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.

TheConservative 02/02/2011 10:21am
in reply to prbroste Feb 02, 2011 12:50am

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.

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:25am
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

Do your homework. Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions. That has been illegal for years.

nmeagent 03/19/2011 8:02am
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

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?

debj 02/02/2011 10:03am
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

It’s not just the GOP, Michael…and it’s only about who PAYS for a woman’s choice.

nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 11:56am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 03, 2011 8:27am

That’s my point. This was a comparison to the welfare system taking care of a woman’s body and needs, similar to the way a woman’s body takes care of a fetus’s growth and needs. Sometimes that is done against her will, like a homeless person setting up camp in your home and expecting you to take care of them for nine months most likely would be, to use Spline’s analogy. It should be the woman’s choice whether she evicts this unwelcome visitor, and her choice of how she pays for it. If she wants to use her HSA or her private insurance, as she is currently able to do under the Hyde Amendment, then she should be allowed to do so, since as many people upthread seem to have forgotten, ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY. This bill, however, takes away her choice of payment, and forces her to pay out-of-pocket for it, whether that payment is for the procedure itself or for the extra taxes afterward or both.

Mophatt 02/04/2011 12:38am
in reply to nebeltanzerin Feb 02, 2011 3:46pm

All I am suggesting, and forgive me if this sounds cruel, is I nor anyone else not involved, is resposible for taking care of that woman. Our tax dollars aren’t meant for that. I am not against helping on ones own free will, which I have and will do again. Many people, man or woman, have to suffer the effects of some else’s wrong doing and a lot of the time they don’t have insurance that will take care of it. Why should this example be any different by law? It shouldn’t. It is a nasty thing for someone to do to a woman but why make anyone else financially responsible?

MilaJosephine 03/23/2011 7:18pm
in reply to therebeunicorns Mar 01, 2011 4:23am

I would never in a million years carry a rapist’s baby to term. It would be difficult to get through the 24-hour waiting period before termination. That’s my choice, and you have yours.

MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:01pm
in reply to abubba Feb 12, 2011 3:54pm

Not babies, embryos and fetuses. They aren’t aware, they don’t have thoughts or feelings so it’s not like they’re “missing out on life”. What about the statistic regarding the lives of the actual autonomous (thinking, feeling, not having to rely on a host to eat, breathe, and excrete waste) women who have died from illegal, botched abortions before Roe v. Wade?

navigation74 03/22/2011 12:51pm

By making it financially illegal to obtain an abortion, we will only further sink into the mindset of sex=bad. If a woman pays for her own health insurance and has funds available for medical procedures, government needs to stay out of it.

artsymommy4keeps 02/16/2011 3:26am
in reply to kylher12 Jan 30, 2011 5:22pm

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.

abstract192 04/11/2011 12:15pm
in reply to nmeagent Mar 19, 2011 8:12am

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?

lclark61201 02/03/2011 1:52pm
in reply to Mophatt Feb 02, 2011 2:41am

I think an excellent law would be to have the offendor pay all costs associated with concieving, birthing & raising the child or for pain & suffering & the abortion if the victim chooses. Unfortunately, not all of them are caught or properly brought to justice & too many people are narrow-minded enough to think that it’s always the victim’s fault & women should not have a choice over what to do with thier own bodies. What bothers me most about this bill is that it seeks to block funding within the private sector as well, which is the patient’s own money & no one else’s business. That is sticking Government into places the Right criticizes the Left for trying to do with Healthcare. We can’t have it both ways. Also, where are all those jobs we were promised would be top priority during the elections? Rape victims got kids to feed, ya know.

TheConservative 01/29/2011 10:41am
in reply to b1rds0nthebra1n Jan 29, 2011 8:22am

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.

MilaJosephine 03/23/2011 6:47pm
in reply to therebeunicorns Mar 01, 2011 4:36am

YOU would never have gotten an abortion if raped. If I were raped, I couldn’t get to the abortion clinic fast enough. The problem isn’t with you being personally opposed to abortion, the problem is you think YOUR opinion about the embryo or fetus in question trumps the rights of the legally recognized person carrying it (the woman) by saying she should be forced to gestate and give birth to a child she does not want. It’s wrong to make decisions for everyone based on YOUR morality. Plus I don’t see how you cannot see the hypocrisy of saying you would kill your uncle and then say it’s so wrong to kill.

nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 4:17pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 02, 2011 5:03am

In some cases, the government is expected to pay the upkeep of food, support, health and safety risks. It’s called welfare.

sanityscraps 06/08/2011 1:09pm
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

Okay, no. I’m one for universal health care, which currently is law and is being phased into effect. Abortion is undeniably a form of health care. No one gets one because it’s fun; you get an abortion because you need one. It’s health care, and since UHC is now becoming law, abortion should irrefutably be included with that.

The Hyde Amendment already exists, so that should be enough for you if all you want is “no taxpayer funding for abortions.” But that’s not what you’re doing. What this bill does is redefine rape, make women pay more in taxes, and destroy small businesses. All to save the poor little fetuses.

MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:04pm
in reply to BenjaWiz Feb 07, 2011 10:49am

No, they’re not. And they never were.

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:42am
in reply to nmeagent Mar 19, 2011 8:02am

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!

kindrapring 05/08/2011 7:32am

Section 203 seems perfectly okay with telling small business owners (and in actuality the text itself is non-specific enough that it could be interpreted as ANY business owner) what sort of plans they can offer to their employees. I would love for one, ONE person to give me an example of a single woman in the last 10 years who has aborted a pregnancy she didn’t get from incest or rape or that didn’t threaten her life or health, because I for the life of me has never heard of a single one. And I know a lot of people who’ve gotten abortions who are low-income enough that they would qualify if such a program existed.

This is just Republicans, realizing they wrote a check they couldn’t cash with their campaigning, dangling the “abortion” keys in front of the faces of the uniformed masses to distract from the recession.

kennijudd 09/15/2011 7:36pm
in reply to WritingRider May 06, 2011 9:01pm

Because this bill does far more than eliminate what little taxpayer funding there ever was for abortion (under the Hyde Amendment, it was already limited to rape, incest and life of the mother — no “convenience” abortions). As a practical matter, it eliminates insurance coverage for abortions — even insurance paid for by the policyholder, on the pretext that because a portion of health insurance premiums are tax-deductible, that amounts to taxpayer funding for abortion.

The “forcible rape” language is also problematic. That’s an undefined term in federal law, it has the potential to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded litigation — money I’d rather we put to better use.

therebeunicorns 03/01/2011 4:20am

First off, I am a woman, I am not Christian and I am not a Republican. I am actually a Satanist and somewhat of a Libertarian. I am a teenager, so have no ‘old-time’ values. So you can take your preconceived notions about anti-abortionists and throw them out. But I am very against abortion because life begins at conception…a human life, not a fetus life. There’s no such thing as a seperate species of humans called fetuses! They are people who are not finished growing, babies with souls! If a woman gets pregnant, that’s her problem. Not the babies problem, and she should pay for it herself if she really wants to be so murderous as to get an abortion. No thing as evil as abortion should be funded. I don’t see how in the world a woman ‘suffers’ being pregnant. I think the baby is the one suffering, having to live inside someone so stupid as to get pregnant if she doesn’t want to raise a child.

sanityscraps 06/08/2011 12:42pm

Poor babies don’t want their taxes to pay for something they’re morally against. Guess what? My taxes have paid for multiple wars I never wanted to happen, too. It’s only fair that you holier-than-thou anti-choicers get a turn with this, as well.

I also support universal health coverage. Abortion is a form of health care. The Hyde Amendment already prevents federal money from being spent on abortions, so all this misogynistic piece of legislation serves to do is tell so many women out there, “Nope. Not rape. I get to decide what rape means.” Hyde should be repealed, as it is discriminatory law, but if all you wanted was no federal funding for abortions, it should have been enough for you.

Furthermore, redefining rape? REDEFINING RAPE? This is seriously the most misogynistic thing our Congress has seen in a very, very long time.

BenjaWiz 02/07/2011 10:49am

My tax dollars are not going to fund a teenage girl aborting her kid.

willtref2000 07/30/2011 8:12am

How can anyone lobby for less government interference in our lives, with regards to every situation, and then make an exception when it comes to abortion? We do not handle funding of war with the same moral consideration. I assume the argument is “the taking of a life”, how then do I proclaim myself God in determining whether the life of one individual is more sacred than any other? This is hypocrisy at its finest. I thought conservatives desired less regulation…

tom989 04/22/2011 9:41am
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

Since you are worried about the money piece…have you thought about the fact that most likely if there are less abortions there would be a greater financial strain to support the family or individual for many years of their life?

willtref2000 07/30/2011 8:16am

Why should I pay for healthcare for military members? I didn’t send them into a war we started. How about Congress pay for their medical care or better yet Haliburtion, whose profit margin was the real reason we went there in the first place. Selective socialism is not the answer – specific free healthcare and bank bailouts are not the answer.

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:43am
in reply to ventrellaca Mar 28, 2011 10:19am

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

fakk2 01/30/2011 12:30pm
in reply to barbtries Jan 29, 2011 10:11am

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.

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:31am
in reply to jegan May 04, 2011 11:12pm

And these kinds of bills eliminate rape, incest and the life of the motehr as valid causes of abortion. It even goes so far as to declare that rape has to be forced. So a drugged woman is not raped. Hold a gun to her head and she submits- not rape. Anyone over 18 cannot be a victim of incest even in the case of mental incapacity. Sounds like reasonable laws to me. (sarcasm)

TheConservative 01/31/2011 4:24am
in reply to filiasilvae Jan 29, 2011 10:25am

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’


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