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 61-90 of 238 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    JoshuaForPresident 04/09/2011 6:42pm

    Dear MichaelIDSP,

    I saw your comment regarding the proposed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: “Ridiculous!! When will the GOP stop trying to pry into women’s personal matters?” I thought I’d give you my view as well.

    Please not, that I do NOT intend to aggressively refute your view, but rather provide my dissenting opinion as it currently stands. Please not that I will be HAPPY to hear YOUR SIDE of the argument since I am a fledgling when it comes to the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

    My view:

    An abortion is a personal matter. That I agree with, but an abortion becomes public when that woman uses, intentionally or inadvertently, tax payer dollars. If a tax payer disagrees with abortions he should not have to pay taxes, which might pay for the very thing he abhors: a doctor performing an abortion on a woman, who was not raped or who will not die if she keeps the baby.

    My Proposed Solution:

  • Comm_reply
    JoshuaForPresident 04/09/2011 6:44pm

    The government passes a law that allows Pro-Choice citizens to allow their tax payer dollars to fund abortions, and allows Pro-life citizens to stop their tax dollars from funding abortions.

  • fakk2 01/28/2011 4:13pm

    This bill DOES NOT limit abortion funding at the local or state level, it only limits the federal funds to be used. This is the same as the government stating they will not prefer 1 religion over another. It takes the FED out of the equation. I’m sure specific insurance plans will spring up to cover this need though, so abortion can be covered, as long as no federal funds are used to pay for it. This is cutting spending without directing prejudice against the oepration itself. If we can’t cut mandatory spending, then let’s cut discretionary spending as much as possible and give the burden/responsibility/power to the states to provide for the citizens.

  • Comm_reply
    kindrapring 05/18/2011 4:28pm

    Except the bill also imposed penalties against individual companies and small businesses and redefines the definition of rape to a degree.

  • Comm_reply
    TrixieTrueheart 02/10/2012 11:51am

    Federal funds aren’t being used for abortions and haven’t been in over 30 years. This bill is pointless.

  • 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?

  • Comm_reply
    operakitty 01/29/2011 7:12am
    Link Reply
    + 25

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    TheConservative 01/29/2011 10:37am
    Link Reply
    + 13

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    kylher12 01/30/2011 5:17pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    alison212 02/01/2011 11:27am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    lclark61201 02/03/2011 1:43pm

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

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 03/19/2011 8:15am

    It’s hard to adopt a child that no longer exists.

  • Comm_reply
    navigation74 05/06/2011 4:11pm

    How many children have you adopted?

  • Comm_reply
    ks924 06/07/2011 8:25pm

    Considering that only liberals, degenerates and otherwise white trash are getting abortions (which I’m all for given that I don’t want filth reproducing to begin with), why the fuck am I still expected to pay for this?

  • Comm_reply
    navigation74 03/22/2011 7:14am

    I hope if this bill passes, all the mothers who were required to endure a disease state, will send their kids’ medical, school, and daily monetary bills to your house.

    For every $1 we spend on contraceptives and education, we save $4 per annum. Not to mention the millions of children who won’t be living at the poverty level.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:50am

    And as a rape victim, did you conceive a child? I did? You have no idea what it is like to be told you are pregnant as a result of a sexual assault. To insinuate that FORCING a rape victim to carry an unintended pregnancy would be good for her… Take your ass back to church and ask your God to forgive for that one. You disgust me.

  • Comm_reply
    ks924 06/07/2011 8:26pm

    Is alphafemale another way to spell dyke/degenerate?

  • Comm_reply
    universou 03/03/2012 12:53pm

    Hey punk ass jerk. Why is it that the wackos that claim to be fighting for life and GOD are always the first ones to attack? Killing doctors, persecuting women and condemning everyone to hell. Your actions are why so many people are leaving the church, not to mention all the sexual abuse our children have had to go through. History will show your primitive ideology as exactly that, primitive.

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 3:41pm

    I suggest you read this highly informative and thought-provoking article:


    It may not cause you to change your mind about the beginning of life, but it certainly does present some interesting viewpoints from other cultures, as well as the differing opinions of scientists today. A fascinating and valuable read, if nothing else.

