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 181-210 of 238 total comments.

nmeagent 03/19/2011 8:33am
in reply to nebeltanzerin Feb 02, 2011 4:00pm

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

kennijudd 09/15/2011 7:40pm
in reply to jegan May 04, 2011 11:27pm

We already have that law, it’s called the Hyde Amendment. This one goes much further and will have expensive consequences.

kir 02/02/2011 3:16am

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.

fakk2 02/01/2011 6:46am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 01, 2011 6:30am

The difference between this bill and the Hyde Amendment is this bill limits sec 508(1) to “forcible” rape and incest only if it includes a minor. But this bill only affects the 32 states which currently use federal funds for all or most of their abortion costs. Most of which already have “forcible rape” clauses in their penal codes. in 2008 there were approx 566,010 abortions in those 32 states. According to the CIA World Factbook, there are 13.83 births/1,000 people which equals approx 4,290,520. This is at most a difference of 13.29%, which means had these women not had an abortion b/c fed funds weren’t available for it, then they would not have significantly increased the population size, which is sad b/c we’re slowly dying out now instead ofbooming

State data: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf
Abortion data: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html#US
Birth rate data: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

fakk2 02/01/2011 11:16am
in reply to KEngel Feb 01, 2011 10:30am

KEngel, I understand what you are saying, and yes, you should be allowed to buy whatever insurance you want. This bill does not change that. If you want to keep your current insurance, you will still be allowed to do so. If you want to change insurance for the deductions, then you will be allowed to do so, also. I am curious though, since you talk about “horrible attacks”, 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? Best case scenario, let’s say the relationship didn’t work out after they had a child. Worst case scenario, let’s say the woman raped him (possibly using some alcohol, drugs, or other means) and got pregnant that way. If it is fair and just for a woman to be paid support, even if she was the one to blame, then it should be fair and just to limit federal spending, even at the expense of tax deductions.

fakk2 02/02/2011 5:03am
in reply to Spline Feb 01, 2011 9:55pm

Spline,

I don’t know why you seem to fancy taking ideas out of context, but here’s a question for you. Since a woman’s body IS her property (thus, no one but her owns it), should the government be forced to pay the upkeep of her property, including but not limited to the upkeep you mentioned: “…food and support, as well as any health or safety risks…up to and including violence” against herself? Should the federal government be made to pay for this all of her life? I ask, because we are talking about property rights, and who must pay for the upkeep or maintenance on the property. If a woman’s body was NOT her property, and if she was NOT the sole owner, then others could do with it as they please, such as was the case with slavery.

fakk2 02/03/2011 8:44am
in reply to irishmommy83 Feb 02, 2011 6:50pm

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.

fakk2 02/03/2011 1:56pm
in reply to irishmommy83 Feb 02, 2011 6:29pm

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.

fakk2 02/03/2011 4:40pm
in reply to nebeltanzerin Feb 03, 2011 4:14pm

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.

nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 4:01pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 03, 2011 1:17pm

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).

fakk2 02/04/2011 3:56pm
in reply to k_alderman Feb 04, 2011 1:46pm

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.

fakk2 02/10/2011 12:05pm
in reply to sonny56 Feb 10, 2011 4:15am

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.

fakk2 02/03/2011 4:20pm
in reply to nebeltanzerin Feb 03, 2011 4:01pm

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.

fakk2 02/15/2011 9:21pm
in reply to ritaj Feb 15, 2011 6:44pm

Ritaj,

In response to your statement, “What right do they have to tell us or our insurance whether they should cover pills -condoms or IUD’s.”, we gave the federal government that right when we allowed them to pass the PPACA last year. When we allowed them to say pre-existing conditions couldn’t be denied by insurance providers, and to mandate everyone has insurance or pay a penalty, we gave them the right to say what can and can’t be covered by that insurance. Not to mention the state-run exchanges.

This bill doesn’t stop you from getting an abortion, and let’s face it, the government wouldn’t pay for you to fly or drive to a different country, so if you can afford a $300+ plane ticket, can’t you also afford an abortion during the first trimester from your own pocket for $300?

fakk2 01/30/2011 12:34pm
in reply to filiasilvae Jan 29, 2011 10:25am

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.

Constitutionist 02/16/2011 2:42pm

All of you imbeciles who think this is a “woman’s” issue need to Google some abortion pictures. SERIOUSLY!! If you saw the gruesome reality of abortion as MURDER, I would hope that you people would have some more sense about this very immoral and dare I say illegal practice.

Here, I’ll even help you out a bit: http://www.google.com/images?q=abortion

fakk2 02/03/2011 1:17pm
in reply to KEngel Feb 03, 2011 10:15am

5.) “Men everywhere, being so vulnerable, must be terrified…”, it IS terrifying knowing that a person a man had sex with 6 months ago could claim he raped her, although she agreed to have sex and didn’t tell him to stop or give him any indication to stop. All she has to do is say she was “scared to tell him ‘no’”. That is a VERY scary thought for a man.

6.) “If a man doesn’t want the responsibility of a baby then he shouldn’t have sex.” I totally agree. Too many stupid guys do stupid things which have consequences that could’ve been avoided.

7.) As far as your insurance plan goes, I would agree that if we could have “paternity coverage” to cover any expenses related to being an unwed father, such as child support or hospital bills if the woman sued the man for coverage of payment, then I would HAPPILY support it. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper to pay $70 than $250 or $500 per month in child support or $16,000 for giving birth in a hospital.

therebeunicorns 03/01/2011 4:23am

Also, it is not the babies fault if a woman gets raped! It’s the rapists fault. The woman should take revenge against the rapist and kill or jail HIM, not kill the child inisde of her who didn’t do anything but get concieved.

fakk2 03/04/2011 7:18am
in reply to MilaJosephine Feb 23, 2011 7:03pm

@MilaJosephine,

How is this a “direct step in the direction to overturn Roe v. Wade”? This bill uses the same language as the Hyde Amendment, the only difference is, people will no longer get tax writeoffs for a good/service they’ve purchased.

fakk2 02/03/2011 12:58pm
in reply to KEngel Feb 03, 2011 10:15am

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

fakk2 02/10/2011 12:10pm
in reply to RavenWytch Feb 10, 2011 6:43am

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.

ironman62292 04/20/2011 9:17am
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

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.

JoshuaForPresident 04/09/2011 6:44pm
in reply to JoshuaForPresident Apr 09, 2011 6:42pm

The government passes a law that allows Pro-Choice citizens to allow their tax payer dollars to fund abortions, and allows Pro-life citizens to stop their tax dollars from funding abortions.

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 2:34am
in reply to bdg333 Apr 09, 2011 2:02pm

Abortion to save a womans life- acceptable.
Abortion in the case of incest or rape-unacceptable.
I’m not sure how many ways there are to spell moron.

cnp30 05/04/2011 2:35pm
in reply to bdg333 Apr 09, 2011 1:17pm

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

cnp30 05/04/2011 2:36pm
in reply to cnp30 May 04, 2011 2:35pm

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

jegan 05/04/2011 11:22pm
in reply to MilaJosephine Feb 23, 2011 6:47pm

Forgive my ignorance but I just started reading up on this bill myself a little bit ago so I am not intimately familiar with all the details. Do you mean to say from your comment above that PP would not receive any government funding for abortions even if they are due to rape/incest or could cause medical complications for the mother?

jegan 05/04/2011 11:27pm
in reply to txmdcava Apr 11, 2011 6:36am

If someone wants to get a voluntary procedure that is not being performed due to rape or medical complications that is completely fine with me. That person can come out of pocket for it the same way anyone else that gets a voluntary medical procedure does.

JoshuaForPresident 04/09/2011 6:42pm
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

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

JoshuaForPresident 04/09/2011 6:42pm
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

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


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