U.S. Congress - H.R.3 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes. view all titles (4)
All Bill Titles
- Short: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act as introduced.
- Official: To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes. as introduced.
- Short: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act as reported to house.
- Short: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act as passed house.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 151-180 of 239 total comments.
Yes, and how’s that turning out?
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Also, I don’t see how cutting government spending on abortions (by limiting the definition of rape, reducing the percentage of incest abortions covered, cutting federal funding to any institution that has anything to do with abortions, and removing tax deductions) helps the government save money in the long run. Less financial support from governmental (including tax-related) sources for abortions ultimately means fewer abortions, whether that’s what’s intended here or not. Fewer abortions means more unwanted children. More unwanted children means more welfare payments, more unemployment benefits paid out, more foster care funding required (even if not actually given), more drug rehabilitation programs, more prison costs. These are all extra drains on the government that we really cannot afford.
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, if you can’t take a deduction then you’re going to be taxed until you’re bankrupt? I ask, because deductions only lower your tax liability, they’re not income. So, if a woman has insurance, and can use it for an abortion, w/ a $5,000 deductible plan, and let’s say she has to pay $10,000 for an abortion, you’re saying if she can’t deduct that $5,000 from her taxes, then she will end up broke?
Also, good news, all rapes are now covered. As was said before, in 2008 566,010 abortions occured in the 32 states covered by the Hyde Amendment where the FED pays all or most of the cost of abortion. The birth rate is 13.83/1000, which resulted in 4+ million births. Abortions/births = ~13% difference. I don’t think they’d put a huge drain on our country, at least not as much as 10,000 baby boomers per day retiring and collecting Social Security would.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Anyone actually try reading this bill before saying they try to redefine rape? This bill mentions nothing about the definition of rape at all. By the way the UCR has a definition for forcible rape that would include pretty much all the scenarios discussed including date rape.
I dont understand why rape needs to be redefined! Rape is any sex act that is not consensual. Any time rape occurs it’s forced if you want to split hairs about it. Whether you are mentally incapable of making your decision known to your assalant or not should not effect your eligibility for abortion assistance. The government should assist in the care of these women who have been victimized by a very horrifying crime. The same way a court can award restitution, I dont think its unreasonable for federal funding to provide protection for women from an unsought, unwanted pregnancy.
The ONLY reason everyone is up in arms about this is because abortion is involved. If this was a matter of redefining CRIMINAL law for purposes of sentencing, EVERYONE would be against it.
The Hyde Ammendment is quite sufficient in preventing ELECTIVE abortions from being federally funded. There does not need to be any further clarification or redefinition of what constitutes unconsensual sexual acts.
Totally agree irishmommy83, elective abortions should not be covered. If someone gets pregnant by their own free will, then the federal government should not have to pay for this.
Also though, when a court awards restitution, unless it is a suit that involves the FED, the defendent pays the restitution, whether it is an individual, city, county/parish, or state. The only reason I have a problem with the FED paying for these abortions is that we’re at our debt limit, again, and ANYTHING we can do to cut spending must be considered. I like the Hyde Amendment, it doesn’t need to be changed except that the states or other government districts as previously mentioned, OTHER than the FED should pay for these services, just like they should pay for their citizens welfare and 90% of what the fed pays for.
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton co-workers while working in Iraq. The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction. She was not allowed to sue because her employment contract prohibited it.
In 2009, Sen. Franken proposed an amendment to deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but received 30 nay votes all from Republicans.
So for those who say that Republicans just think the rape victim should get the perpetrator to pay for an abortion, we don’t believe you. 30 Republicans voted against a rape victim’s right to sue the perpetrator! Last year, the fed paid for just 191 abortions. This isn’t about who pays.
It’s about the fact that certain people feel that they have the right to impose their religion on others, and that they have the right to use the government for that purpose. They believe that they have the truth, directly from God, and thus are entitled to run the lives of other people.
K_alderman, wow, a very stark difference between 566,010 abortions in 2008 and 191 abortions in 2009. Where did this information come from? As far as religion, I think doctors do have a right to pratice their religion as they believe, although I may not personally agree with their views. Now, if a woman has been raped, it can be very traumatic to be told “no, you can’t get the ‘day after pill’”, or even worse, “no, you can’t get an abortion”. Hopefully that doctor will refer the woman to someone he knows who will provide those services, and do his best to do it in a timely manner, but they should not be punished for their religious views unless they commit an illegal or medically liable act, but that’d push this into the realm of malpractice or violation of the police laws instead of just a purely religious incident.
Our Constitution guarantees the right to life. Period. The recent uncovering of illegal activity at Planned Parenthood in both New Jersey and Virginia demands a full investigation and immediate suspension of all Federal funding. Sex trafficking is a major problem worldwide and right here in the U.S., and Planned Parenthood is a willing accomplice.
Did you miss the part where they reported him to the FBI?
You mean the so-called “illegal activity” that not a single major news network seems to cover? Or the illegal activity that lying Christian groups make up or twist to make Planned Parenthood look evil out of a misguided sense of self-righteousness?
As a side note, I’ve kinda been waiting for someone to bring this up, and I don’t have any facts other than logical reasoning, but where is the voice of the transgendered? I mean, this IS an abortion debate, but no one has even mentioned gender identity and the fact that someone who may identify as a male, or half-male, may have the capability to give birth. I know it doesn’t happen a lot, maybe 1 or 2 per million or even less, but in all the abortion/pregnancy debate, no one on either side has mentioned the transgendered.
My tax dollars are not going to fund a teenage girl aborting her kid.
Everyone has seemed to be forgetting the main issue. H.R.3 is like taking the round about way of going against Roe v Wade by attacking the medical community’s tax write offs. If a women works,has medical insurance and and makes the choice for this procedure, what gives this section of the government the right to try and pull the wool over our eyes? If,the House wants Roe v Wade reversed go to the Supreme Court. This is just me, the House is acting like a snake in the grass.
Sonny56,
I thought the main issue now, other than the incest clause, was the tax issue. Other than cases of incest, this bill is exactly like the Hyde Amendment, which limits federal funding since the 70’s. the House has already said they would change the wording, so I will take them at their word until they prove me wrong. So now, it’s not about abortions, or making abortions illegal (which this bill doesn’t do), this is only a tax issue. With the PPACA, we allowed the federal government to tell the insurance companies what they can and can’t do with their product, now we’re complaining because they’re telling us what we can and can’t do with our insurance? You can’t have it both ways. If we let the government regulate insurance, then they can regulate tax deductions ON THAT INSURANCE. it’s not about anything other than who is footing the bill, unless they lied on changing the wording.
No, they’re not. And they never were.
I love how conservatives are so quick to complain about how big and intrusive government is, but they have no qualms intruding on women, their sovereignty as human beings, and their personal and reproductive privacy. They are complete and utter hypocrites. If you’re going to spout about how important and sacrosanct your personal rights and liberty are, then butt out of everybody else’s.
RavenWytch,
Maybe you can explain what “sovereignty” or “personal and reproductive privacy” you are referring to, since we’ve had laws for a long time now on what people can and can’t do with their bodies, such as anti-sodomy laws, polygamy laws, alcohol laws, abortion laws, insurance laws, etc. Conservatives aren’t the ones to blame on this, we’re the ones to blame, because we’re letting the federal government have more power than we have. I have no qualms with this bill since it limits government spending at the risk of freedom (sounds like the Patriot Act ::shivers::), but I’d want to see the states rise up to the federal government and either pass or don’t pass this law instead of the FED, since then we’d have a choice over which laws we want to live under.
Have you read this bill at all? This bill doesn’t say a SINGLE thing about what a woman can or can’t do. It just says what will and won’t be funded by federal tax dollars. That’s all.
This is a direct step in the direction to overturn Roe v. Wade and go back to a time when women were quiet, barefoot and pregnant in kitchen and old rich white men had all, instead of just most, of the power.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
“48,589,993 babies just in the us have been killed since 1973. compared to 655,000 soldiers to die in all the us wars since 1776”(http://www.loveforthetruth.com/2009/03/22/war-vs-abortion/)
Spam Comment
Why are they pushing women issues back to the 1500’s as second class citizen, property of men. I have never been has angry with our politics as I am right now. I lived through the times when women had to go to the back alleys or overseas to get abortions that may or may not have been a medical professional. What right do they have to tell us or our insurance whether they should cover pills -condoms or IUD’s.
Let’s add that Viagra should not be covered under any insurnace plan – what uproar would we be hearing.
Has for the Rapist paying the bill for an abortion or raising a kid would you wan them in your life after an act of voilence has been committed and the chances of a judge giving them any co parenting rights! My body to decide what to be done -not yours.