. I think that we're going to be able to defend as many of our people as possible. And, of course, I'd encourage Americans to pray for our guys in the Middle East because, yes, they are under a significant amount of duress and a significant amount of threat right now. But then, of course, Jon, if the Iranians attack us, they're going to be met with overwhelming force. And I don't think the president could be clearer about this. If -- if you look at what we did yesterday, Jon, we did not attack the nation of Iran. We did not attack any civilian targets. We didn't even attack military targets outside of the three nuclear weapons facilities that we thought were important to accomplish our goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. So, how Iran responds, I think, is ultimately the ball is in their court. But if you look at what we did, it was very precise, very narrowly tailored to our objective. And if the Iranians decide to expand this, then that's ultimately their decision. And the president of the United States will respond in kind. KARL: So -- so you're raising the real possibility that this is not the end of this conflict, but the beginning of this conflict. You know, U.S. response to -- to Iranian retaliation. There's one thing the president has been really consistent about throughout his entire life in politics, and that is the idea of no more wars. Let me play you what he said on election night and, of course, at his inauguration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps, most importantly, the wars we never get into. (END VIDEO CLIP) KARL: So -- so let me ask you, what do you say to those, including some of the president's strongest supporters who were really worried this morning that the United States is now involved in yet another protracted war, conflict, whatever you want to call it, in the Middle East? VANCE: Well, first of all, Jon, I think the president has been very clear that we are not interested in protracted conflicts in the Middle East. But there's a question about, how do you achieve peace? And we believe the way that you achieve peace is through strength. We took a very narrow and limited approach to destroying the Iranian nuclear program, Jon. That's what the president did. And I think that, more than anything, is going to ensure a peaceful resolution in that region of the world. You can't be weak. You can't sit there and allow the Iranians to achieve a nuclear weapon, Jon, and expect that's going to lead to peace. It would lead to absolutely disastrous military conflict all over the Middle East. We don't want that. Our Gulf Arab nation allies don't want that. Israel doesn't want that. And it's one of the few issues, frankly, that unites the Arabians to the Israelis is none of them want the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon, because they know that it would lead to the opposite of peace. And so, I'd say to people who are worried about a protracted military conflict is, number one, the president, more than anybody, is worried about protracted military conflicts. That is not what we're getting ourselves involved in. What we're getting ourselves involved in is a very targeted effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. That will continue to be the goal of American foreign policy. And it's that goal that is going to motivate our action in the -- in the weeks and months to come. KARL: But -- but this was, as we discussed, a complex and overwhelming military action last night. And the president is vowing something bigger if the Iranians respond by retaliating. He's also raised the specter of targeting the supreme leader himself. As you know, earlier in the week he said he knew where this -- where the ayatollah is hiding and that he would be an easy target. Has the U.S. ruled out targeting the -- the supreme leader in Iran? Has the U.S. ruled out trying to achieve regime change? VANCE: Well, first of all, we don't want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program. Jon. That's America's objective. And that's what the president has set us out to do. The president, in the very tweet you mentioned, or the Truth that you mentioned, Jon, said explicitly that he's not trying to take out the Iranian supreme leader. He's trying to take out their nuclear program. And, of course, we took a major step forward with that last night. And again, Jon, I think we have to back up and -- and -- and test some premises here. How do you achieve long term peace? How do you prevent spiraling Middle Eastern conflict? Is it through overwhelming military power targeted to an American objective, or is it by sort of walking yourself into these long-term, protracted military conflicts? I think by choosing overwhelming force and overwhelming force tied to something that is important to the American people, that is the end of the Iranian nuclear program, we can achieve peace much more fully than if we sort of sit on our hands and hope that somehow, if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, they're going to be more peaceful. That is a stupid approach, and the president rejected it.