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 121-150 of 239 total comments.
KEngel, you have a lot of good points so let me talk about them in order:
1.) Yes, I think it’s fair that you “…lose [your] tax deductions unless [you] change [your] insurance policy…” because the moment we let the government decide that insurance cannot discriminate against pre-existing conditions, we allowed the government to mandate what is and is not covered and at what expense, to the companies, and to ourselves.
2.) “…a male rapist with an expensive lawyer can get away with a lot…”, I’m sure they can and if I had enough time, money, and bullets or sharp bolt cutters, it wouldn’t be a problem after the first time.
3.) “…all the poor men tricked in fatherhood by scheming woman and their evil uteri is just ridiculous…”, are you saying women don’t rape men? I know 1 man who was raped by 2 women and 1 gay man. Another man I know was raped by 1 woman. So, if you don’t think it happens, you’re sadly mistaken.
KEngel never said male rape doesn’t happen, but personal anecdotes are not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence that states women are more likely to be raped by a man.
But the point is not who is more likely to be raped. The point is, cutting funding to Title X will only increase the need for abortions, not decrease it.
4.) “…economically the scales are tipped against woman…”, At least it’s the almost most equal it’s ever been (peak of 81% overall), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
“In 2009, women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median weekly earnings that were about 80 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts.” [http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2010/ted_20100708.htm]
“In the age groupings of those 35 years and older, women had earnings that were roughly three-fourths as much as their male counterparts. Among younger workers, the earnings differences between women and men were not as great. Women earned 89 percent as much as men among workers 25 to 34 years old and 93 percent as much among 16- to 24-year-olds.”[http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2009.pdf
Spam Comment
Jumping into this discussion for some clarity on a few points…
Regarding point 1, which side do you support? It’s not clear from your post whether you think the government making decisions about what private insurance companies are allowed to cover is fair or not.
In point 5, your example is completely relevant to rape discussions, but not to abortion discussions, as no judge, jury, or abortion doctor in this country will allow a woman to have an abortion at 6 months pregnant. I believe 18 weeks is the Planned Parenthood cutoff, and most other clinics won’t do it after about 25 weeks, as that is when the fetus has a functioning brain (as determined by EEG).
I support personal freedoms. I think the federal government should stop doing 90% of what it is doing, and let the states make most of the laws. So if I didn’t like the laws in the state I lived, I’d move to a state that more closely parallels my personal views. It gives us choices.
Point 5 was a commentary on KEngel’s comment, which relates to what I had said in an earlier post: “how is it fair and just that a woman can decide she wants to get pregnant, find a guy willing to get her pregnant, then have him pay her child support…Worst case scenario, let’s say the woman raped him (possibly using some alcohol, drugs, or other means) and got pregnant that way.” As it relates to abortion, I highly doubt a woman who wanted an abortion would rape a man, but then again, since female on male rape does happen, if she got pregnant accidently, I wouldn’t want the FED paying for her to have an abortion. 6 months was a number that seemed reasonable and wouldn’t surpass a statute oflimitations.
I am only going to comment this last time because I feel my original point is important. The health insurance/tax deduction paragraph is the most dangerous part of this bill which will greatly affect woman and any business that hires woman in a very negative way. Therefore,it can also damage jobs.
fakk2, if your point is that you dislike big government that is a fair and valid opinion. This law is more government interference and limits choices, but specifically for women.
As for much of your other comments, yes, male rape happens but since men can’t get pregnant that fact has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. It’s certainly not a justification for it.
KEngel,
Once again: “…since female on male rape does happen, if she got pregnant accidently, I wouldn’t want the FED paying for her to have an abortion…”
Since we’re talking about pregnancy and abortion, I think the fact that if a woman rapes a man and does get pregnant and does want an abortion, then it has everything to do with this bill. I don’t want her to get a tax deduction, or have the FED pay for it, or receive ANY assistance in any way that others who didn’t rape someone receive.
Can’t the mother give the child up for adoption? Your assumption that the child will be abused is ridicules. There are thousands of parents looking to adopt. This new life the woman is carrying inside her could bring new joy to a family. Also, having an abortion after rape doesn’t solve anything. Abortion increase the chances of depression and suicide. The only true way to come through a rape situation stronger is by having the child. Give the child up for adoption or keep the child, but killing the child, the new LIFE, doesn’t solve anything.
