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 151-180 of 238 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 8:27am

    Yes, and how’s that turning out?

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 11:56am

    That’s my point. This was a comparison to the welfare system taking care of a woman’s body and needs, similar to the way a woman’s body takes care of a fetus’s growth and needs. Sometimes that is done against her will, like a homeless person setting up camp in your home and expecting you to take care of them for nine months most likely would be, to use Spline’s analogy. It should be the woman’s choice whether she evicts this unwelcome visitor, and her choice of how she pays for it. If she wants to use her HSA or her private insurance, as she is currently able to do under the Hyde Amendment, then she should be allowed to do so, since as many people upthread seem to have forgotten, ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY. This bill, however, takes away her choice of payment, and forces her to pay out-of-pocket for it, whether that payment is for the procedure itself or for the extra taxes afterward or both.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 1:49pm


    I don’t know how you equate not being able to take a tax deduction as “takes away her choice of payment”. Sure, she wouldn’t be able to take a tax deduction, but does that mean she can’t use her private insurance anyways? No, it doesn’t. This bill does make it more expensive for the mother, no denying that, but isn’t that the point of cutting government spending? like the welfare comparison, why should we not cut the size of welfare checks? WE CAN’T AFFORD IT. Abortion is the woman’s choice, this bill doesn’t change that, but, just as with the welfare analogy, we’re reaching our debt limit, and if we don’t cut spending then we’re screwed. Someone, somewhere, has to pay more for abortions as the years go by due to inflation, and I don’t see why it can’t be the woman, especially since all rape and life threatening conditions will be covered and she won’t have to pay for those. Why is it so horrible to not allow tax deductions for having an elective abortion?

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 4:09pm

    It’s not horrible for people that are wealthy enough not to have to worry about the cost of raising children, who are generally not the people who get abortions. The rest of us, though, enjoy the ability to deduct “the amount by which your total medical care expenses for the year exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income”. Medical care expenses, for the purposes of the IRS, include “payments for legal medical services rendered by any medical practitioner and the cost of equipment, supplies, and diagnostic devices used for medical care purposes.” As abortion is a legal medical service rendered by a medical practitioner, costing anywhere from $500-$10,000, depending on how late in the pregnancy it is performed. Not letting you deduct those expenses, if they exceed 7.5% of your income (as determined by the IRS), can be financially devastating.

    Tax info from: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc502.html

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 4:14pm

    Also, I don’t see how cutting government spending on abortions (by limiting the definition of rape, reducing the percentage of incest abortions covered, cutting federal funding to any institution that has anything to do with abortions, and removing tax deductions) helps the government save money in the long run. Less financial support from governmental (including tax-related) sources for abortions ultimately means fewer abortions, whether that’s what’s intended here or not. Fewer abortions means more unwanted children. More unwanted children means more welfare payments, more unemployment benefits paid out, more foster care funding required (even if not actually given), more drug rehabilitation programs, more prison costs. These are all extra drains on the government that we really cannot afford.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 4:40pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 2:18am

    Mophatt- your can’t compare a stolen TV to the trauma of sexual assualt. Especially one that results in conception. Someone breaks into your house, you replace the locks, file a claim with the insurance company, buy a new TV, and feel uncomfortable for awhile. A sexual assault victim cannot do an of those things to eliminate the trauma. In most case when someone breaks in and steals your TV, you aren’t home. You aren’t physically, emotionally, menatlly and spiritually having your entire persona being stolen from you.
    Someone breaks into your house, you can move. Someone sexually assaults you, you can never leave. Then to say that a woman MUST carry a child conceived as a result of a sexual assualt is inhuman, vile and evil.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 2:18am

    I was raped. I was raped by an acquintance. I did not file a report or go to the hospital. The court system blames the vicitm and because of community prominence I couldn’t humiliate myself at that level. My rape did result in conception.
    I carry that terrible incident with me to this day. It ruined my professional life, my social life, my everything. On top of everything that has been dumped on a rape victim, people like you tell her “too bad, so sad” For the next 9 months you have to carry the VERY PHYSICAL and PUBLIC resulkt of your abuse. And even if you choose adoption, you have to endure the physical pain of childbirth, walk away from the child and then worry that someday the child will turn up on your doorstep.
    That’s right, lets force a WOMAN to endure a lifetime of anguish for her sexual assault.

  • 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.

  • irishmommy83 02/02/2011 6:50pm

    I dont understand why rape needs to be redefined! Rape is any sex act that is not consensual. Any time rape occurs it’s forced if you want to split hairs about it. Whether you are mentally incapable of making your decision known to your assalant or not should not effect your eligibility for abortion assistance. The government should assist in the care of these women who have been victimized by a very horrifying crime. The same way a court can award restitution, I dont think its unreasonable for federal funding to provide protection for women from an unsought, unwanted pregnancy.
    The ONLY reason everyone is up in arms about this is because abortion is involved. If this was a matter of redefining CRIMINAL law for purposes of sentencing, EVERYONE would be against it.
    The Hyde Ammendment is quite sufficient in preventing ELECTIVE abortions from being federally funded. There does not need to be any further clarification or redefinition of what constitutes unconsensual sexual acts.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/03/2011 8:44am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    k_alderman 02/04/2011 1:46pm

    In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton co-workers while working in Iraq. The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction. She was not allowed to sue because her employment contract prohibited it.

    In 2009, Sen. Franken proposed an amendment to deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but received 30 nay votes all from Republicans.

    So for those who say that Republicans just think the rape victim should get the perpetrator to pay for an abortion, we don’t believe you. 30 Republicans voted against a rape victim’s right to sue the perpetrator! Last year, the fed paid for just 191 abortions. This isn’t about who pays.

    It’s about the fact that certain people feel that they have the right to impose their religion on others, and that they have the right to use the government for that purpose. They believe that they have the truth, directly from God, and thus are entitled to run the lives of other people.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/04/2011 3:56pm

    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.

  • mmstahlecker 02/03/2011 6:51am

    Our Constitution guarantees the right to life. Period. The recent uncovering of illegal activity at Planned Parenthood in both New Jersey and Virginia demands a full investigation and immediate suspension of all Federal funding. Sex trafficking is a major problem worldwide and right here in the U.S., and Planned Parenthood is a willing accomplice.

  • Comm_reply
    MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:04pm

    Did you miss the part where they reported him to the FBI?

  • Comm_reply
    kindrapring 05/18/2011 4:35pm

    You mean the so-called “illegal activity” that not a single major news network seems to cover? Or the illegal activity that lying Christian groups make up or twist to make Planned Parenthood look evil out of a misguided sense of self-righteousness?

  • fakk2 02/05/2011 7:05am

    As a side note, I’ve kinda been waiting for someone to bring this up, and I don’t have any facts other than logical reasoning, but where is the voice of the transgendered? I mean, this IS an abortion debate, but no one has even mentioned gender identity and the fact that someone who may identify as a male, or half-male, may have the capability to give birth. I know it doesn’t happen a lot, maybe 1 or 2 per million or even less, but in all the abortion/pregnancy debate, no one on either side has mentioned the transgendered.

  • BenjaWiz 02/07/2011 10:49am

    My tax dollars are not going to fund a teenage girl aborting her kid.

  • Comm_reply
    sonny56 02/10/2011 4:15am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/10/2011 12:05pm


    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.

  • Comm_reply
    MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:04pm

    No, they’re not. And they never were.

  • RavenWytch 02/10/2011 6:43am

    I love how conservatives are so quick to complain about how big and intrusive government is, but they have no qualms intruding on women, their sovereignty as human beings, and their personal and reproductive privacy. They are complete and utter hypocrites. If you’re going to spout about how important and sacrosanct your personal rights and liberty are, then butt out of everybody else’s.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/10/2011 12:10pm


    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.

  • Comm_reply
    kir 02/12/2011 2:41pm

    Have you read this bill at all? This bill doesn’t say a SINGLE thing about what a woman can or can’t do. It just says what will and won’t be funded by federal tax dollars. That’s all.

  • Comm_reply
    MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:03pm

    This is a direct step in the direction to overturn Roe v. Wade and go back to a time when women were quiet, barefoot and pregnant in kitchen and old rich white men had all, instead of just most, of the power.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 03/04/2011 7:18am


    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.

  • Comm_reply
    MilaJosephine 03/23/2011 7:15pm

    Oh please! This bill actively seeks to shut down all Planned Parenthood clinics in the name of being “pro-life” because they provide abortion services (3% of what they do.) What about bills introduced in certain states that mandate women to view an unnecessary ultrasound prior to the procedure and be given a description of the fetus? Yeah that really helps people who have to terminate because their baby is going to born with severe birth defects and wouldn’t survive to term or through birth anyway. PP already requires a waiting period and counseling before the procedure so this is just a waste of time and money. Don’t try to convince me that Republicans aren’t trying to achieve an ultimate goal of outlawing abortion because that’s laughable.

  • abubba 02/12/2011 3:54pm

    “48,589,993 babies just in the us have been killed since 1973. compared to 655,000 soldiers to die in all the us wars since 1776”(http://www.loveforthetruth.com/2009/03/22/war-vs-abortion/)

  • Comm_reply
    MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:01pm

    Not babies, embryos and fetuses. They aren’t aware, they don’t have thoughts or feelings so it’s not like they’re “missing out on life”. What about the statistic regarding the lives of the actual autonomous (thinking, feeling, not having to rely on a host to eat, breathe, and excrete waste) women who have died from illegal, botched abortions before Roe v. Wade?

  • ritaj 02/15/2011 6:44pm

    Why are they pushing women issues back to the 1500’s as second class citizen, property of men. I have never been has angry with our politics as I am right now. I lived through the times when women had to go to the back alleys or overseas to get abortions that may or may not have been a medical professional. What right do they have to tell us or our insurance whether they should cover pills -condoms or IUD’s.
    Let’s add that Viagra should not be covered under any insurnace plan – what uproar would we be hearing.
    Has for the Rapist paying the bill for an abortion or raising a kid would you wan them in your life after an act of voilence has been committed and the chances of a judge giving them any co parenting rights! My body to decide what to be done -not yours.

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