H.R.217 - Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Spam Comment

MichaelDSP 01/20/2011 7:05am

Pro-Choice all the way

Spam Comment

norascats 01/26/2011 11:48am

This is ridiculous. Family planning is often the only reliable source of information about sexuality many people get. These clinics help people get out of poverty by helping them to have manageable sized families.

Spam Comment

Dayofswords 02/18/2011 8:56pm
in reply to Dayofswords Feb 18, 2011 8:56pm

it does NOT go to abortions
sorry, headache..

spalmer8 03/05/2011 5:25pm

I believe life begins at conception, I am a Christian, a mom and I am Pro-Choice! The woman’s life and the life of the fetus are combined and this type of legislation opens a bad can of worms. Why do Republicans and Tea Party Members think they can control a woman’s body and yet make the claim against the Health Care bill saying governement is too intrusive? You can’t have it both ways. Republicans want to eliminate almost all education, nutritional and health care programs to women and children and then want to force women to carry out pregnancies even if it is detrimental to the women’s health or the woman is unable to care for the child. They don’t offer any solutions to ensure a quality life for these children they are forcing into the world. Absolutely no forethought here. Woman will be forced back into the dark ages. Shoot this bill down!

Danidelion 02/14/2011 2:11pm

seriously morons. This doesn’t get rid of family planning. And if the funds are there to subsidize birth control and condoms, well, it doesn’t change ANYTHING, because planned parenthood doesn’t need these funds to keep making a profit, as they do every year… and they aren’t legally entitled to federal money to fund ANY abortions at all, to begin with. That’s what the Hyde Amendment says.

This is AMAZING legislation, because it protects women, protects those who have been abused and have had it hidden by Planned Parenthood, and protects against sex trafficking. Even if you’re FOR abortion, you should be AGAINST planned parenthood, because they have some very unethical practices, and there have been TWELVE publicized cases now, of them assisting in human trafficking and hiding sexual abuse of minors! And it was caught on tape! UNEDITED TAPE!

Marcy 02/19/2011 8:29am
in reply to Marcy Feb 19, 2011 8:28am

Seriously moron, this does a lot to get rid of family planning. Birth control IS a part of family planning. Please read everything before calling names. You are talking about 12 publicized cases, what about the countless unpublicized ones where a woman DIED from a back ally abortion? Were all 12 of these cases you are talking about in one centre or spread about? If it was just one centre, then they should fire those people and restart afresh. If it were spread about then those involved should be fired and then start afresh as well. All criminal actions should be prosecuted

Name calling is a bit childish, don’t you think?

Marcy 02/19/2011 8:28am
in reply to Danidelion Feb 14, 2011 2:11pm

Did you read the amendment he made to the bill? “…to stop funding for women’s health services, gynecological exams, access to birth control, HIV testing, private care, or infertility counseling. The Continuing Resolution proposed by House Republicans also slashes or eliminates funding for many programs crucial to women’s health; it would completely eliminate Title X domestic family planning programs, and would dramatically cut (by $758 million) the Women Infant Children (WIC) program, which provides food for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women.”

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

npotts89 04/08/2011 12:45am

It seems to me that the problem goes much deeper than abortions, but rather a lack of ethical values when it comes to sex before marriage. Think about it, if there were less teen pregnancies, there would be less people on welfare and social security (possibly meaning more for those who need it), if there were less people on welfare there is more money to add to other places in the budget, such as military payment, environmental advancement projects, energy enhancement, getting ourselves out of national debt!!

I think there needs to be a bill written for ethics being taught in schools and that PROPER sex education be taught. Education is the start of revolutions.

4thBattalionDevilDog 02/20/2011 2:55pm

HOW is this fiscally responsible? For every dollar spent 3 are saved from medicaid. Not to mention the saving in social services for children who aren’t adopted. For children born with problems because the parent had an untreated STD or didn’t care so drank during the pregnancy. It would also save the mistreatment of many children who then also become a part of the system if saved. This will also increase those on medicaid and decrease women from working their full potential to remain qualified. This is even an attack on marriage since to qualify for medicaid you have to be unmarried.

If the next year there are a million more than there would normally be children in need THAT would really be a financial nightmare.

TrixieTrueheart 02/10/2012 12:38pm

PS,

Married women get abortions too.

TrixieTrueheart 02/10/2012 12:38pm
in reply to npotts89 Apr 08, 2011 12:57am

What is more valuable? My choice to not bring a child into the world I am not equiped to raise. It doesn’t matter how the child came to be conceived. If you are requiring women to honor life at all cost, regardless of her ability to care for the baby what choice are you offering that child? I think the belief that every fetus has the right to live, while magnanamous, is short-sighted. What happens when the baby is born, especially with Republicans trying to shut down every social program possible. So a woman’s supposed to have a baby, but she can’t suppor the baby, and there is no public assitance available to her, and you think THAT life is better than not being born? I hope you pro-life people are as vocal when it comes to repealing the death penalty.

Spam Comment

npotts89 04/08/2011 12:55am
in reply to spalmer8 Mar 05, 2011 5:25pm

I don’t think it is a “control” factor that is in play but a “protection” factor. You mentioned that life begins at conception, so to proceed with an abortion would be to stop a life, correct? Legally, the only way we can proceed with the taking of a life is through war and through just punishment, which of these would a fetus be to have it’s life (as stated by your definition) taken from it?

I understand that it is a woman’s body, and a woman’s body and a fetus’ body is connected (emotionally and physically), but that does not mean that a fetus’ life (again, as stated by your definition of life) can be taken from it. We’d must redefine a fetus to mean “a growth” of some sort, in which abortions must be considered “cosmetic surgeries.” I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but as honest as possible, and I hope you see that it is truth that I am pursuing.


Vote on This Bill

29% Users Support Bill

76 in favor / 186 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC
Save to Notebook Make A Bill Widget

Top-Rated Comments

OpenCongress is a free and open-source project of the Participatory Politics Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization with a mission to increase civic engagement. The non-profit Sunlight Foundation is the Founding and Primary Supporter of OpenCongress.