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 31-60 of 238 total comments.

prbroste 02/04/2011 6:52pm
in reply to TheConservative Feb 02, 2011 3:07pm

Mutations happen all the time and not all are harmful. Some are beneficial. Nor are all mutations a result of a loss of genetic material. Some mutations result in new genetic material, or simply a change of genetic material. Further, I seriously doubt that all cancer can be said to result from the loss of material. I’d have to defer to an authority on the subject. Show me some evidence and I’ll concede.

This is all irrelevant, though. Semantics. The point I was making is that possessing unique genetic material does not necessarily grant a cell the right to life, even if that unique genetic material is human. You are correct to say that cancer is by definition useless and a zygote has a certain potential. That is sorta my point. It takes more than unique genes to give something a right to life.

thepeach 02/25/2011 11:47am
in reply to olaler Feb 24, 2011 7:26am

“When does human life begin? Science says conception.”

Actually, science says that life began with abiogenesis and, since that time, has continued in a nonstop process. Life doesn’t begin with conception, because there was life prior to conception; two gametes that fuse together to start the formation of a new organism are both alive, as are the parent organisms they derive from.

The real question is when does a developing human become an actual person.

prbroste 02/04/2011 12:23pm
in reply to nebeltanzerin Feb 02, 2011 3:50pm

Absolutely true, but I grow tired of the anti choice movement misrepresenting the pro choice position and feel these arguments must be reaffermed more often.

irishmommy83 02/02/2011 6:29pm
in reply to TheConservative Feb 02, 2011 10:29am

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.

KEngel 02/03/2011 10:15am
in reply to KEngel Feb 03, 2011 10:11am

While we’re thinking of ridiculous things…I propose a new bill that will greatly reduce abortions and encourage men to seek protection from the unwanted babies you seem so afraid of. Let’s give vasectomy tax credits and mandate that insurance companies offer “paternity coverage” to unmarried men (purchased separately as a $70/month rider on their regular insurace) so if they get a woman pregnant their insurance covers all the hospital bills, not the woman’s. If their insurance doesn’t cover it, they don’t get their tax deduction (you know, because that could cause a pregnancy the mother cannot afford thus increasing the likelihood of an abortion.) We can call it No Taxpayer Funding for Uncovered Penises. If a man doesn’t want the responsibility of a baby then he shouldn’t have sex. That’s the argument I see for woman, it works for men too.

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.

prbroste 02/04/2011 11:57am
in reply to TheConservative Feb 02, 2011 3:02pm

It is not a contradiction. The only thing granting a zygote that potential is the mother’s womb, and even in that case, there are any number of factors that can prevent birth. If those cells were extracted and placed anywhere else they would have zero potential for growth. (Take a piece of my hair and give it the correct conditions and it would become a person. But in any other situation it is simply a hair.) Thus I would hardly call this potential inevitable and so the rights of the mother factor in more heavily. As time passes it becomes more so, and thus it’s rights have greater weight.

You are confusing sentience with self awareness. The knowledge of one’s own existence, and the ability to concieve of past present and future are rare qualities, and I would seriously doubt an early infant’s ability to do so, let alone a fetus. Chickens are sentient, but I would hardly call them self aware.

sonny56 02/10/2011 4:15am
in reply to BenjaWiz Feb 07, 2011 10:49am

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.

lclark61201 02/03/2011 1:41pm
in reply to kylher12 Jan 30, 2011 5:17pm

“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.

UseUrLogic 02/01/2011 11:52am
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:27am

What if she was forced to have sex?

ryanmunroe 04/21/2011 12:52pm
in reply to Jbach717 Feb 20, 2011 4:18am

How much money does the government pay for abortions? Last time I checked, the amount was hovering around $0. Anyway, if religion is the argument against abortion, then the argument shouldn’t be having an impact on abortion legislation at all. The basis for a law shouldn’t be religion.

kennijudd 02/12/2011 1:21pm
in reply to lclark61201 Feb 03, 2011 1:52pm

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.

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.

irishmommy83 02/02/2011 6:22pm
in reply to kylher12 Jan 30, 2011 5:22pm

“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.

MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 6:55pm
in reply to Constitutionist Feb 16, 2011 2:42pm

You are ignorant. Most of those pictures online are from psychotic anti-choice sites who use pictures of older fetuses to stir up emotions, when around 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester. About 1% of abortions occur after 24 weeks (viability) and these are wanted pregnancies that are terminated due to a risk to the mother’s life or a severe birth defect in which the fetus would not survive long after birth anyway. Regardless, abortions are a personal matter, a private decision, and it is not taken lightly. No woman activately wishes for an unplanned pregnancy just so she can take a fun trip to the abortion clinic and pay $500 out of her own pocket. It’s a really tough decision to make for the majority of women and to think that YOU should have an opinion about it is revolting.

trekie70 02/09/2011 2:51pm
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

When pigs fly and hell freezes over. This is what the GOP does in their spare time when they aren’t out committing infidelity.

k_alderman 02/04/2011 1:46pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 03, 2011 8:44am

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.

MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:11pm
in reply to kylher12 Jan 30, 2011 5:22pm

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.

BillyJackLib 04/11/2011 1:25pm
in reply to toray99 Mar 16, 2011 10:54am

Not all citizens support a standing army or use of military when our nation is not threatened. There are no viable arguments that our military has been used to protect our country since World War 2 and one could very easily defend the assertion that we provoked the attacks that precipitated our involvement in both of those wars.

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.

spalmer8 03/05/2011 5:28pm

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!

nmeagent 03/19/2011 8:15am
in reply to lclark61201 Feb 03, 2011 1:43pm

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

TravisHJ 02/20/2011 2:27pm
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

I personally have a right to buy guns, houses, cars, food, DVDs, beer, and upper-class healthcare. I can’t afford any of this so maybe we should tax people for it, even people who don’t believe in these things. This is not ridiculous at all.

prbroste 02/02/2011 12:51am
in reply to prbroste Feb 02, 2011 12:50am

Is abortion something that should be taken lightly? Of course not. I don’t think any reasonable person would say otherwise. Should the government have the right to force any woman to carry a child to term? Hell no.

I happen to understand the desire to see federal funding for abortion eliminated. Fair enough. Of course, if all in government and life were fair, my tax dollars wouldn’t have killed anyone in Iraq in what I believed was an unjust war, but whatever. Let’s grant the social conservative that this is at least conceptually reasonable.

Spline 02/01/2011 9:55pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 01, 2011 11:19am

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.

nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 4:09pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 03, 2011 1:49pm

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

Mophatt 02/02/2011 2:41am
in reply to UseUrLogic Feb 01, 2011 11:52am

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.

KEngel 02/03/2011 10:11am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 01, 2011 11:16am

fakk2, do you really think that it’s fair to lose my tax deductions unless I change my insurance policy because it happened to cover a precedure I have no intention of ever having? I think it’s crossing a line to be punished in taxes for what private health insurance I purchase just because I’m a woman.

And as to your argument about woman abusing child support as a rebuttal to calling this bill an attack on women; Yes, abuses to the system happen. I’m sure a male rapist with an expensive lawyer can get away with a lot too. The system is not perfect. But let’s be honest, economically the scales are tipped against woman and trying to make an argument for taking my tax deduction by talking about all the poor men tricked in fatherhood by scheming woman and their evil uteri is just ridiculous. How is that even a fair comparison? It’s fair because women rape men? What?! Men everywhere, being so vulnerable, must be terrified!

MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 6:47pm

CURRENT FEDERAL FUNDING THAT GOES TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOES NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDE ABORTION COVERAGE! They are prohibited by Title X to use federal funding for abortions. They have a separate fund with private donations that cover abortions for women whose insurance will not cover and/or who cannot afford the procedure. Being personally opposed to abortion is fine, not wanting your tax dollars to pay for abortions is fine (even though I would rather them go toward abortion coverage than expanded welfare/WIC programs) but taxpayer money doesn’t fund PP abortions now. Federal funding goes toward preventative screening like PAP smears, HIV testing, birth control for low-income women who can’t afford it. PP PREVENTS more abortions than any anti-choice man or organization ever will.This bill only intends to strip women of basic health care and if passed it will cause more illegal, botched abortions, more children born into poverty and crime, more death and disease. It is purely anti-woman.

trekie70 03/18/2011 5:12pm
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

Letter to Rep. Steve Womack (and anyone else supporting this bill):

Please explain to me how HR 3 is an example of smaller government. Subjecting a victim of rape or incest to an audit is an insult beyond words. If Catholics mount a campaign against tax benefits for plans that cover vasectomies or hysterectomies because they decide they are the same as birth control, will you attack those next?

Let me put this clearly as I can: my money is my money. You are not a doctor and thus have no credibility when deciding the necessity of an abortion or whether I can use my own money to obtain one for a spouse or family member. If I wanted to have every aspect of my life controlled by an out of touch leader, I’d become a Catholic.

You continue to disappoint me with your so-called representation. You cannot continue to claim to support smaller government and then co-sponsor a bill like this. It’s time for you to choose.

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