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 1-30 of 238 total comments.

  • MichaelDSP 01/28/2011 12:50pm
    Link Reply
    + 21

    Ridiculous!! When will the GOP stop trying to pry into women’s personal matters?

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 02/01/2011 5:23am
    Link Reply
    + 25

    Very true. Since they are personal matters they should stay personal matters and tax payers shouldn’t be responsible for paying for their abortion.

  • Comm_reply
    jodamur 02/02/2011 9:34am


  • Comm_reply
    BrendaSchwerdt 02/02/2011 11:52am
    Link Reply
    + 14

    Very true! Women should be able to use their HSA which does not affect other tax payers but this bill would not allow that.

    The danger is changing the definition of rape. This will start a slippery slope for people who cannot stand up for themselves such as the mentally handicapped and children. Now rape is defined by saying no and it should remain that way.

  • Comm_reply
    Jbach717 02/20/2011 4:18am

    Thank you for talking sense. Some taxpayers don’t believe in abortion. Some believe that their religion opposes abortion. Is it not a breach of the right to freedom of religion to have taxpayers bear the burden of paying for abortions in which they don’t personally agree with?

  • Comm_reply
    thepeach 02/25/2011 11:44am
    Link Reply
    + 15

    Jbach717, some taxpayers don’t believe in the military or war, and yet all of us fund the military. Some taxpayers don’t even believe in paying taxes, and they will pick and choose from whichever religious text they live by to justify this. Has this ever worked? No. It’s just too bad that people who try to play the “moral opposition” game don’t seem to have a problem with the suffering of women that occurs when abortion services are limited and disenfranchised. May this cult of self die a quick and painful death.

  • Comm_reply
    toray99 03/16/2011 10:54am

    Hey peach,
    military is something that the american people do support. American people want to protect this country.
    I don’t need to fund somebody for their abortion, they can fund their own abortion. You play, YOU PAY, not the taxpayers.
    It’s about responsibility, if people have to pay for something them selves ( coming out of their own wallet ) they will think very carefully about their actions.
    You can add public housing and other things to that too. If people get housing for free they have no skin in it, so they don’t care about their housing. If they own their housing and paying for it out of their own wallet, they take care of it because they have investment in it.

  • Comm_reply
    thepeach 03/17/2011 12:31pm
    Link Reply
    + 11

    “military is something that the american people do support. American people want to protect this country.”

    If you think that every tax-paying American supports the military, you are as sheltered as you sound. There are many people who don’t support the military, who absolutely despise it. Some people are against a forcible tax system altogether. Point is, the country is not to support the individual, but everyone. Just because you personally disapprove of something doesn’t mean you have the right to restrict people’s access to it.

    “I don’t need to fund somebody for their abortion, they can fund their own abortion”

    There’s that old compassion again. Well, when your heart decides to quit prematurely, you can fund your own bypass.

    Abortion is a medical procedure, sometimes a necessary one.

  • Comm_reply
    jegan 05/04/2011 11:12pm

    “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.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:31am

    And these kinds of bills eliminate rape, incest and the life of the motehr as valid causes of abortion. It even goes so far as to declare that rape has to be forced. So a drugged woman is not raped. Hold a gun to her head and she submits- not rape. Anyone over 18 cannot be a victim of incest even in the case of mental incapacity. Sounds like reasonable laws to me. (sarcasm)

  • Comm_reply
    BillyJackLib 04/11/2011 1:25pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:27am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    WritingRider 05/06/2011 9:01pm

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

  • Comm_reply
    kennijudd 09/15/2011 7:36pm

    Because this bill does far more than eliminate what little taxpayer funding there ever was for abortion (under the Hyde Amendment, it was already limited to rape, incest and life of the mother — no “convenience” abortions). As a practical matter, it eliminates insurance coverage for abortions — even insurance paid for by the policyholder, on the pretext that because a portion of health insurance premiums are tax-deductible, that amounts to taxpayer funding for abortion.

    The “forcible rape” language is also problematic. That’s an undefined term in federal law, it has the potential to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded litigation — money I’d rather we put to better use.

  • Comm_reply
    tonyjones 03/21/2011 5:23pm

    The military and war is not a decision made by a private citizen to benefit, excuse, etc. themselves. What would be more comparable is cosmetic surgery that an individual would want and we the tax payer would have to pick up. Abortion is between the woman and her doctor. If you want an abortion, much like you might want 44DD’s, it is yours to fund, not mine.

    I see not reason why anyone could make a distinction of something that benefits us all (military that is meant to keep our homeland safe) to woman wanting to kill her child for self serving reasons and ask others to pick up the tab.

  • Comm_reply
    ryanmunroe 04/21/2011 12:52pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    jdills1196 02/20/2011 5:07pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Commenter 03/10/2011 8:54am

    I don’t want to pay for war but we don’t get to choose where our tax dollars are spent.

    There is a very simple solution to you anti-choice bible bouncers: if you are so against abortion READY FOR THE SOLUTION? wait for it….don’t have one. Keep your religeon out of my government.

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 04/09/2011 1:11pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 04/09/2011 1:17pm

    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?

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:37am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    navigation74 03/22/2011 12:49pm

    @Mop-Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions.

  • Comm_reply
    BillyJackLib 04/11/2011 1:18pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    tom989 04/22/2011 9:41am

    Since you are worried about the money piece…have you thought about the fact that most likely if there are less abortions there would be a greater financial strain to support the family or individual for many years of their life?

  • Comm_reply
    AlphaFemale1968 05/06/2011 1:25am

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

  • Comm_reply
    fla5hfire 06/07/2011 12:14pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    sanityscraps 06/08/2011 1:09pm

    Okay, no. I’m one for universal health care, which currently is law and is being phased into effect. Abortion is undeniably a form of health care. No one gets one because it’s fun; you get an abortion because you need one. It’s health care, and since UHC is now becoming law, abortion should irrefutably be included with that.

    The Hyde Amendment already exists, so that should be enough for you if all you want is “no taxpayer funding for abortions.” But that’s not what you’re doing. What this bill does is redefine rape, make women pay more in taxes, and destroy small businesses. All to save the poor little fetuses.

  • Comm_reply
    debj 02/02/2011 10:03am

    It’s not just the GOP, Michael…and it’s only about who PAYS for a woman’s choice.

  • Comm_reply
    creativegal 02/03/2011 10:46am

    I am a woman, and murdering a child is not a personal matter.

  • Comm_reply
    nebeltanzerin 02/03/2011 11:45am
    Link Reply
    + 13

    Then I am glad and grateful for you that you are financially, emotionally, and physically capable and willing to bring any pregnancy you might have (whether through rape, incest, or simply a failure of birth control) to term, and to raise the resulting child or children in a happy, healthy, loving environment.

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