“There are thousands of parents looking to adopt…”
Tell that to the 500,000 unwanted children in foster care, because they’re too old, have health problems or learning disabilities, are HIV-positive, or were born the wrong race. Adoptive parents almost always want perfect, healthy babies the same color as themselves.
“Abortion increase the chances of depression and suicide…”
This is a lie. See: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/01/31/index.html
“Give the child up for adoption…”
There’s no support for birth mothers, and adoption may be far more damaging than abortion. See:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/03/breaking-silence-on-living-pro-lifers.html
How many disabled minority teenagers have you adopted lately?
“Abortion increases the chance of depression and suicide.”
What?! Where did you find that piece of statistical information? I really want to know. Im a nurse’s assistant working on my RN and I’ve NEVER heard of such a rediculous claim! I think its a very narrow-minded idea that the ONLY way to come through a rape situation stronger is to have the child… You have no idea what it’s like on an individual level for each seperate person who has to go through this horror. Birthing a rape child may cause very serious emotional problems for a woman which may require therapy.
Babies should be conceived concentually. Rape is no way to form something so wonderful.
While responsibly living 9 months of prenatal care and all things that go with pregnancy so that adoption can be achieved instead of abortion might be a viable answer for some and a nice thought at that, it’s still not the right option for every woman. Many can risk losing their jobs or family support. If this woman is supposed to finance her care and the care of the unborn on her own, who’s to say that she will. I foresee many unhealthy babies and the chances of depression or suicide being just as large a risk as with abortion. No woman wants to have an abortion, but in some cases, I think it’s necessary and a decision better left to the woman in need of such medical attention.
Spam Comment
kylher12. First off your SN gives it all away (Kill her 12). Second, if you have neve been the victim of a sexual assault and have never conceived a child as a result of that assault KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. To insinuate that FORCING a woman to carry a child conceived via rape and that it would be good for her is insulting, uneducated and ridiculous. You are a disgrace to the human race.
Actually, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of proper English grammar rules can tell you, it is customary to use the masculine pronoun for an anteceent whose gender is unknown. Hence, my referral to the fetus as a ‘he’. Incidentally, it is also interesting that ‘fetus’ is just Latin for ‘little baby’
Spam Comment
I am curious as to why it is ‘rude’ or inconsiderate to follow rules of proper grammar. While you are correct that it would not be difficult for me to refrain from using a gender specific pronoun when referring to the baby, I see no reason why I should feel compelled to do so. The fact that pro-choice individuals do not like calling a fetus a baby, and that they do not like referring to the fetus as a ‘he’ (or ‘she’) is caused by their desire to keep a fetus as some sort of clinical item rather than the real, living, breathing person that a fetus is.
Spam Comment
more ridiculous PC verbiage. If someone chooses to use a masculine, feminine, or nuetral pronoun when having a conversation, they should be allowed without being discriminated against.
Spam Comment
I wonder how many jobs taking away the rights of rape victims will get us. I’m guessing none.
As a registered republican and long time conservative I find this bill extremely upsetting. It is repulsive and abhorrid that the only time our political leaders care about the effects of rape and incest is when it involves abortion funding. If only everything involved abotion funding, I bet we’d get a lot more issues looked at.
There’s something called The Hyde Amendment which I believe already prohibits this or am I mistaken?
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Mophatt, I never quite thought about it that way. What an intriguing idea. I mean, yes, abortion is a VERY personal matter, but so are property rights, and the federal government doesn’t pay the expenses of me being robbed, that’s why I have insurance, because if I didn’t, no one would reimburse me for my property. And a woman’s body is her property. VERY intriguing idea indeed.
headshake I might’ve expected y’all would say a woman’s body is nothing but property. If the fetus is using it without her consent, then she’s being enslaved, if not raped.
Would you consider it “merely” a violation of your property rights if a random homeless person were assigned to live in your house for nine months, and you were solely responsible for his food and support, as well as any health or safety risks from his being there, up to and including violence against you? There’s hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for liver, kidney or bone marrow transplants. You’d have no problem with their families forcibly harvesting organs from your body, since it’s only property, right? You’d just need to purchase involuntary-transplant insurance.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment