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 121-150 of 238 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 12:35pm

    KEngel, you have a lot of good points so let me talk about them in order:

    1.) Yes, I think it’s fair that you “…lose [your] tax deductions unless [you] change [your] insurance policy…” because the moment we let the government decide that insurance cannot discriminate against pre-existing conditions, we allowed the government to mandate what is and is not covered and at what expense, to the companies, and to ourselves.

    2.) “…a male rapist with an expensive lawyer can get away with a lot…”, I’m sure they can and if I had enough time, money, and bullets or sharp bolt cutters, it wouldn’t be a problem after the first time.

    3.) “…all the poor men tricked in fatherhood by scheming woman and their evil uteri is just ridiculous…”, are you saying women don’t rape men? I know 1 man who was raped by 2 women and 1 gay man. Another man I know was raped by 1 woman. So, if you don’t think it happens, you’re sadly mistaken.

  • Comm_reply
    navigation74 03/22/2011 7:43am

    KEngel never said male rape doesn’t happen, but personal anecdotes are not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence that states women are more likely to be raped by a man.

    But the point is not who is more likely to be raped. The point is, cutting funding to Title X will only increase the need for abortions, not decrease it.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 12:58pm

    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

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 1:17pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 4:01pm

    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).

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 4:20pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    KEngel 02/04/2011 8:19am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/05/2011 7:04am


    Once 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…”

    Since we’re talking about pregnancy and abortion, I think the fact that if a woman rapes a man and does get pregnant and does want an abortion, then it has everything to do with this bill. I don’t want her to get a tax deduction, or have the FED pay for it, or receive ANY assistance in any way that others who didn’t rape someone receive.

  • Comm_reply
    kylher12 01/30/2011 5:22pm

    Can’t the mother give the child up for adoption? Your assumption that the child will be abused is ridicules. There are thousands of parents looking to adopt. This new life the woman is carrying inside her could bring new joy to a family. Also, having an abortion after rape doesn’t solve anything. Abortion increase the chances of depression and suicide. The only true way to come through a rape situation stronger is by having the child. Give the child up for adoption or keep the child, but killing the child, the new LIFE, doesn’t solve anything.

  • Comm_reply
    Spline 02/01/2011 10:19pm

    “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:

    How many disabled minority teenagers have you adopted lately?

  • Comm_reply
    irishmommy83 02/02/2011 6:22pm

    “Abortion increases the chance of depression and suicide.”

    What?! Where did you find that piece of statistical information? I really want to know. Im a nurse’s assistant working on my RN and I’ve NEVER heard of such a rediculous claim! I think its a very narrow-minded idea that the ONLY way to come through a rape situation stronger is to have the child… You have no idea what it’s like on an individual level for each seperate person who has to go through this horror. Birthing a rape child may cause very serious emotional problems for a woman which may require therapy.
    Babies should be conceived concentually. Rape is no way to form something so wonderful.

  • Comm_reply
    artsymommy4keeps 02/16/2011 3:26am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:11pm

    This is the most heartless thing ever. I can’t imagine you are a woman, especially one that’s ever been raped. I’ve had an elective abortion and I’ve felt nothing but relief that I didn’t have to ruin my life for one mistake. Adoption is not an alternative to pregnancy, it is an alternative to parenting. And if that child isn’t a cute little white baby with no health problems, it has a good chance of languishing in foster care its whole life like the other 118,000 children waiting to be adopted in the US right now. But to ask a woman that’s been viciously raped to relive the traumatic experience by being forced to give birth to her rapist’s baby is just… vile. I’m infinitely glad you aren’t in power.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:58am

    kylher12. First off your SN gives it all away (Kill her 12). Second, if you have neve been the victim of a sexual assault and have never conceived a child as a result of that assault KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. To insinuate that FORCING a woman to carry a child conceived via rape and that it would be good for her is insulting, uneducated and ridiculous. You are a disgrace to the human race.

  • Comm_reply
    TheConservative 01/31/2011 4:24am

    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’

  • Comm_reply
    Spline 02/01/2011 10:03pm

    It might be ‘customary’ but it’s also rude. This is the 21st century, and using considerate language isn’t difficult.

  • Comm_reply
    TheConservative 02/02/2011 10:29am

    I am curious as to why it is ‘rude’ or inconsiderate to follow rules of proper grammar. While you are correct that it would not be difficult for me to refrain from using a gender specific pronoun when referring to the baby, I see no reason why I should feel compelled to do so. The fact that pro-choice individuals do not like calling a fetus a baby, and that they do not like referring to the fetus as a ‘he’ (or ‘she’) is caused by their desire to keep a fetus as some sort of clinical item rather than the real, living, breathing person that a fetus is.

  • Comm_reply
    irishmommy83 02/02/2011 6:29pm

    In medical terminology we are starting to steer more towards gender nuetrals such as “they” when speaking about someone of an unknown, underterminable, or intersexed person (like someone born with a chromosome abnormality).
    I think you’ll find that the use of “the fetus” by pro-choice groups may simply be a gender nuetral and medically correct term. Its unemotional and, medically, a baby IS a fetus until it is born.
    As a side note, if I may, the fetus does not breathe. The mother breathes for it via the umbilical chord. The gas exchange does not occur in the fetus’s lungs in utero. That’s how water births are possible. Babies do not truly breathe until they have been birthed.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 1:56pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 2:48pm

    BTW irishmommy83, not calling you ridiculous, just the fact that someone has to use “gender nuetral” terminology instead of whatever they feel like saying while having a discussion on a forum.

  • 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.

  • conservativeadvocate 01/31/2011 6:31am

    As a registered republican and long time conservative I find this bill extremely upsetting. It is repulsive and abhorrid that the only time our political leaders care about the effects of rape and incest is when it involves abortion funding. If only everything involved abotion funding, I bet we’d get a lot more issues looked at.

  • JackCox 01/31/2011 10:30pm

    There’s something called The Hyde Amendment which I believe already prohibits this or am I mistaken?

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/01/2011 6:30am

    JackCox, you are correct. The 1977 Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds being used for abortion except for:

    “SEC. 508. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section
    shall not apply to an abortion—
    (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
    incest; or
    (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
    disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a lifeendangering
    physical condition caused by or arising from the
    pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place
    the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.”

    This has limited all Medicaid for over 30 years. Also, military personnel do not have the ability to use their VA benefits for abortion or abortion counseling. They can use their personal insurance, but not their VA benefits. (continued)

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/01/2011 6:46am

    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

  • Mophatt 02/01/2011 5:39am

    Abortion is a tough subject. Always sure to get the debates heated. As for this bill, I agree with it. I don’t think tax payers should be resposible for someone’s abortion, rape or not. I don’t think abortion should be legal under a few circumstances but shouldn’t be a means of birth control. If I was a woman, which I am not, I wouldn’t expect anyone but me, or my parents if I were underage, paying for my abortion if I were raped. That is a personal matter. If that is allowed, then the tax payers paying for a stolen tv when someone breaks into my house should be allowed. Taxes aren’t meant to pay for things like this. That I am firm on.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/01/2011 11:19am

    Mophatt, I never quite thought about it that way. What an intriguing idea. I mean, yes, abortion is a VERY personal matter, but so are property rights, and the federal government doesn’t pay the expenses of me being robbed, that’s why I have insurance, because if I didn’t, no one would reimburse me for my property. And a woman’s body is her property. VERY intriguing idea indeed.

  • Comm_reply
    Spline 02/01/2011 9:55pm

    headshake I might’ve expected y’all would say a woman’s body is nothing but property. If the fetus is using it without her consent, then she’s being enslaved, if not raped.

    Would you consider it “merely” a violation of your property rights if a random homeless person were assigned to live in your house for nine months, and you were solely responsible for his food and support, as well as any health or safety risks from his being there, up to and including violence against you? There’s hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for liver, kidney or bone marrow transplants. You’d have no problem with their families forcibly harvesting organs from your body, since it’s only property, right? You’d just need to purchase involuntary-transplant insurance.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/02/2011 5:03am


    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.

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 4:17pm

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

Vote on This Bill

34% Users Support Bill

728 in favor / 1410 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments