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 1-30 of 238 total comments.

operakitty 01/29/2011 7:12am
Link Reply
+ 25
in reply to TheConservative Jan 28, 2011 6:03pm

Wow. So many terrible analogies and logical fallacies in this comment that I can’t decide where to begin.

“Since when is the life of a helpless baby a woman’s personal matter?”

Since the woman’s body is the one bearing the physical burden of carrying it.

“Taking that human being and labeling him as a personal matter of someone else is just like what went on with slavery.”

I have no words for how ridiculous this statement is so I’ll just skip ahead to this: How is forcing a woman to give birth against her will because of the fetus in her body any better? You’re essentially making her property of the government.

“Some may deny the fact that a fetus is actually a person, but on what grounds? The fetus possesses its own DNA.”

A snail possesses DNA. A snail is most definitely not a person.

Thanks for playing, try again.

Mophatt 02/01/2011 5:23am
Link Reply
+ 25
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

Very true. Since they are personal matters they should stay personal matters and tax payers shouldn’t be responsible for paying for their abortion.

MichaelDSP 01/28/2011 12:50pm
Link Reply
+ 21

Ridiculous!! When will the GOP stop trying to pry into women’s personal matters?

prbroste 02/02/2011 12:51am
Link Reply
+ 15
in reply to prbroste Feb 02, 2011 12:51am

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.

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.

thepeach 02/25/2011 11:44am
Link Reply
+ 15
in reply to Jbach717 Feb 20, 2011 4:18am

Jbach717, some taxpayers don’t believe in the military or war, and yet all of us fund the military. Some taxpayers don’t even believe in paying taxes, and they will pick and choose from whichever religious text they live by to justify this. Has this ever worked? No. It’s just too bad that people who try to play the “moral opposition” game don’t seem to have a problem with the suffering of women that occurs when abortion services are limited and disenfranchised. May this cult of self die a quick and painful death.

BrendaSchwerdt 02/02/2011 11:52am
Link Reply
+ 14
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

Very true! Women should be able to use their HSA which does not affect other tax payers but this bill would not allow that.

The danger is changing the definition of rape. This will start a slippery slope for people who cannot stand up for themselves such as the mentally handicapped and children. Now rape is defined by saying no and it should remain that way.

nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 11:45am
Link Reply
+ 13
in reply to creativegal Feb 03, 2011 10:46am

Then I am glad and grateful for you that you are financially, emotionally, and physically capable and willing to bring any pregnancy you might have (whether through rape, incest, or simply a failure of birth control) to term, and to raise the resulting child or children in a happy, healthy, loving environment.

TheConservative 01/29/2011 10:37am
Link Reply
+ 13
in reply to operakitty Jan 29, 2011 7:12am

The fact that a woman’s body is the one bearing the physical responsibility of carrying it does not change the fact that the baby is still its own person. Just because that person must rely on another person to keep it alive for nine months does not change that fact. Every fetus has a right to live.

As for your rediculous reference to snail DNA, let’s try to at least be practical about this. A baby is of the human species. Its DNA is distinctly human and distinguishes it from other HUMANS. Snail DNA is distinctly snail in species and can be used to determine one SNAIL from another. Your example was nothing but a feeble attempt to undermine the integrity of the perfectly legitimate DNA argument.

MDMilanese 01/30/2011 5:47pm
Link Reply
+ 12

I wonder how many jobs taking away the rights of rape victims will get us. I’m guessing none.

prbroste 02/02/2011 12:50am
Link Reply
+ 11
in reply to TheConservative Jan 28, 2011 6:03pm

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.

prbroste 02/02/2011 12:32pm
Link Reply
+ 11
in reply to TheConservative Feb 02, 2011 10:21am

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.

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.

thepeach 03/17/2011 12:31pm
Link Reply
+ 11
in reply to toray99 Mar 16, 2011 10:54am

“military is something that the american people do support. American people want to protect this country.”

If you think that every tax-paying American supports the military, you are as sheltered as you sound. There are many people who don’t support the military, who absolutely despise it. Some people are against a forcible tax system altogether. Point is, the country is not to support the individual, but everyone. Just because you personally disapprove of something doesn’t mean you have the right to restrict people’s access to it.

“I don’t need to fund somebody for their abortion, they can fund their own abortion”

There’s that old compassion again. Well, when your heart decides to quit prematurely, you can fund your own bypass.

Abortion is a medical procedure, sometimes a necessary one.

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.

TheConservative 01/28/2011 6:03pm
Link Reply
+ 10

The GOP is not “prying into women’s personal matters”, MichaelIDSP. Since when is the life of a helpless baby a woman’s personal matter? As soon as that baby is conceived, another human being is present in the equation. Taking that human being and labeling him as a personal matter of someone else is just like what went on with slavery. People were labeled the property, or personal matters, of other people. Some may deny the fact that a fetus is actually a person, but on what grounds? The fetus possesses its own DNA. DNA has been used for years to distinguish one person from another. Why should a fetus be any different just because he isn’t breathing air yet like you and I?

Jbach717 02/20/2011 4:18am
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

Thank you for talking sense. Some taxpayers don’t believe in abortion. Some believe that their religion opposes abortion. Is it not a breach of the right to freedom of religion to have taxpayers bear the burden of paying for abortions in which they don’t personally agree with?

kylher12 01/30/2011 5:17pm
in reply to operakitty Jan 29, 2011 7:12am

Since when is it the right of the woman to decide to kill her child? Would you support a mother’s right to kill her 1 year old child because it was a burden” to take care of the child? Unless you are morally corrupt, I am assuming you would not support that but that scenario is the same thing as supporting abortion. Abortion kills a child, not a blob of cells. The proper role of government is to protect the lives of its citizens, no matter their stage in development. “Forcing” a woman to have a child would actually be what government is supposed to do. Because the woman is pregnant with a CHILD, that child has the same rights as every other citizen including the right to LIFE. When the sperm and egg unite, what they create doesn’t act like another egg or sperm, it begins to grow rapidly. It has its own DNA and becomes a new person, a new life. The moment of conception is the true beginning of life. Read any biology book. So, thanks for playing, but try again.

nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 3:46pm
in reply to Mophatt Feb 02, 2011 2:41am

“If the rapist is caught, he should be held liable for the costs, if not, then it is up to the woman and her family.”

Big if, there. And you’re seriously suggesting that an emotionally (and likely physically) traumatized woman be forced to pay for a relatively expensive procedure that she may not be able to afford outside of her health insurance, which is what this bill would require. A procedure, may I remind you, that she would not have to undergo, had a male not decided that her body was his to do with as he desired, regardless of her choices.

Also, you wouldn’t expect the federal government to pay for damages to your property, but you might expect your home insurance to pay for it. In this analogy, your home insurance wouldn’t pay for it. They wouldn’t have any incentives to do so, as the federal government wouldn’t reimburse them for it.

KEngel 02/01/2011 10:30am
in reply to fakk2 Jan 30, 2011 12:34pm

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.

toray99 03/16/2011 10:54am
in reply to thepeach Feb 25, 2011 11:44am

Hey peach,
military is something that the american people do support. American people want to protect this country.
I don’t need to fund somebody for their abortion, they can fund their own abortion. You play, YOU PAY, not the taxpayers.
It’s about responsibility, if people have to pay for something them selves ( coming out of their own wallet ) they will think very carefully about their actions.
You can add public housing and other things to that too. If people get housing for free they have no skin in it, so they don’t care about their housing. If they own their housing and paying for it out of their own wallet, they take care of it because they have investment in it.

lclark61201 02/03/2011 1:43pm
in reply to alison212 Feb 01, 2011 11:27am

If you care so much about these childen, you should have adopted instead.

Commenter 03/10/2011 8:54am
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

I don’t want to pay for war but we don’t get to choose where our tax dollars are spent.

There is a very simple solution to you anti-choice bible bouncers: if you are so against abortion READY FOR THE SOLUTION? wait for it….don’t have one. Keep your religeon out of my government.

nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 4:00pm
in reply to TheConservative Jan 29, 2011 10:41am

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.

Spline 02/01/2011 10:19pm
in reply to kylher12 Jan 30, 2011 5:22pm

“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?

creativegal 02/03/2011 10:46am
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

I am a woman, and murdering a child is not a personal matter.

KEngel 02/04/2011 8:19am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 03, 2011 4:20pm

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.

alison212 02/01/2011 11:27am
in reply to kylher12 Jan 30, 2011 5:17pm

kylher12 you hit the nail right on the head. No woman has the right to kill her child, regardless of stage of development. I can only guess most of these women are not mothers, and did not see their children’s heartbeat on monitors, or go through infertility treatments as I did. My children were who they are now when they were conceived. I am also a rape victim. There is plenty of research that shows aborting the child does no good for the rape victim and can actually make her rape experience even worse, causing guilt and anxiety. Life begins at conception. And even if some people think that is questionable – is it really fair to chance it? Oh, since we don’t really know if it is life or just some cells let’s kill it. It is so disgusting. I hope this bill passes for all the children who can be saved by it.

nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 3:50pm
in reply to TheConservative Feb 02, 2011 3:02pm

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.

sonny56 02/10/2011 4:15am
in reply to BenjaWiz Feb 07, 2011 10:49am

Everyone has seemed to be forgetting the main issue. H.R.3 is like taking the round about way of going against Roe v Wade by attacking the medical community’s tax write offs. If a women works,has medical insurance and and makes the choice for this procedure, what gives this section of the government the right to try and pull the wool over our eyes? If,the House wants Roe v Wade reversed go to the Supreme Court. This is just me, the House is acting like a snake in the grass.


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