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.

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.

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!

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.

navigation74 03/22/2011 7:14am
in reply to alison212 Feb 01, 2011 11:27am

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.

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.

badams82 03/03/2011 4:52pm
in reply to Constitutionist Feb 16, 2011 2:42pm

Now from a religious stand. God is the only judge and we shall answer to him for our sins right? Thus, if a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy for whatever, reason then She will answer to God if she believes in God. She should not answer to you, to me or to congress. This is one of the most private matters that a woman encounters in HER LIFE.

Also, Wyoming just revolted against an absurd social agenda and I’m glad to see that some Republicans understand that, the government has no business meddling in private issues between a woman and her physician.

MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:19pm

Thankfully this bill is just political garbage to gain points with the religious right because it will certainly be vetoed by Obama if it even passes the Senate. But it’s a good reminder that the Republicans’ only agenda is faking moral superiority whilst making sure the poor get poorer and the rich get their tax cuts – while claiming to be about job creation.

MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:03pm
in reply to kir Feb 12, 2011 2:41pm

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.

jegan 05/04/2011 11:12pm
in reply to thepeach Mar 17, 2011 12:31pm

“Abortion is a medical procedure, sometimes a necessary one.”

What would you consider a necessary reason for this medical procedure that isn’t already provided for in the bill?

If it is deemed medically necessary to perform the abortion to save the life of the mother then I am all for it being publicly funded. If, on the other hand, it’s because someone wants to rid themselves of a pesky mistake they VOLUNTARILY made they can do it on their dime.

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:27am
in reply to toray99 Mar 16, 2011 10:54am

Oh Geez, the ignorance is ovewrwhelming. The taxpayers are paying for a war many of us d o not believe in. Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions. Read the law before you open your mouth and quit trying to shove your religious idealism down my throat.

navigation74 03/22/2011 7:17am
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:27am

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.

suzieqs 04/06/2011 9:42am
in reply to creativegal Feb 03, 2011 10:46am

So you’d prefer to die and let your unborn die with you, rather than have an emergency abortion, when the child has attached to your fallopian tube rather than the uterus?

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:37am
in reply to bdg333 Apr 09, 2011 1:17pm

Hello- big difference between SLAVERY and ABORTION. A slave is owned and controlled by another entity. An abortion occurs inside a womans own body. STOP using your religous beliefs to control my personal choices. I’m glad that you have your beliefs. You God tells you all about life. Perhaps, I don’t believe in God and an unwanted pregancy is a medical decision that I have to choose to make. Keep your religion away from my uterus.

badams82 03/06/2011 11:51am
in reply to spalmer8 Mar 05, 2011 5:28pm

Ditto!! As, a mother, a practicing Christian and a person who truly values education I respect and agree with your view. Thanks for speaking up.

SEC2AUX 04/13/2011 11:45am

Don’t make me pay for your stupidity! Period.

nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 4:14pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 03, 2011 1:49pm

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.

badams82 03/03/2011 4:51pm
in reply to Constitutionist Feb 16, 2011 2:42pm

To believe or even imply that it is not a woman’s issues is absolutely ridiculous! Who carries the child in the uterus? The woman. Who gives birth? The woman does. Whose, life can be at risk if they carry the child to term? The woman’s life. Some women have to endure high-risk pregnancies. Pay attention to the word WOMAN. Women go through these scenarios NOT, MEN IN SUITS WHO THINK THEY CAN DECIDE WHAT WOMEN SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT DO.It has everything to do with a woman.Until,the day comes when a man can carry a child to term and give birth then this will continue to be a woman’s matter.

MilaJosephine 02/23/2011 7:04pm
in reply to mmstahlecker Feb 03, 2011 6:51am

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

fakk2 02/01/2011 6:30am
in reply to JackCox Jan 31, 2011 10:30pm

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)

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.

MilaJosephine 03/23/2011 7:04pm
in reply to MilaJosephine Mar 23, 2011 7:04pm

Also, as I’ve previously stated, most women do have to pay for their own abortions and the ones that can’t come up with the money are supplemented through private donations, not taxpayer money. It’s shameful to hear you talk about women who get abortions as being stupid and slutty when the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers. Many are married and monogamous, many are results of those birth control failure statistics. Regardless, it’s not a decision that any woman goes into with joy and it’s also none of your business. Women who get abortions would rather the pregnancy not have occurred in the first place, but there are so many circumstances and gray areas. You just choose to ignore them and unfairly tag all women who have abortions as murderous monsters. It’s not that simple and please realize you probably know someone who has had one and you don’t think any less of them because you have no idea.

navigation74 03/22/2011 7:43am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 03, 2011 12:35pm

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.

MilaJosephine 03/23/2011 7:15pm
in reply to fakk2 Mar 04, 2011 7:18am

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.

WritingRider 05/06/2011 9:01pm
in reply to AlphaFemale1968 May 06, 2011 1:27am

If taxpayers don’t pay for abortion then why do you care if this bill is passed or not?

epicism 05/05/2011 4:27pm

Really, this is just another subversive tactic by today’s GOP to defund Planned Parenthood without implicitly stating they are.

It also runs along the lines of their strategy for 2012, which is to place similar ‘Family Values’ based legislation on many state ballots in 2012. The purpose of this legislation is to increase voter turnout among the ‘true believers’, which the GOP is hoping will be enough to bury and counter the severe unpopularity of their stated policies — including this one.

To me, it’s patently ridiculous that the GOP is wasting time passing this type of legislation; which has absolutely no hope of passing the senate nor the President. For all of their chest-beating about government interference, this is nothing less than their hoping to legislate deeply personal decisions on behalf of women everywhere; something we should all be utterly disgusted about.

jodamur 02/02/2011 9:34am
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am


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.

txmdcava 04/11/2011 6:36am

This is total bullshit, the republican don’t care about anything other than their religious ideology. Not one of those Republican Male’s ever bleed out of their vagina. So how is it that they know better about female reproduction? Abortion is not a sin, it is a medical procedure and that is it. Hell I don’t want to pay for the War in Iraq or Afghanistan but congress is doing that anyways. If conservatives don’t want to pay for abortions, then I don’t want to pay for war. No blood for oil using my tax dollars.

abstract192 04/11/2011 12:15pm
in reply to nmeagent Mar 19, 2011 8:12am

Using your argument, however, you admit that the fetus at the beginning of a pregnancy is simply a cluster of cells that will “become an actual person some amount of time after conception.” With this kind of logic you could also say that any viable egg or sperm in the woman’s or man’s body is capable of becoming life and therefore should not be wasted. I do not think that the majority of pro-choice advocates would ever say that partial birth abortions or late term pregnancy abortions are okay. However, if a woman has taken all precautionary measures to not get pregnant (via birth control), or had her essential human rights violated and was raped, why shouldn’t that woman have the right to have a say over her life?

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:25am
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

Do your homework. Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions. That has been illegal for years.

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