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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 91-120 of 238 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    navigation74 05/06/2011 4:13pm

    Murder and sex are apples and oranges, but thanks for playing.

    Also, slavery is different from someone’s sex life.

    Do you really not think critically enough to understand that a woman making a medical decision for herself is completely different from murdering a sentient human being? Do you really not see the similarities in making women slaves to their biology?

  • Comm_reply
    prbroste 02/02/2011 12:50am
    Link Reply
    + 11

    The fact that something has human DNA does not guarantee it personhood. Toenail clippings possess human DNA, but no one would ague that they constitute a person.

    A zygote left to its own devices would have just as much likelihood of becoming self-aware as that toenail. It is the consent of the mother that allows it to reach personhood. The longer a fetus is allowed to grow, the closer it comes to being able to survive independent of the mother.

    If one believes that a “soul” exists at the moment of conception, then opposing the use of abortion is reasonable. However, not everyone believes this to be so and it doesn’t seem just that federal laws force this belief on people when the status of their very bodies is called in to question.

  • Comm_reply
    prbroste 02/02/2011 12:51am

    Is abortion something that should be taken lightly? Of course not. I don’t think any reasonable person would say otherwise. Should the government have the right to force any woman to carry a child to term? Hell no.

    I happen to understand the desire to see federal funding for abortion eliminated. Fair enough. Of course, if all in government and life were fair, my tax dollars wouldn’t have killed anyone in Iraq in what I believed was an unjust war, but whatever. Let’s grant the social conservative that this is at least conceptually reasonable.

  • Comm_reply
    prbroste 02/02/2011 12:51am
    Link Reply
    + 15

    The current law allows concessions for rape and incest. This strikes me as a reasonable and humane provision. The proposed bill would redefine rape and incest to exclude things that clearly ARE rape and incest. I find this to be morally repugnant. If conservatives want so badly for sexual assault victims to pay for their own damn abortions then they should just come out and say so. This is not what they are doing. They are trying to sugar coat their motives by implying that some kinds of rape and incest aren’t as bad or as serious as other kinds.

    Now that IS disgusting. It is just sleazy.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/02/2011 5:10am


    I think that is what we’re doing, is coming out and saying they should pay for their own abortions, or maybe their state should, or their city, or their county/parish. At least that’s what I’ve been trying to say: The federal government should get out of our health care and allow the tab to be picked up by the individual, their family, their city, their county/parish, or their state, at least as far as abortions go. Someone living in Montana should not be forced to pay for an abortion in California. Allow the people who live in the state to support those in the state.

  • Comm_reply
    inghammoms 03/10/2012 3:14pm

    You are so full of crap – just regurgitating the Democrat “war on women” propaganda. I’ve read the bill. It does not redefine rape. It allows raped women to have their abortions covered. The only references to rape are in section 308 & 201 . If you have too much trouble reading, just search “rape” or “force” – http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr3eh.pdf (Sorry, I just can’t stand political rhetoric and how it makes people crazy with stoopid – and politicians rich.)

  • Comm_reply
    TheConservative 02/02/2011 10:21am

    You are correct that toenail clippings possess DNA. However, remember that the toenail clippings of two separate people possess two separate sets of human DNA. The fact that the baby’s DNA is different from the baby’s mother’s DNA is proof that this is another person that we are dealing with. This is a separate person from the mother, and this person should be just as legally protected from murder as you and I.

  • Comm_reply
    prbroste 02/02/2011 12:32pm
    Link Reply
    + 11

    So having distinct DNA defines personhood? So I get a tumor that is, by definition, a distinctly different strand of DNA from my own. Is that a person? If a zygote is fertilized but is somehow not viable and unable to grow, are we obligated to sustain it’s life? If I die but a sample of my tissue remains alive, does it carry my right to life with it?

    It seems to me that being distinct and unique isn’t quite enough. Personhood is directly contingent on the potential of a set of human cells to become a self aware being. As a mass of cells becomes a fetus, which then becomes an infant, its potential to survive outside of the womb increases, and so its rights weigh more and more heavily against the mother’s right to control her own body.

    This is essentially the conclusion that dictates our current precedent regarding aborton in the court system. It seems reasonable to me.

  • Comm_reply
    TheConservative 02/02/2011 3:02pm

    You stated that, in your opinion, “Personhood is directly contingent on the potential of a set of human cells to become a self aware being”. And yet, in the same breath, you are willing to DENY personhood to a set of cells that DOES have the potential to become a self aware being. This is a clear contradiction.

    As a matter of fact, a fetus does not actually ‘have the potential’ to become a self aware being, because of the fact that it IS self aware being. A fetus can feel pain, a fetus hears noises and responds to them, and a fetus has muscular ability. A fetus IS a self-aware being, thus, according to your own definition, it should be granted personhood.

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 3:50pm

    This argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as it discusses the moral reasoning against allowing abortions at all. Since Roe v. Wade, abortions have been, and continue to be, legal in the United States. Arguing over the personhood of a fetus is not going to change that.

  • Comm_reply
    prbroste 02/04/2011 12:23pm

    Absolutely true, but I grow tired of the anti choice movement misrepresenting the pro choice position and feel these arguments must be reaffermed more often.

  • Comm_reply
    prbroste 02/04/2011 11:57am

    It is not a contradiction. The only thing granting a zygote that potential is the mother’s womb, and even in that case, there are any number of factors that can prevent birth. If those cells were extracted and placed anywhere else they would have zero potential for growth. (Take a piece of my hair and give it the correct conditions and it would become a person. But in any other situation it is simply a hair.) Thus I would hardly call this potential inevitable and so the rights of the mother factor in more heavily. As time passes it becomes more so, and thus it’s rights have greater weight.

    You are confusing sentience with self awareness. The knowledge of one’s own existence, and the ability to concieve of past present and future are rare qualities, and I would seriously doubt an early infant’s ability to do so, let alone a fetus. Chickens are sentient, but I would hardly call them self aware.

  • Comm_reply
    TheConservative 02/02/2011 3:07pm

    I would also like to comment on your example of a human tumor. It is important to realize that a tumor is a mutation of human cells. Any mutation results in a LOSE of genetic information. Compare this with a human fetus, or with you and I: living collections of human cells that are capable of GROWING and producing new, BENEFICIAL cells.

    A tumor is a destructive item that has lost some of its genetic code. A fetus is a little baby who hasn’t been born yet and is growing inside a mother’s womb. I see no correlation.

  • Comm_reply
    prbroste 02/04/2011 6:52pm

    Mutations happen all the time and not all are harmful. Some are beneficial. Nor are all mutations a result of a loss of genetic material. Some mutations result in new genetic material, or simply a change of genetic material. Further, I seriously doubt that all cancer can be said to result from the loss of material. I’d have to defer to an authority on the subject. Show me some evidence and I’ll concede.

    This is all irrelevant, though. Semantics. The point I was making is that possessing unique genetic material does not necessarily grant a cell the right to life, even if that unique genetic material is human. You are correct to say that cancer is by definition useless and a zygote has a certain potential. That is sorta my point. It takes more than unique genes to give something a right to life.

  • b1rds0nthebra1n 01/29/2011 8:22am
    Link Reply
    + 10

    I agree with operakitty.

    I’m also wondering, TheConservative, out of curiosity, what gender are you?

    “Taking that human being and labeling him as a personal matter of someone else is just like what went on with slavery.”
    Um, no. The two things are nothing alike.

    I’d also like to ask you, how mentally and emotionally messed up do you think a person would be if they grew up and happened to find out that they were fathered by a rapist? I’m not suggesting this in and of itself means the child shouldn’t be brought into the world, but I think it’s something to consider…

    I find it disgusting that if a woman is drugged and raped, therefore not “forcible rape”, she won’t be covered under this act, i.e. her abortion cost would not be federally funded. Rape is rape.

  • Comm_reply
    TheConservative 01/29/2011 10:41am

    If you agree with Operakitty, please read my response to operakitty. I am male, but I see very little bearing that my gender has upon the discussion. I know that it will be argued that as a man, I am unable to discuss the rights of a woman, but that is not the basis of my argument. The basis of my arguement are the rights of a HUMAN.

    Yes, it would be an extremely traumatic situation to discover that you were the child of a rapist. However, because of this, you advocate mercy killing to keep a person from living a life that they MIGHT wish they were never given? I cannot stand behind such a theory.

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 4:00pm

    I understand that you believe that all fetuses are human, and as such deserve as much consideration as the life of the mother that brings them into this world. I understand that you are human, and have the same rights as I do. I respect and value your life and opinions.

    However. I feel that until and unless you are physically capable of conceiving, gestating, and bearing a child, you have no true understanding of everything pregnancy entails. You do not understand the risks, the emotions, the abject terror that the thought of being a slave to your body and the parasite inside it can bring. You do not understand the absolute ruin – emotionally, financially, and socially – that being an underage mother (regardless of whether you put the child up for adoption or raise it yourself) can bring. You also do not understand the joy of finding out that you are capable of bringing life into this world, and the pain at knowing you cannot bring it to term.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 03/19/2011 8:33am

    Interesting. An aborted female will never experience any of that either, solely based on someone else’s choice.

  • Comm_reply
    lclark61201 02/03/2011 1:58pm

    I stopped reading at “I am male”.

  • barbtries 01/29/2011 10:11am
    Link Reply
    + 11

    it’s time for government to recognize that abortion is a medical procedure and should be covered. the anti-choice coalition would happily see poor women dying after perforating their own uteruses with a coat hanger, or being treated by an unqualified person in an unsanitary setting. the law is clear, the choice is the woman’s, and if she makes that choice and is too poor to pay for the operation it should be covered. the same people who rant on about the humanity of a zygote or a fetus and its “rights” would leave the born child to starve on the street and more often than not, have no qualms about the incessant war our country wages and the immense cost in human lives that result.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/30/2011 12:30pm

    Barbtries, I’m trying to understand your point of view, but I don’t. Not because it is a bad point of view, but I think you’re fundamentally mistaken what this bill does and doesn’t do. This bill doesn’t say a woman can’t have an abortion, all it says is, unless it’s stipulated in sec 309, the FEDERAL government doesn’t want to foot the bill. Since you gave a “worst case scenario” let me give you a “best case scenario”: If a woman gets pregnant by her own free will, is of legal age, was not impaired or raped or anything else. Let’s even say she WANTED to get pregnant but then changed her mind. Should the FEDERAL government pay for that, or should someone else, in fact, ANYONE ELSE pay for it? That’s the question of this bill.

  • filiasilvae 01/29/2011 10:25am
    Link Reply
    + 15

    The fact that TheConservative presumes that the fetus in question is by default male betrays much about his position.

    This bill is about judging the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor, something the state is notoriously unqualified to do. Wealthy women won’t feel the effects of this bill. It will be women who can’t afford to dip into the money that feeds and shelters them (if it manages to do that much) who will spend the rest of their lives knowing that the state delegitimized their suffering as “not really rape” and forced them to carry to term an unwanted child, a permanent reminder of their trauma. The permanency of giving birth doesn’t end with adoption. The child itself will likely grow up to be abused, neglected or undernourished because it further strains either the mother’s resources or the overburdened foster care system. And yet the GOP cloaks this dystopian forced-birth fetish in words like “compassion” and “respect for life.” Respect women’s lives, then we’ll talk.

  • Comm_reply
    filiasilvae 01/29/2011 10:27am

    And yes, I know that it’s a presumption to call TheConservative male as well. I find it difficult to believe such statements could come from a woman, though if that is the case, I’ll stand corrected on that point.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/30/2011 12:34pm

    Filiasilvae, where does this bill say abortion is illegal? I ask, because you’re assuming only the rich can afford abortions. You’re also assuming “abortion insurance” can’t be found. You’re also forgetting that under PPACA, all pre-existing conditions are covered, including pregnancy. So where does it say only the rich can have abortions, or where abortions are illegal? If a woman wants an abortion, she will get an abortion, but she may have to pay for it through an installment program setup with the hospital or clinic.

  • Comm_reply
    KEngel 02/01/2011 10:30am

    Yes, you are correct, “abortion insurance” can be easily found in many insurance plans. In fact, I’m betting it’s a lot cheaper than maternity coverage since abortions are cheaper than actually having a baby. However, if it’s included in your individual health benefits plan that you purchase from a private insurance company, you cannot get deduction for your health insurance on your federal taxes. As a self-employed woman, this bill would force me to either, a) change my insurance plan or b) pay more taxes than my male colleagues. I should be allowed to buy whatever insurance I want. This bill is a horrible attack on woman (bodies, healthcare choices, finances) and needs to be stopped.

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 4:11pm

    As for insurance, all this bill does is force people who want health insurance that includes abortion coverage to pay more (by not allowing tax deductions for it), whether or not they actually get an abortion.

    The rest of your post makes a very fair point, and shows one way in which our current system is abusable.

  • Comm_reply
    KEngel 02/03/2011 10:11am

    fakk2, do you really think that it’s fair to lose my tax deductions unless I change my insurance policy because it happened to cover a precedure I have no intention of ever having? I think it’s crossing a line to be punished in taxes for what private health insurance I purchase just because I’m a woman.

    And as to your argument about woman abusing child support as a rebuttal to calling this bill an attack on women; Yes, abuses to the system happen. I’m sure a male rapist with an expensive lawyer can get away with a lot too. The system is not perfect. But let’s be honest, economically the scales are tipped against woman and trying to make an argument for taking my tax deduction by talking about all the poor men tricked in fatherhood by scheming woman and their evil uteri is just ridiculous. How is that even a fair comparison? It’s fair because women rape men? What?! Men everywhere, being so vulnerable, must be terrified!

  • Comm_reply
    KEngel 02/03/2011 10:15am

    While we’re thinking of ridiculous things…I propose a new bill that will greatly reduce abortions and encourage men to seek protection from the unwanted babies you seem so afraid of. Let’s give vasectomy tax credits and mandate that insurance companies offer “paternity coverage” to unmarried men (purchased separately as a $70/month rider on their regular insurace) so if they get a woman pregnant their insurance covers all the hospital bills, not the woman’s. If their insurance doesn’t cover it, they don’t get their tax deduction (you know, because that could cause a pregnancy the mother cannot afford thus increasing the likelihood of an abortion.) We can call it No Taxpayer Funding for Uncovered Penises. If a man doesn’t want the responsibility of a baby then he shouldn’t have sex. That’s the argument I see for woman, it works for men too.

Vote on This Bill

34% Users Support Bill

728 in favor / 1409 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments