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.

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 2:25am
in reply to therebeunicorns Mar 01, 2011 4:20am

You said “If a woman gets pregnant, that’s her problem.” and “I don’t see how in the world a woman ‘suffers’ being pregnant.”
I was raped and conceived as a result. How exactly was this my problem? Andd how is forcing me to carry the child not suffering?

BillyJackLib 04/11/2011 1:18pm
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

Well, it is important to take into account that this bill affects organizations even if tax dollars are not used for abortion services.

However, even if that was not a factor, is it truly appropriate to legislate through funding where attempted direct legislation fails? If taxpayers truly want to legislate against abortion then perhaps it should be done directly or by not patronizing companies that have policies they do not support. While it could be argued that this bill attempts to do such, it transcends the original statement by attempting to control funds that no longer belong to the taxpayer and instead belong to the government that collected said tax.

TheConservative 02/02/2011 3:02pm
in reply to prbroste Feb 02, 2011 12:32pm

You stated that, in your opinion, “Personhood is directly contingent on the potential of a set of human cells to become a self aware being”. And yet, in the same breath, you are willing to DENY personhood to a set of cells that DOES have the potential to become a self aware being. This is a clear contradiction.

As a matter of fact, a fetus does not actually ‘have the potential’ to become a self aware being, because of the fact that it IS self aware being. A fetus can feel pain, a fetus hears noises and responds to them, and a fetus has muscular ability. A fetus IS a self-aware being, thus, according to your own definition, it should be granted personhood.

nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 3:41pm
in reply to kylher12 Jan 30, 2011 5:17pm

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)

smstark2008 04/13/2011 4:42pm
in reply to nmeagent Mar 19, 2011 8:02am

REALY?! This issue has so many more connotations than just the most obvious one…the death of an unborn fetus. This is a social policy issue and our government has made a campaign of eliminating programs that would give these girls and women greater access to education and prevention of these unwanted pregnancies. I do not condone abortions but there is so much more to consider here…..

bdg333 04/09/2011 1:17pm
in reply to bdg333 Apr 09, 2011 1:11pm

Also, the arguement that ’What if someone opposes the military" is not a good one either. The military protects the your rights, and your use of it is a by product of its existance. You use it, because it protects your liberties, your life, and your freedoms.

People who are opposed to abortion don’t have one. They shouldn’t have to pay for it in anyway.

People who are opposed to a military are, by definition, using it.

Why should people pay for something they do not use?

b58 05/26/2011 9:29am

Washington refuses to listen to the people on every issue just like the obamacare. The liberals kept on until they passed it behind closed doors and obama signed it against the will of the people and now it is up to a one man vote in court to keep it. A one man vote is where they get a judge that sees it in their favor to rule on a issue. That way the people don’t have a say in what is passed into law. That is how abortion got passed.

jdills1196 02/20/2011 5:07pm
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

I disagree with that, but even more so, if GOP passed this, then, it’d remove tax credits from health care plans that support abortion.

bdg333 04/09/2011 1:11pm
in reply to Commenter Mar 10, 2011 8:54am

The arguement, do not have one, is not a good arguement.

Back before the time of Lincoln, pro-slavery people used the arguement, “Don’t like slavery? Don’t have a slave!” However, The Republicans were formed as an objection of such ideas, and that slavery defied the the rights of the who is enslaved, and wanted the government to say “That is not legal, and you may not have a slave, it defies the rights of people!” and the people who wanted slaves used the arguement that I stated earlier. Also, can people not have beliefs and vote on those beliefs, or may only those who believe what you believe vote?

the arguement is basically still the same, Republicans state “An abortion defies the rights of the one is being aborted”

The main arguement agaist slavery? “No one may own another, or take away their life or liberty” Still the same argument against abortion.

Also, we do choose where our tax dollars are spent… they are called elections.

fakk2 02/02/2011 5:10am
in reply to prbroste Feb 02, 2011 12:51am


I think that is what we’re doing, is coming out and saying they should pay for their own abortions, or maybe their state should, or their city, or their county/parish. At least that’s what I’ve been trying to say: The federal government should get out of our health care and allow the tab to be picked up by the individual, their family, their city, their county/parish, or their state, at least as far as abortions go. Someone living in Montana should not be forced to pay for an abortion in California. Allow the people who live in the state to support those in the state.

AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 2:18am
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:39am

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.

TheConservative 02/02/2011 10:29am
in reply to Spline Feb 01, 2011 10:03pm

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.

ventrellaca 03/28/2011 10:19am
in reply to MichaelDSP Jan 28, 2011 12:50pm

I disagree. I don’t feel that preventing funding for abortions is a violation of liberty. I view it to actually be congress stepping up to prevent people from paying for abortions who would otherwise not want to.

lclark61201 02/03/2011 1:58pm
in reply to TheConservative Jan 29, 2011 10:41am

I stopped reading at “I am male”.

xcrissxcrossx 05/09/2011 7:25pm

This bill, while stopping abortions, will also be used as a loophole to restrict or slow down medical care for the poor. It is sad that the GOP tries to call the democrats “socialist” while trying to pass bills like this.

MilaJosephine 03/23/2011 7:04pm
in reply to therebeunicorns Mar 01, 2011 4:20am

therebeunicorns, in referencing the idealized 1950’s, I was referring to the old, white, rich men who benefited the most from the time period – the same ones who are pushing for legislation that restricts womens’ family planning.

navigation74 03/22/2011 12:54pm
in reply to therebeunicorns Mar 01, 2011 4:20am

Are you pro-death penalty? Are you okay with turning off breathing machines for people who are medically “brain dead”?

nebeltanzerin 02/02/2011 4:11pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 01, 2011 11:16am

As for insurance, all this bill does is force people who want health insurance that includes abortion coverage to pay more (by not allowing tax deductions for it), whether or not they actually get an abortion.

The rest of your post makes a very fair point, and shows one way in which our current system is abusable.

smstark2008 04/18/2011 2:56pm
in reply to bdg333 Apr 09, 2011 2:02pm

Define abortion as murder? Then what are the republicans going to do to the women that are so grossly negligent when they are pregnent and it results in the death of their unborn fetus or a misscarriage. Are the republicans going to start prosicuting them as murderers?

And “you do not have the right to health care”?! The cost of health care is so high because there is not national healthcare. The people who dont have health care still need to be treated and our government made it illegal for hospitals to turn sick and injured people away when they dont have health insurance so the hospitals pass on the bill to those who can pay for it. Give me a break even Cuba has a national health system!

rachelnwmn 06/22/2011 12:20am

Defunding clinics that provide safe, affordable abortions to lower-income women does not reduce the amount of abortions performed. It simply reduces the number of SAFE abortions performed.

Morally, I’m against abortion. But I’m also morally against putting hundreds of thousands of American women’s lives at risk because they cannot afford a safe, effective abortion. This isn’t about abortion. This is about women’s health and women’s rights.

b58 05/26/2011 9:12am

The thing is about abortions is where the government is getting the money to pay for it with. We have Social Security and Medicare and they have dipped into it until they have bankrupt it.They took our money and paying welfare , healthcare,and giving it to illegals and paying for abortions. Washington keeps ponzing our taxpayers money off the same way they did our SS and Medicare money we paid into all our life that they bankrupt it.

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.

navigation74 05/06/2011 4:11pm
in reply to nmeagent Mar 19, 2011 8:15am

How many children have you adopted?

b58 05/26/2011 9:58am

The thing is this country has gotten so money hungry that it is big money for adoptions that unless you are rich nobody can afford it. Abortion is big money also that doctors don’t mind aborting babies instead of trying to save a life. Politicians like Pelosi even went to talk to the Pope trying to get him to get the Catholics to go along with abortions also. It is like a human life don’t mean anything anymore these days. Those little unborn babies has not done anything to deserve death at the hands of a abortion doctor.

fla5hfire 06/07/2011 12:14pm
in reply to Mophatt Feb 01, 2011 5:23am

It’s interesting to point out that the drop in crime is largely due to the legality and availability of abortions. Young, and unprepared women who are forced to have children usually result in maladjusted children (and in some future time adults). If there is an alternative to this, then it would allow them to postpone child birth to a point when they are ready for children and can provide the care and attention that child would need. The only reason abortion is even an issue is because some religious people object to it, the last I check, that is NOT a reason for making something illegal. I say keep funding it, those mothers who wouldn’t want their children, shouldn’t be forced to have them.

bdg333 04/09/2011 1:36pm
in reply to bdg333 Apr 09, 2011 1:36pm

When i mean excluding rape, I mean that it will not protect against that.

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.

nmeagent 03/19/2011 8:12am
in reply to thepeach Feb 25, 2011 11:47am

Barring illness, catastrophe, or failure to sustain the mother’s life, those cells will certainly become an actual person some amount of time after conception. With no unusual action on your part, a child is born. Removing the embryo kills the possibility of that child and therefore effectively kills that child. You may not feel guilty about it, but it is still removing a life from existence.

filiasilvae 01/29/2011 10:27am
in reply to filiasilvae Jan 29, 2011 10:25am

And yes, I know that it’s a presumption to call TheConservative male as well. I find it difficult to believe such statements could come from a woman, though if that is the case, I’ll stand corrected on that point.

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

Hopefully the fair tax will eventually be pushed through some day, then the tax deductions won’t matter anyways. But that’s still a fantasy of sorts (ooooh, no more IRS, how I wish).

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