    (article cached on Google at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T2PuOK3bETQJ:8e.devbio.com/article.php%3Fid%3D162+science+life+begins+stage&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)

  • Comm_reply
    lclark61201 02/03/2011 1:41pm

    “Forcing” ANYONE to do ANYTHING is NOT what the Gov is supposed to do. This bill lets courts decide for others if a rape is forcible or that a 10-y/o coerced into sex w/ a 24-y/o & prego is fit to carry a child to term, give birth & raise it on her own if she wasn’t harmed & he wasn’t family. Unless there’s an amendment to punish the offendor & make him personally pay for damages, med bills, education & child support for the rest of his life, this bill is ludicrous. If an offendor violates someone & leaves his seed in her womb, he should pay for the abortion personally as well. It’s never OK to punish victims for the acts of offendors. They get out of prison & free. Living w/ the memo of a horrible act, having to revisit the event in court to seek basic human rights & raising an unintended child is a life-long sentence. Until there’s an amendment to prosecute offendors & provide emotional, phys, educational, & financial support to help victims raise these children, I vote no.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:46am

    As a rape survivor who conceived a child as a result, I can state that you are offensive. Try walking in my shoes and then open your mouth. People like you disgust me.

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 02/01/2011 5:27am

    If a woman dosn’t want a “physical burden” of carrying a baby, then she shouldn’t have sex, especially unprotected. I don’t agree with everything either of you is saying. A snail may not be a human, but it is a living being which makes your point rediculous. If someone attack you and your pregnant and the baby dies, I will bet my salary for the rest of my life, you will try to get that person on murder charges. A fetus has a heartbeat early on, which makes them a living being.

    Thank you for playing.

  • Comm_reply
    UseUrLogic 02/01/2011 11:52am

    What if she was forced to have sex?

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 02/02/2011 2:41am

    I am not negating the fact that abortion should be legal for certain instances, I am just saying tax payers shouldn’t be responsible for it. 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. I wouldn’t expect you to pay for the damages to my property if there was hit and run and the perp was never caught.

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 3:46pm

    “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.

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 02/04/2011 12:38am

    All I am suggesting, and forgive me if this sounds cruel, is I nor anyone else not involved, is resposible for taking care of that woman. Our tax dollars aren’t meant for that. I am not against helping on ones own free will, which I have and will do again. Many people, man or woman, have to suffer the effects of some else’s wrong doing and a lot of the time they don’t have insurance that will take care of it. Why should this example be any different by law? It shouldn’t. It is a nasty thing for someone to do to a woman but why make anyone else financially responsible?

  • Comm_reply
    lclark61201 02/03/2011 1:52pm

    I think an excellent law would be to have the offendor pay all costs associated with concieving, birthing & raising the child or for pain & suffering & the abortion if the victim chooses. Unfortunately, not all of them are caught or properly brought to justice & too many people are narrow-minded enough to think that it’s always the victim’s fault & women should not have a choice over what to do with thier own bodies. What bothers me most about this bill is that it seeks to block funding within the private sector as well, which is the patient’s own money & no one else’s business. That is sticking Government into places the Right criticizes the Left for trying to do with Healthcare. We can’t have it both ways. Also, where are all those jobs we were promised would be top priority during the elections? Rape victims got kids to feed, ya know.

  • Comm_reply
    kennijudd 02/12/2011 1:21pm

    And what will you do if the rapist has no assets? It’s all very well to say he should pay, but you can’t get blood from a turnip.

  • Comm_reply
    navigation74 03/22/2011 7:17am

    Really? Seriously? Forcing someone to live by your morality isn’t going to work either. You can’t force people to not have sex. Millions of married couples (who have sex!!!) use contraceptives because they’re smart enough to realize they’re not ready to be parents. Sometimes that fails. If that fails, then perhaps people like you should be in the adoption line instead of the picket line.

    And a fetus has a heartbeat at 5-6 weeks, but so does someone on life support, yet pulling the plug on them doesn’t get your knickers in a twist.

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 04/09/2011 1:50pm

    “Forcing someone to live by your morality isn’t going to work either” Under that arguement, since I believe murder is immoral, it should be perfectly legal! Also, isn’t the constitution itself a document that imposes it’s morality on others by preventing them to use the government how they please or giving the government the power to stop horrible acts that are viewed as immoral by many?

    Also, the Republicans first started because they wanted to ‘impose their morality on others’ in regards to slavery. Was that wrong too for them to impose their morals on others?

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