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.

Phillippe42 01/03/2013 4:31pm

“The religious views of some should not decide the civil rights of all”

You mean like the religious view that you just used? People like to think they are not religious but it is philosophically and logically impossible to not be religious. By definition all that you know, and all that you think you know, is religious. You could not know anything without religion.

“Fools, when will you be wise?” Ps 94:8

SMolnar 07/22/2012 3:35pm

The religious views of some should not decide the civil rights of all. This is supposed to be a democracy.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:47pm
in reply to spoyzer Mar 18, 2011 3:03pm

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!

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:39pm
in reply to SFC7RNG Dec 29, 2011 5:21pm

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.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:39pm
in reply to SFC7RNG Dec 29, 2011 5:21pm

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.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:33pm
in reply to spoyzer Mar 18, 2011 2:57pm

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.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:33pm
in reply to spoyzer Mar 18, 2011 2:57pm

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.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:21pm
in reply to sandersmatz Oct 17, 2011 8:32pm

These are not babies, they are blood clots…. I don’t know who are you fooling with your stupid argument. There are many, many children that are jumping from foster home to foster home and who will never know what it means to belong to a family, all because people like you have decided what an unknown woman can do with her uterus. How many kids have you adopted sandersmatz? If you are a man, have you had a vasectomy so a “stupid woman” doesn’t become pregnant? Oh, I forgot – It is her solely responsibility! Then, it is her solely decision what to do, not a man, not Congress and certainly not you. Your religious beliefs keep them in church and private, don’t push your theology on me or others. Just don’t have an abortion yourself, what I do with my body is no concern of yours.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:14pm
in reply to sandersmatz Oct 17, 2011 8:32pm

Well, as far as I know, it takes two to tango. I don’t think a woman can get pregnant without a jerk that copulates with her. Having said that and since you placed the responsibility entirely upon the woman it is her uterus she is the only one that should decide if she wants or not to have a child.

Pro-lifers here are claiming that any abortion is killing a BABY; it is a baby once it passes the birth canal not before. From conception up to week 9, it is a clot that has no nervous system, no spine, no brain or heart. After week 9, it resembles from a mouse to a horse but I must agree that at that point it begins to have a brain and nervous system. An abortion performed during the first 9 weeks is getting rid of a blood clot that, once it’s born 9 months later none of you would give a damn about.

Pro-lifers are against abortions for religious beliefs. If I chose to burn in hell it should be my problem, not yours. Stop pushing your beliefs upon the rest of us.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:14pm
in reply to sandersmatz Oct 17, 2011 8:32pm

Well, as far as I know, it takes two to tango. I don’t think a woman can get pregnant without a jerk that copulates with her. Having said that and since you placed the responsibility entirely upon the woman it is her uterus she is the only one that should decide if she wants or not to have a child.

Pro-lifers here are claiming that any abortion is killing a BABY; it is a baby once it passes the birth canal not before. From conception up to week 9, it is a clot that has no nervous system, no spine, no brain or heart. After week 9, it resembles from a mouse to a horse but I must agree that at that point it begins to have a brain and nervous system. An abortion performed during the first 9 weeks is getting rid of a blood clot that, once it’s born 9 months later none of you would give a damn about.

Pro-lifers are against abortions for religious beliefs. If I chose to burn in hell it should be my problem, not yours. Stop pushing your beliefs upon the rest of us.

Spam Comment

TrixieTrueheart 02/10/2012 12:11pm

For those of you who believe life starts at conception, and all babies should be carried to term if possible, what do you think is going to happen to all those babies that are born? You really believe that life with a person who is unwilling or unable to care for a child is better than not being born at all? Yes, adoption is an option. But the child welfare systems everywhere are alreday overwhelmed. Do you think adding more babies to that system will improve that situation any? If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. But you are delusional if you think a) limiting access to, or criminalizing abortion is going make people think twice about their sexual behavior, b) people are going to stop having abortions or c) that you have the right to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her body, ESPECIALLY if you do not possess the equipment to carry a child.

asteidl 01/15/2012 10:11am

I oppose all abortions except when a mother’s life is endangered by continuation of pregnancy, or when pregnancy is a result of rape or assault.

Spam Comment

SFC7RNG 12/29/2011 5:21pm
in reply to nebeltanzerin Feb 04, 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.

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

mfresonke 11/16/2011 10:16pm
in reply to jesskazen Oct 26, 2011 10:48pm

Exactly why this bill should be denied. The people that support this bill don’t seem to actually care about the child, only about it being born no matter the circumstances.

commonground 11/12/2011 11:46am

Why there is always an option…..OpenCongress Home Page http://youtu.be/OPYaRJOWznk

commonground 10/28/2011 10:37am
in reply to jesskazen Oct 26, 2011 10:52pm

Sounds a little like you think abortion is a tool to get rid of the poor, well at least their offspring, in the community by encouraging abortions. Be careful what you wish for. Your opinion on who “the poor” are may be different from someone down the road. Do we really want to be told you can not reproduce because you don’t live up to someone else’s standards. Many people were born into poverty and contributed to society maybe more than we have. Their lives are just as important as ours. Bottom line the government should get out of the business of abortions & some degree of welfare.

commonground 10/28/2011 10:34am
in reply to jesskazen Oct 26, 2011 10:52pm

I don’t have data on how many women are on welfare that use the government to pay for abortions. I’m sure there are plenty of middle class & well to do women that use service also. For arguments sake, let say the welfare woman keeps the child. There may be a father that will help pay for that child. Will that mother stay on welfare for all 18 years? I am all for a plan that requires women and men to do some form of work to get any government support.

jesskazen 10/26/2011 10:52pm
in reply to commonground Oct 14, 2011 11:30am

What if the woman is already on welfare and has a child or children and can not in any way afford to pay up to a thousand dollars to have an abortion? Should we as the taxpayers be forced to provide for this child from birth to the age of 18? I would rather have government funds used to terminate unwanted pregnancies than have to deal with the increased crime, education, feeding, and clothing of children for almost 20 years.

jesskazen 10/26/2011 10:48pm
in reply to sandersmatz Oct 17, 2011 8:32pm

why put it up for adoption when I can live in a trailer, beat it, get drunk all day, smoke cigarettes with it sitting next to me, abandon it, etc?

GinoMan2440 10/19/2011 2:28am
in reply to neonblk Oct 18, 2011 12:11am

I’ll setting for 5% of the people who have abortions because they can’t face the consequences doing so illegally and a good portion of them getting caught and prosecuted than anyone being able to do so willy nilly because whatever. I’m all for terminating if it’s absolutely necessary to the mother’s life, and she decides that that’s what she wants, and every single avenue was taken to save both mother and child. I’m all for a rape victim being able to heal the harm done to her by not having the bastard’s baby… But I don’t approve of “oh crap, we’re pregnant, I’m 16, God forbid my parents know, quick, let’s get an abortion!” or “damnit, I don’t wanna have a kid now, I wanted to wait till I was 30, not 24, oh well, I’ll just get an abortion” the problem is 99% of abortions are just these and similar reasons.

GinoMan2440 10/19/2011 2:20am
in reply to neonblk Oct 18, 2011 12:07am

The problem is that as a guy, I can only do 3 things to prevent pregnancy
1: not have sex at all (that sounds like a great option, especially once married but not able to support a kid yet)
2: use a condom (prevents a kid and involves having sex, but really changes the experience and breaks the connection with my lady)…
3: get sterilized (great, if I’m 40 and don’t want anymore kids, not if I’m 23 and just not ready for a kid yet).
A woman on the other hand has so many birth control options, in some cases she can use multiple methods to prevent pregnancy that don’t suffer these problems but a guy can’t do anything but these three. There are alternatives being produced one of which would work really well and be great except the pharma companies wouldn’t get to charge the maintenance fee of continued prescriptions, etc so they’re suppressing it. a woman has a lot of options to have sex without being impregnated, what about a guy’s right to have sex without impregnating the female?

severencesc 10/18/2011 10:11pm
in reply to spalmer8 Mar 06, 2011 7:25am

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?

jreddick 10/18/2011 6:11pm

I feel like very few people here actually read the bill.

There is no where in the bill that restricts how people spend their own money on health insurance or what insurance is offered by private health insurance. It only indicates that money specifically appropriated by the health care act cannot be used for abortion coverage. However, it has exceptions for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, and in cases where the woman’s life is in danger from the pregnancy or from giving birth. That means all three of those cases can use money appropriated by the act.

Additionally, it states that the government entities receiving money from the act can’t discriminate against health care entities that do not wish to offer abortion services. It says nothing at all about being allowed to deny a woman emergency services to save her life if the pregnancy has gone wrong, (usually a miscarriage situation, which is not an abortion).

I am neutral on the bill, but people should really read it.

ENFEMUS 10/18/2011 5:03pm
in reply to ENFEMUS Oct 18, 2011 4:57pm

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.

ENFEMUS 10/18/2011 4:57pm
in reply to nebeltanzerin Feb 04, 2011 5:21pm

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.


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