H.R.358 - Protect Life Act

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act. view all titles (5)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act. as introduced.
  • Short: Protect Life Act as introduced.
  • Official: Protect Life Act as introduced.
  • Short: Protect Life Act as reported to house.
  • Short: Protect Life Act as passed house.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-60 of 63 total comments.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:33pm
in reply to spoyzer Mar 18, 2011 2:57pm

A cell that’s formed by an ovum and a sperm is called an EMBRYO. An embryo has no nervous system, heart, spine, or brain; at that stage it’s simply a blood clot similar to the ones women pass during menstruation. It’s more irresponsible to bring a child into this world when a woman is not prepared to be a mother; it is far more irresponsible for a 13 year-old girl to bring a child into this world and destroying both her life and that of a child; it’s far more irresponsible to get a woman back to the dark ages getting a back-alley abortion, killing the embryo and perhaps even loosing her life all to get people like you happy. Do you really care about the child once it passes the birth canal? Have you adopted all the kids you can possibly adopt? Do you give money to a woman that has a child or is pregnant so she can visit a doctor or feed her family? I bet you don’t. I bet you think of women on welfare as lazy and irresponsible that shouldn’t have had a child to begin with.

SFC7RNG 12/29/2011 5:21pm
in reply to nebeltanzerin Feb 04, 2011 5:21pm

Since you consider “all life is sacred” to be a religious argument, then consider this…abortion of a living human being in the womb of a woman is a very evil procedure. If you haven’t seen one done, do a Google search and there’s a video of one, it’s very grotesque and not for the weak hearts, so be aware of that. The head is cut off, then arms and legs, and the “parts” are tossed away into garbage….so, those of you who consider abortions to be a “religious” experience, I advise you to read the Holy Bible about it. You pro-Choicers and Pro-Abortionists do NOT know ANYTHING about what a real abortion is really like. It is nothing but PURE evil! No woman should have it done! If a woman doesn’t want the child, she should have protected herself in the 1st place. If you don’t want the child, then give it up to child services so that another childless couple can adopt it! There are couples out there who can afford and love the child more than you know.

ENFEMUS 10/18/2011 4:57pm
in reply to nebeltanzerin Feb 04, 2011 5:21pm

I will respond, but I will not acknowledge your what you consider to be a religious argument as ever position is a religious argument. Your presuppositions determine your belief system regardless of that belief contains a deity or not. I will do my best to assess both sides of the argument. Pro-life people value that individuals deserve life above all things. There are times when both lives are at stake during child birth and that the variables must be assess at that time. That is an emergency situation. I don’t think these types of situations should be classified as abortions. Abortions are a planned taking of life by appointment.

Pro-Choice people value its the mothers choice and her body. I hear quite often the argument of Rape, which is supposed to be justifiable. Indeed Rape is a horrific thing, but I have yet to understand why you would commit murder against the child who did nothing for the crime of the father. Adoption is still an option for these situations.

KimK 04/04/2011 11:33pm

I’m supporting this bill.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:39pm
in reply to SFC7RNG Dec 29, 2011 5:21pm

There is no head, no arms, no legs, no torso, no brain, no heart, no spine, no nervous system, no human form during the first 9 weeks which is normally when an abortion is performed. It is a damn blood clot.

Those couples “out there who can afford and love the child more than you know” are usually adopting from Russia, or any caucasian country but not from here. Unwanted children here spend their lives from foster home to foster home, never knowing what having a family is. Once they reach 18, they’re giving $1000 by the government and send them out into society by themselves, with no one to turn to or that care for them.

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:39pm
in reply to SFC7RNG Dec 29, 2011 5:21pm

There is no head, no arms, no legs, no torso, no brain, no heart, no spine, no nervous system, no human form during the first 9 weeks which is normally when an abortion is performed. It is a damn blood clot.

Those couples “out there who can afford and love the child more than you know” are usually adopting from Russia, or any caucasian country but not from here. Unwanted children here spend their lives from foster home to foster home, never knowing what having a family is. Once they reach 18, they’re giving $1000 by the government and send them out into society by themselves, with no one to turn to or that care for them.

Spam Comment

MNoy 04/28/2012 9:47pm
in reply to spoyzer Mar 18, 2011 3:03pm

pursuit of happiness… yeah, except for the woman. Of course, women were not considered people by the original constitution and neither was a fetus. The Life that the forefathers were talking about was the one of a breathing, walking, human being, not a fetus. You are interpreting the Constitution just like you interpret the Bible, for it to fit your personal views and to hell with the rest of the world.

You are against abortions? just don’t have one yourself. In the meantime, I have the right to pursue happiness and to have a life and I should have the liberty to make my own choices… wait!!! Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness… I have those right, all 3 of them! No where in the constitution it says that you have the right to stick your nose in anybody’s business, so bug off!

spoyzer 03/18/2011 2:57pm
in reply to youngcitizenoftheworld Feb 18, 2011 9:44am

The most vulnerable members of our society are without choice and are being murdered for the sake of another’s convenience. In fact 55 million of our nations most vulnerable since 1973 have been given over to the worst genocide our world has ever seen all for the sake of someone else’s “choice” to be irresponsible.

Spam Comment

Phillippe42 01/03/2013 4:31pm

“The religious views of some should not decide the civil rights of all”

You mean like the religious view that you just used? People like to think they are not religious but it is philosophically and logically impossible to not be religious. By definition all that you know, and all that you think you know, is religious. You could not know anything without religion.

“Fools, when will you be wise?” Ps 94:8

asteidl 01/15/2012 10:11am

I oppose all abortions except when a mother’s life is endangered by continuation of pregnancy, or when pregnancy is a result of rape or assault.

ENFEMUS 10/18/2011 5:03pm
in reply to ENFEMUS Oct 18, 2011 4:57pm

This law proposes that Government funding should not be used for legalized murder. Hitler declared the Jews as not humans and it was completely legal for him to kill them (or German army). Declaring the Fetus as non-human is the same thing. At 6 weeks it has hands, eyes and a beating heart. As well as brain activity. If we declare people to be dead if they have no pulse or brain activity how can we declare these little children as not living? People have their own beliefs evolution is one of them, This mind set is typically for abortion. We can’t blame them for following their belief. I personally don’t think the Government should be paying for peoples religious beliefs to be carried out. I do feel that emergency situations should be carefully defined in this bill when both lives are at stake.

neonblk 10/18/2011 12:27am
in reply to maxim80 Oct 15, 2011 11:32am

agreed

commonground 10/14/2011 11:34am

We could just repeal the Health care bill and then none of this would be necessary.

spoyzer 03/18/2011 2:58pm
in reply to JackCox Feb 05, 2011 10:38am

Abortions would not be banned by this bill. This bill only removes public funding for the continued genocide of our nations most vulnerable members.

neonblk 10/18/2011 12:03am
in reply to spoyzer Mar 18, 2011 2:57pm

You are aware that abortion was totally legal till about 1890. Hell even up till about 1880 or so the Catholic Church had no problem with it as long as it was done before the first Quickening or Fetal Movement…about 4 months gestation. The most vulnerable members of are society are apparently women since we are the ones that have our reproductive rights but up on the chopping block every so many years. Choice to be irresponsible you say “54% percent of all women that receive an abortion were using some form of contraceptive during the month they become pregnant.” Yeah..really irresponsible.

commonground 10/17/2011 2:07pm
in reply to maxim80 Oct 15, 2011 11:26am

I have never been vocal about the unborn before now. I hear comments from the pro-choice side all the time. It seems to me most people that feel the way I do keep their thoughts to themselves so not to offend others. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard comments making fun of anyone with religious beliefs. Most of them being very mean and offensive. I let them say what they want without complaint. It just seems to me that most on the left of most positions would like to write off the opinions from the right along with the people that agree with those opinions. As far as underprivileged kids, I believe we should help them. There are so many programs in communities that help families including most religious groups. Charity should be an individual responsibility. We can do it better than most government programs

neonblk 10/18/2011 12:00am
in reply to spoyzer Mar 18, 2011 2:58pm

Actually there is already a public funding restriction bill put in place. This one would actually allow a woman’s private health care, you know the one she is paying for with her own money, restrict funding as well. Read the bill.

sandersmatz 10/17/2011 8:32pm
in reply to sandersmatz Oct 17, 2011 8:32pm

Here’s an idea… how about these morons be forced to live with the consequences of their bad behavior, at least long enough for the pregnancy to come to term at which point they can put the baby up for adoption. There are millions of loving, responsible people who want to adopt babies in this county.
Your argument is a lame one and does not justify murdering 99% of close to 1.25 million innocent babies.

Spam Comment

neonblk 10/17/2011 11:58pm
in reply to spoyzer Mar 18, 2011 3:03pm

So where is the woman’s, that could be refused emergency care thus killing her, right to life exactly???

sandersmatz 10/17/2011 8:32pm
in reply to rhian116 Oct 13, 2011 3:10pm

rhian116, In the first place, the federal government does not have the authority to force doctors to give abortions or to force the American tax payer to pay for it!
Secondly, less than 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest. This means that more than 99% of the helpless, unborn babies that are killed each year, are killed because some stupid woman didn’t have the brains or moral fortitude to think or care about the consequences of her irresponsible and probably very hasty decision.

neonblk 10/18/2011 12:11am
in reply to commonground Oct 14, 2011 11:30am

Who publicly funds elective abortions? Do you have data on this? Last I check there already is a bill that limits public funds providing for abortion. This bill allows private health care(they kind you pay for with your own money) to restrict as well. It also allows a hospital/doctor to get away with not treating or transferring a woman that is going to die if she has to have an abortion. All because they “morally feel its wrong”..but they “morally feel its right” to let the woman die. Hate to tell you this, but even if abortion was illegal like you all dream of women are still going to have them.

GinoMan2440 10/19/2011 2:28am
in reply to neonblk Oct 18, 2011 12:11am

I’ll setting for 5% of the people who have abortions because they can’t face the consequences doing so illegally and a good portion of them getting caught and prosecuted than anyone being able to do so willy nilly because whatever. I’m all for terminating if it’s absolutely necessary to the mother’s life, and she decides that that’s what she wants, and every single avenue was taken to save both mother and child. I’m all for a rape victim being able to heal the harm done to her by not having the bastard’s baby… But I don’t approve of “oh crap, we’re pregnant, I’m 16, God forbid my parents know, quick, let’s get an abortion!” or “damnit, I don’t wanna have a kid now, I wanted to wait till I was 30, not 24, oh well, I’ll just get an abortion” the problem is 99% of abortions are just these and similar reasons.

commonground 11/12/2011 11:46am

Why there is always an option…..OpenCongress Home Page http://youtu.be/OPYaRJOWznk

TrixieTrueheart 02/10/2012 12:11pm

For those of you who believe life starts at conception, and all babies should be carried to term if possible, what do you think is going to happen to all those babies that are born? You really believe that life with a person who is unwilling or unable to care for a child is better than not being born at all? Yes, adoption is an option. But the child welfare systems everywhere are alreday overwhelmed. Do you think adding more babies to that system will improve that situation any? If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. But you are delusional if you think a) limiting access to, or criminalizing abortion is going make people think twice about their sexual behavior, b) people are going to stop having abortions or c) that you have the right to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her body, ESPECIALLY if you do not possess the equipment to carry a child.

severencesc 10/18/2011 10:11pm
in reply to spalmer8 Mar 06, 2011 7:25am

I absolutely don’t disagree with you, but I do have to ask since you said “I believe life begins at conception” So will you let your children drink when they are 20 years and 3 months old? Smoke when they are 17 and 3? Have sex? Vote?

jesskazen 10/26/2011 10:52pm
in reply to commonground Oct 14, 2011 11:30am

What if the woman is already on welfare and has a child or children and can not in any way afford to pay up to a thousand dollars to have an abortion? Should we as the taxpayers be forced to provide for this child from birth to the age of 18? I would rather have government funds used to terminate unwanted pregnancies than have to deal with the increased crime, education, feeding, and clothing of children for almost 20 years.

jesskazen 10/26/2011 10:48pm
in reply to sandersmatz Oct 17, 2011 8:32pm

why put it up for adoption when I can live in a trailer, beat it, get drunk all day, smoke cigarettes with it sitting next to me, abandon it, etc?


Vote on This Bill

25% Users Support Bill

169 in favor / 503 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments