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 31-60 of 238 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    suzieqs 04/06/2011 9:42am

    So you’d prefer to die and let your unborn die with you, rather than have an emergency abortion, when the child has attached to your fallopian tube rather than the uterus?

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 04/09/2011 1:17pm

    If you are dying, or are in pain, why would you go to planned parenthood?

  • Comm_reply
    cnp30 05/04/2011 2:35pm

    There in lies the problem with your logic and all others who support this kind of instrusion into women’s lives. Planned parenthood also provides prenatal care and other services to women. So woman who was experiencing pain as a result of a pregnancy, who can’t afford HEALTH

  • Comm_reply
    cnp30 05/04/2011 2:36pm

    As I was saying…can’t afford health care could be seen at a planned parenthood.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:38am

    What the F does planned parenthood ahve to do with this? Wow, you are reaching!

  • Comm_reply
    trekie70 02/09/2011 2:51pm

    When pigs fly and hell freezes over. This is what the GOP does in their spare time when they aren’t out committing infidelity.

  • Comm_reply
    TravisHJ 02/20/2011 2:27pm

    I personally have a right to buy guns, houses, cars, food, DVDs, beer, and upper-class healthcare. I can’t afford any of this so maybe we should tax people for it, even people who don’t believe in these things. This is not ridiculous at all.

  • Comm_reply
    olaler 02/24/2011 7:26am

    It’s not just the woman’s own personal matter. When does human life begin? Science says conception. There’s just a few minutes difference between a horrible murder( partial birth abortion )and a wonderful gift for the child and those begging to adopt it. It’s also a public matter of the public having to pay for it. Abortion is Planned Parenthood’s biggest money maker- no wonder they avoid the “choice” of adoption. Last year they made 63 million in profits- why do they need help from the government? Other “non-profits” get by fine without government help. We have to cut spending if we don’t want to go back to the “Carter years”.

  • Comm_reply
    thepeach 02/25/2011 11:47am

    “When does human life begin? Science says conception.”

    Actually, science says that life began with abiogenesis and, since that time, has continued in a nonstop process. Life doesn’t begin with conception, because there was life prior to conception; two gametes that fuse together to start the formation of a new organism are both alive, as are the parent organisms they derive from.

    The real question is when does a developing human become an actual person.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 03/19/2011 8:12am

    Barring illness, catastrophe, or failure to sustain the mother’s life, those cells will certainly become an actual person some amount of time after conception. With no unusual action on your part, a child is born. Removing the embryo kills the possibility of that child and therefore effectively kills that child. You may not feel guilty about it, but it is still removing a life from existence.

  • Comm_reply
    abstract192 04/11/2011 12:15pm

    Using your argument, however, you admit that the fetus at the beginning of a pregnancy is simply a cluster of cells that will “become an actual person some amount of time after conception.” With this kind of logic you could also say that any viable egg or sperm in the woman’s or man’s body is capable of becoming life and therefore should not be wasted. I do not think that the majority of pro-choice advocates would ever say that partial birth abortions or late term pregnancy abortions are okay. However, if a woman has taken all precautionary measures to not get pregnant (via birth control), or had her essential human rights violated and was raped, why shouldn’t that woman have the right to have a say over her life?

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 04/09/2011 1:29pm

    I believe that a developing human is an actual person is so at conception. This is why.

    At the moment before birth, I hope you have no doubt that the child is an actual person, simply because it is now able to survive on its own (Someone tried to claim that babies can’t feed themselves, so the arguement does not count, and I say, “Are disabled people not actual people?”) The only difference for the child is the location of it. (In woman’s body versus Outside woman’s body) but this does not change the quality that it is an actual person.

    Then I use a second arguement. The notion that a child is an actual person at one moment implicates that the child is an actual person a moment before, unless a significant event occured.

    Between birth and conception, there exist no significant events. From my two points, you would come to conclusion that the child is a human being at all times during pregnancy.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:39am

    Give me the scientific journal that says “life begins at conception.” Otherwise shut up.

  • Comm_reply
    trekie70 03/18/2011 5:12pm

    Letter to Rep. Steve Womack (and anyone else supporting this bill):

    Please explain to me how HR 3 is an example of smaller government. Subjecting a victim of rape or incest to an audit is an insult beyond words. If Catholics mount a campaign against tax benefits for plans that cover vasectomies or hysterectomies because they decide they are the same as birth control, will you attack those next?

    Let me put this clearly as I can: my money is my money. You are not a doctor and thus have no credibility when deciding the necessity of an abortion or whether I can use my own money to obtain one for a spouse or family member. If I wanted to have every aspect of my life controlled by an out of touch leader, I’d become a Catholic.

    You continue to disappoint me with your so-called representation. You cannot continue to claim to support smaller government and then co-sponsor a bill like this. It’s time for you to choose.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 03/19/2011 8:02am

    When will women stop murdering their children-to-be so that they can avoid taking responsibility for their actions? Oh, I’m sorry, is that too blunt for you?

  • Comm_reply
    navigation74 03/22/2011 7:07am

    When will birth control be 100% effective? When will those slutty married couples stop having sex? When will men start taking responsibility for the “person” (by your definition) they have created? This wouldn’t be such a big deal if men were required to take some responsibility too. Why does the woman have to foot the entire bill for the LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE?

    Why can’t people who don’t agree with abortion volunteer at a clinic that offers contraceptives? Why can’t the U.S. stop thinking that abstinence-only education is not an abysmal failure?

    What makes you think that if the government can restrict access to a woman’s legal right to an abortion, thus requiring her to carry the child to term, that they can’t require women to have an abortion if she wants the child?

    See how taking choice away works both ways?

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 04/09/2011 1:36pm

    the free market already created an 100% effective birth control (excluding rape) and that is called the zipper.

    Also, we have naver had an abstinence only education. There are barely any school teach solely abstinance-only educations in relationship to otherwise.

    People have jobs, they can’t always work at places that offers contraceptives.

    Also, if we are pro-life, why would we even allow the government to force women to have abortions?! We would be the first ones protesting! What we want is a for the government to recognized the civil right to life for those who are yet to be born, which would ensure the government would not be able to force women to have abortions. people were not forced to have slaves once it was no longer legal.

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 04/09/2011 1:36pm

    When i mean excluding rape, I mean that it will not protect against that.

  • Moderated Comment

  • Comm_reply
    navigation74 05/06/2011 4:10pm

    You really expect people to abstain? This isn’t just about some single woman who decided to have a one-night stand. This is about women who are married, and use PP as their provider for abortions.

    As for forced abortion, if you can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term then we are only one step away from forcing women to have an abortion. The law works both ways you know.

    People may have jobs but not everyone is in a position to afford $30 worth of birth control pills. Namely women.

    I’m also pretty sure you’re not correct on abstinence-only education. I’m in Texas and we have the largest abstinence-only education in public schools in the country. We also have the highest teen pregnancy rate too. Do the math.

  • Comm_reply
    kindrapring 05/18/2011 4:24pm

    First off, the government isn’t forcing anyone to have an abortion whereas the pro-lifers want to remove the choice altogether.

    Second, abstinence only is absolutely still being taught.

    Third, abstinence is not the ultimate protection against pregnancy. That’s akin to saying “if you never drive, then you can never get into a car accident”. Sex is necessary to an intimate relationship. Telling people “NO YOU CAN’T HAVE SEX” is just ultra-religious nonsense.

    Fourth, it astounds me how illogical this is to begin with. You want to not allow people to have abortions then complain about welfare – even though if more woman GOT abortions we would have FEWER PEOPLE ON WELFARE. It’s also astounding how you talk about the “right to life” but that “right to life” seems to be limited to the right to breath – after that you don’t seem to care and don’t want to give people support to actually live life.

  • Comm_reply
    smstark2008 04/13/2011 4:42pm

    REALY?! This issue has so many more connotations than just the most obvious one…the death of an unborn fetus. This is a social policy issue and our government has made a campaign of eliminating programs that would give these girls and women greater access to education and prevention of these unwanted pregnancies. I do not condone abortions but there is so much more to consider here…..

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:42am

    No its not to blunt. Its just too ignorant. As a rape survivor who conceived a child as a result, I can state that you are an idiot!

  • Comm_reply
    ventrellaca 03/28/2011 10:19am

    I disagree. I don’t feel that preventing funding for abortions is a violation of liberty. I view it to actually be congress stepping up to prevent people from paying for abortions who would otherwise not want to.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:43am

    ONCE AGAIN- taxpayers do not pay for abortions. My God, do the pro-life/anti-abortion people actually read anything.

  • Comm_reply
    JoshuaForPresident 04/09/2011 6:42pm

    Dear MichaelIDSP,

    I saw your comment regarding the proposed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: “Ridiculous!! When will the GOP stop trying to pry into women’s personal matters?” I thought I’d give you my view as well.

    Please not, that I do NOT intend to aggressively refute your view, but rather provide my dissenting opinion as it currently stands. Please not that I will be HAPPY to hear YOUR SIDE of the argument since I am a fledgling when it comes to the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

    My view:

    An abortion is a personal matter. That I agree with, but an abortion becomes public when that woman uses, intentionally or inadvertently, tax payer dollars. If a tax payer disagrees with abortions he should not have to pay taxes, which might pay for the very thing he abhors: a doctor performing an abortion on a woman, who was not raped or who will not die if she keeps the baby.

    My Proposed Solution:
    The

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    WritingRider 05/06/2011 8:56pm

    They aren’t “Prying into women’s personal matters”. The GOP doesn’t want people’s hard earn money going towards paying for an abortion! I strongly agree with Mophatt!

  • Comm_reply
    ironman62292 04/20/2011 9:17am

    Abortion is murder, not a woman’s right, not an issue of privacy. When people are being killed, it becomes everybody’s business. I support this bill. No one should be given the right to decide to lives and who’s dies for any reason. A woman does not have the right to kill her neighbor, why does she have the “right” to kill her child? Abortion should be outlawed forever.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:44am

    As a rape survivor who conceived a child as a result, I can state that you are an idiot!


Vote on This Bill

34% Users Support Bill

727 in favor / 1409 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments