H.R.358 - Protect Life Act

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act. view all titles (5)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act. as introduced.
  • Short: Protect Life Act as introduced.
  • Official: Protect Life Act as introduced.
  • Short: Protect Life Act as reported to house.
  • Short: Protect Life Act as passed house.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 63 total comments.

  • nebeltanzerin 02/04/2011 5:21pm

    Didn’t see the article that linked me here in the News & Blogs section, so here ya go:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php?ref=dcblt

    By the way, can someone enlighten me as to the non-religious arguments against abortion? I consider “all life is sacred” to be a religious argument.

  • Comm_reply
    spoyzer 03/18/2011 3:03pm

    “… endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights. among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Please note that the right to life is the first.

  • Comm_reply
    thepodgod 05/01/2011 10:16am

    Spoyzer, firstly, the Declaration of Independence is not a binding document. In it, the founders condemned the crown for carrying on practices that we commonly do as a country today (extra-judicial rendition for example). It also acts as a justification for the overthrow of despotic regimes by the people being oppressed. If this aspect were binding we would have done things differently for the entirety of our history, from supporting the Haitian revolution in 1803 instead of ignoring it, to helping the Sandinistas instead of the Somozas/Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980’s.
    That established, let’s keep it interesting and pretend it is binding law. When does it begin? Are you saying a fetus has a right to liberty? Does a toddler have a right to pursue happiness, even if it means eating nothing but sugar and never getting potty trained?
    Finally, government text or not, this argument is COMPLETELY religious in it’s premise of a creator.
    Got anything else?

  • Comm_reply
    ENFEMUS 10/18/2011 1:46pm

    How is the 53+ Million abortions any different that the Holocaust? Hitler did what was Right to him and he did it legally as well. Kill Jews was legal, They were declared not human just as the US has declared Fetuses as non human. Justify it how you wish. I would suggest watching this short video 180 Movie

  • Comm_reply
    Isis7 10/12/2011 4:58pm

    If you’re going to quote The Declaration of Independence please quote it correctly! “We hold these truths to be self-evident…that they are endowed by THEIR Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Given the time this document was written and the events that were happening at the time, “life” did not mean a “fetus” inside a women.

    During the time, it was meant as: the ENJOYMENT of LIFE by means of OWNING PROPERTY, among other RIGHT’S of the PEOPLE that were being denied of them by the TYRANT King George III of England. It amazes me that people will try to use any text as evidence to support their PERSONAL beliefs!

  • Comm_reply
    rhian116 10/13/2011 3:03pm

    So, does the mother not also have a right to life if the fetus is threatening hers? What if it’s a her life vs. the baby’s life scenario? What if the mother is single, and the child would go into foster care should the mother die? What if the scenario is an ectopic pregnancy where BOTH lives would be lost? This bill is a joke because people with extreme beliefs, be they religious or otherwise, see no shades of gray- it’s all black or white.

    People against abortion never consider if the one needing the abortion is a 12 year old that was impregnated by her father, or a 25 yr old impregnated by a rapist. What right do any of us have to further violate anyone’s body, their life, by forcing a pregnancy they never wanted, asked for, or caused by any other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

  • Comm_reply
    neonblk 10/17/2011 11:58pm

    So where is the woman’s, that could be refused emergency care thus killing her, right to life exactly???

  • Comm_reply
    MNoy 04/28/2012 9:47pm

    pursuit of happiness… yeah, except for the woman. Of course, women were not considered people by the original constitution and neither was a fetus. The Life that the forefathers were talking about was the one of a breathing, walking, human being, not a fetus. You are interpreting the Constitution just like you interpret the Bible, for it to fit your personal views and to hell with the rest of the world.

    You are against abortions? just don’t have one yourself. In the meantime, I have the right to pursue happiness and to have a life and I should have the liberty to make my own choices… wait!!! Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness… I have those right, all 3 of them! No where in the constitution it says that you have the right to stick your nose in anybody’s business, so bug off!

  • Comm_reply
    ENFEMUS 10/18/2011 4:57pm

    I will respond, but I will not acknowledge your what you consider to be a religious argument as ever position is a religious argument. Your presuppositions determine your belief system regardless of that belief contains a deity or not. I will do my best to assess both sides of the argument. Pro-life people value that individuals deserve life above all things. There are times when both lives are at stake during child birth and that the variables must be assess at that time. That is an emergency situation. I don’t think these types of situations should be classified as abortions. Abortions are a planned taking of life by appointment.

    Pro-Choice people value its the mothers choice and her body. I hear quite often the argument of Rape, which is supposed to be justifiable. Indeed Rape is a horrific thing, but I have yet to understand why you would commit murder against the child who did nothing for the crime of the father. Adoption is still an option for these situations.

  • Comm_reply
    ENFEMUS 10/18/2011 5:03pm

    This law proposes that Government funding should not be used for legalized murder. Hitler declared the Jews as not humans and it was completely legal for him to kill them (or German army). Declaring the Fetus as non-human is the same thing. At 6 weeks it has hands, eyes and a beating heart. As well as brain activity. If we declare people to be dead if they have no pulse or brain activity how can we declare these little children as not living? People have their own beliefs evolution is one of them, This mind set is typically for abortion. We can’t blame them for following their belief. I personally don’t think the Government should be paying for peoples religious beliefs to be carried out. I do feel that emergency situations should be carefully defined in this bill when both lives are at stake.

  • Comm_reply
    SFC7RNG 12/29/2011 5:21pm

    Since you consider “all life is sacred” to be a religious argument, then consider this…abortion of a living human being in the womb of a woman is a very evil procedure. If you haven’t seen one done, do a Google search and there’s a video of one, it’s very grotesque and not for the weak hearts, so be aware of that. The head is cut off, then arms and legs, and the “parts” are tossed away into garbage….so, those of you who consider abortions to be a “religious” experience, I advise you to read the Holy Bible about it. You pro-Choicers and Pro-Abortionists do NOT know ANYTHING about what a real abortion is really like. It is nothing but PURE evil! No woman should have it done! If a woman doesn’t want the child, she should have protected herself in the 1st place. If you don’t want the child, then give it up to child services so that another childless couple can adopt it! There are couples out there who can afford and love the child more than you know.

  • Comm_reply
    MNoy 04/28/2012 9:39pm

    There is no head, no arms, no legs, no torso, no brain, no heart, no spine, no nervous system, no human form during the first 9 weeks which is normally when an abortion is performed. It is a damn blood clot.

    Those couples “out there who can afford and love the child more than you know” are usually adopting from Russia, or any caucasian country but not from here. Unwanted children here spend their lives from foster home to foster home, never knowing what having a family is. Once they reach 18, they’re giving $1000 by the government and send them out into society by themselves, with no one to turn to or that care for them.

  • Comm_reply
    MNoy 04/28/2012 9:39pm

    There is no head, no arms, no legs, no torso, no brain, no heart, no spine, no nervous system, no human form during the first 9 weeks which is normally when an abortion is performed. It is a damn blood clot.

    Those couples “out there who can afford and love the child more than you know” are usually adopting from Russia, or any caucasian country but not from here. Unwanted children here spend their lives from foster home to foster home, never knowing what having a family is. Once they reach 18, they’re giving $1000 by the government and send them out into society by themselves, with no one to turn to or that care for them.

  • JackCox 02/05/2011 10:38am

    Another Anti-Woman, Anti-Choice bill from Today’s GOP. I see it this way. Women are going to get abortions even if you ban them, it is a choice between letting them have it done safely or letting them have it done in a back alley. When the Republicans finally let it go that they have lost this battle. It will only do them more good.

  • Comm_reply
    spoyzer 03/18/2011 2:58pm

    Abortions would not be banned by this bill. This bill only removes public funding for the continued genocide of our nations most vulnerable members.

  • Comm_reply
    thepodgod 05/01/2011 10:27am

    Spoyzer, You are using the term ‘genocide’ incorrectly. It has a specific definition. You do real genocide scholars from Raphael Lempkin to Samantha Power a great disservice in misusing it in order to make a fallacious appeal to emotion where your argument lacks merit.
    That said, public funding for abortions is already banned under the Hyde amendment; this bill is political straw manning at it’s most absurd.
    And you completely fail to address JackCox’s point, if there are no safe and affordable places for abortions to be performed, the abortions don’t stop happening; they simply become lethal. No one is saying they want more dead fetuses. Both lifers and choicers hate abortions; lifers simply have not figured out that making safe and cheap abortions unavailable fails at stopping abortions from happening. Choicers look past this for other solutions. If you really hate abortion, you would be pro-choice.

  • Comm_reply
    Isis7 10/12/2011 5:16pm

    Why shouldn’t public funding pay for abortions? I’ve worked and pay taxes for over 30 years, surely I have contributed funds to many pots of government. If I should need government assistance (welfare, including medical), and have an unwanted pregnancy, you mean to tell me that government medical assistance shouldn’t pay for my abortion (if I chose to have one)? Even though, I’m was a tax paying citizen for over 30 years? Yet, my tax paying dollars can pay for medical care, housing, food, and the education of illegal immigrants, corporate bailouts, just to name a SMALL few? Absurd.

  • Comm_reply
    neonblk 10/18/2011 12:00am

    Actually there is already a public funding restriction bill put in place. This one would actually allow a woman’s private health care, you know the one she is paying for with her own money, restrict funding as well. Read the bill.

  • youngcitizenoftheworld 02/18/2011 9:44am

    It’s horrible & flagrantly irresponsible to defund programs which provide life-saving healthcare like cancer screenings & gynocological care to the most vulnerable members of our commonwealth. One of the beautiful things about religion is how it inspires us to reach out to those in times of need, & this is a disgrace anyone who values compassion, nevermind common sense.

  • Comm_reply
    spoyzer 03/18/2011 2:57pm

    The most vulnerable members of our society are without choice and are being murdered for the sake of another’s convenience. In fact 55 million of our nations most vulnerable since 1973 have been given over to the worst genocide our world has ever seen all for the sake of someone else’s “choice” to be irresponsible.

  • Comm_reply
    thepodgod 05/01/2011 10:27am

    How many children have passed through your birth canal buddy?

  • Comm_reply
    neonblk 10/18/2011 12:03am

    You are aware that abortion was totally legal till about 1890. Hell even up till about 1880 or so the Catholic Church had no problem with it as long as it was done before the first Quickening or Fetal Movement…about 4 months gestation. The most vulnerable members of are society are apparently women since we are the ones that have our reproductive rights but up on the chopping block every so many years. Choice to be irresponsible you say “54% percent of all women that receive an abortion were using some form of contraceptive during the month they become pregnant.” Yeah..really irresponsible.

  • Comm_reply
    MNoy 04/28/2012 9:33pm

    A cell that’s formed by an ovum and a sperm is called an EMBRYO. An embryo has no nervous system, heart, spine, or brain; at that stage it’s simply a blood clot similar to the ones women pass during menstruation. It’s more irresponsible to bring a child into this world when a woman is not prepared to be a mother; it is far more irresponsible for a 13 year-old girl to bring a child into this world and destroying both her life and that of a child; it’s far more irresponsible to get a woman back to the dark ages getting a back-alley abortion, killing the embryo and perhaps even loosing her life all to get people like you happy. Do you really care about the child once it passes the birth canal? Have you adopted all the kids you can possibly adopt? Do you give money to a woman that has a child or is pregnant so she can visit a doctor or feed her family? I bet you don’t. I bet you think of women on welfare as lazy and irresponsible that shouldn’t have had a child to begin with.

  • Comm_reply
    MNoy 04/28/2012 9:33pm

    A cell that’s formed by an ovum and a sperm is called an EMBRYO. An embryo has no nervous system, heart, spine, or brain; at that stage it’s simply a blood clot similar to the ones women pass during menstruation. It’s more irresponsible to bring a child into this world when a woman is not prepared to be a mother; it is far more irresponsible for a 13 year-old girl to bring a child into this world and destroying both her life and that of a child; it’s far more irresponsible to get a woman back to the dark ages getting a back-alley abortion, killing the embryo and perhaps even loosing her life all to get people like you happy. Do you really care about the child once it passes the birth canal? Have you adopted all the kids you can possibly adopt? Do you give money to a woman that has a child or is pregnant so she can visit a doctor or feed her family? I bet you don’t. I bet you think of women on welfare as lazy and irresponsible that shouldn’t have had a child to begin with.

  • spalmer8 03/06/2011 7:25am
    Link Reply
    + 16

    I believe life begins at conception, I am a Christian, I am a mom and yes I am Pro-Choice! The woman’s life and the life of the fetus are combined and this type of legislation opens a bad can of worms. Why do Republicans and Tea Party Members think they can control a woman’s body and yet make the claim against the Health Care bill saying governement is too intrusive? You can’t have it both ways. Republicans want to eliminate almost all education, nutritional and health care programs to women and children and then want to force women to carry out pregnancies even if it is detrimental to the women’s health or the woman is unable to care for the child. They don’t offer any solutions to ensure a quality life for these children they are forcing into the world. Absolutely no forethought here. Woman will be forced back into the dark ages. Shoot this bill down!

  • Comm_reply
    severencesc 10/18/2011 10:11pm

    I absolutely don’t disagree with you, but I do have to ask since you said “I believe life begins at conception” So will you let your children drink when they are 20 years and 3 months old? Smoke when they are 17 and 3? Have sex? Vote?

  • KimK 04/04/2011 11:33pm

    I’m supporting this bill.

  • Comm_reply
    neonblk 10/18/2011 12:20am

    Way to degrade yourself to a walking incubator. Hopefully (if this bill passes) you are not one of the women that have something horribly go wrong during your pregnancy, rushed to the emergency room close to dying, just to be denied any help all because someone has decided it is morally wrong to help you save your life.

  • flash8898 04/08/2011 7:51am

    Love the fetus, hate the child…

    The repug’s mantra as evidence by bills submitted. I don’t get this hypocrisy, as well as it is not being very Christian. Thank you “spalmer8” for your comments. Very well put.

  • rhian116 10/13/2011 3:10pm

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: When a man grows a vagina and uterus, he can tell me what to do with mine.

    What right do any of you ‘pro-lifers’ have to tell a rape victim she must be further violated by carrying that man’s child? That is 40 weeks of the most intrusive, life-changing, and body-altering moments any woman can go through, and she has the right to say when, and if, it happens. Would any of you really make your own daughter carrying her attacker’s kid? What if that daughter is a child herself, not even out of middle school and carrying a family member’s kid? Do you really think you have the right to help destroy her life like that? It’s already been altered forever due to the attack, and carrying that baby will only do more damage, be it a young girl that was raped, or an adult that was raped.


Vote on This Bill

25% Users Support Bill

169 in favor / 503 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments