Opinion of H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

[anvi]

So, if I understand it correctly, during negotiations on the passage of HR3, the principle sponsors had to take out the language about "forcible" rape and incest in the case of "minors" and in include the same exceptions as existed in the Hyde Amendment.  That's why the main Dem co-sponsor could say at the end that nothing in the law changed the legal definition of rape or incest.  So, in effect, all the bill does is make the Hyde Amendment provisions, which only attach, sometimes, as a rider to bills effecting HHS funding, compulsory for all federal laws.

That being the case, I feel the same way about H.R. 3 that I do about the Hyde Amendment.  I oppose them both.  As far as I'm concerned, as long as a woman is still carrying, she has the right to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.  SCOTUS has both articulated its support of and many times defended this right.   Therefore, the attempt to deny federal funding for this procedure, either directly through Medicaid or indirectly through insurance premium support, is tantamount to legislatively curtailing a right that the judiciary has declared the Constitution supports, and economically pressuring women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.  Both of these, in my view, are inappropriate actions of the state.