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

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^^^Akin and Ryan were among the co-sponsors of this bill.

[RI]

Freedom Act, of course.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Freedom Act, of course.

wtf man

[Supersonic]

Freedom Act, of course.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

^^^Akin and Ryan were among the co-sponsors of this bill.

That doesn't make it a bad bill.

[Frodo]

Freedom Act, of course.

My sentiments exactly. 

[Goldwater]

Freedom Act, of course.

[Free Palestine]

Horrible act.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Horrible, and arguably a gigantic waste of time, considering no funds directly go to abortion anyway.

[7,052,770]

I feel the same way about war as ardent pro-lifers do about abortion, yet my tax dollars go to fund wars.  Fair should be fair.

[Boris]

I support this, but we should have open borders with Canada and all Canadian provinces/territories should subsidize abortion on demand for US citizens/residents.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Prince Edward Island doesn't even subsidize abortion on demand for Prince Edward Islanders.

[Lambsbread]

Freedom Act, of course.

[fezzyfestoon]

Pointless political trickery

[Person Man]

Pointless political trickery

[Marokai Backbeat]

Pointless political trickery

A specialty of theirs.

[Lief 🗽]

^^^Akin and Ryan were among the co-sponsors of this bill.

That doesn't make it a bad bill.

There's certainly a very strong correlation though.

[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.

[Dr. Cynic]

It's all bullsh**t. Just another game that people who hate women like to play to score some easy points.

Where will they be for that fetus when it grows up and it can't read because they cut education funding? Where will they be when it needs to go to college? Where will they be when that fetus is retired and needs medicare to pay for their medicine? All things they wanna cut.

Honestly, I'd have rather my mother aborted me than to live the life of a lot of people who I know that are struggling. It would've saved me the time of eventually killing myself, because if I had to live that kind of life for that length of time, always wondering how I'm going to make it to the next paycheck, hoping my medicine could be paid for as well as groceries and bills.... I would not last long.

It may sound harsh, but y'know guys, this stuff has been building up in me for a long time. If they're not gonna make any effort to make a person's life any better as they get older, don't bother trying to save a fetus that would, in all likelihood have a horrible life afterward.

Wow, sorry about that... Where was I? Oh yes, breakfast.

[Likely Voter]

I'm still unclear what was the point of HR3. It seemed to be the same as the Hyde Amendment except for the 'forcible rape' thing which was removed in the end anyway. So what exactly did the final version do that the Hyde Amendment didn't do?

[Bacon King]

I'm still unclear what was the point of HR3. It seemed to be the same as the Hyde Amendment except for the 'forcible rape' thing which was removed in the end anyway. So what exactly did the final version do that the Hyde Amendment didn't do?

The Hyde Amendment itself is not law; it's a rider that is attached every year to the appropriations act for the Department of Health and Human Services, and it only applies to the Federal funds appropriated for the given year. As a result, the details of the exceptions to the abortion funding ban often change from year to year (IIRC, for the first few years, they didn't even make an exception for rape at all).

Theoretically, the Hyde Amendment could be entirely annulled just by Congress deciding not to amend the relevant appropriations bill that year, and each year runs the risk of being quietly amended (to be considerably stricter OR more lenient) just because the composition of a specific sub-committee skews far enough from the Congressional median on this issue. H.R. 3 ultimately just gives an unprecedented degree of permanence and consistency to the previously malleable and uncertain Federal guidelines regarding abortion funding. There's really no problem with the law if you don't have a problem with the Hyde Amendment (at least now that the "forcible rape" bit was been removed from the bill). However, if you don't like the Hyde Amendment from either side- say, if you think government absolutely shouldn't fund abortion in any circumstance, or if you think that the government shouldn't restricting abortion funding at all- then it wouldn't really make sense to support H.R. 3, because it enshrines the status quo into explicit law and makes it a whole lot harder to change.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Freedom act, but allow funding for breasted and cervical cancer screenings.

[DC Al Fine]

It's all bullsh**t. Just another game that people who hate women like to play to score some easy points.

Where will they be for that fetus when it grows up and it can't read because they cut education funding? Where will they be when it needs to go to college? Where will they be when that fetus is retired and needs medicare to pay for their medicine? All things they wanna cut.

Honestly, I'd have rather my mother aborted me than to live the life of a lot of people who I know that are struggling. It would've saved me the time of eventually killing myself, because if I had to live that kind of life for that length of time, always wondering how I'm going to make it to the next paycheck, hoping my medicine could be paid for as well as groceries and bills.... I would not last long.

Oh yes, we all hate women, probably because we got turned down by one in middle school right? :eyeroll:

Either the fetus is a person or it is not. Pro lifers believe that the fetus is a person and therefore enjoys a right to life like anyone else.

Furthermore, your things that you believe to be "needs" are nothing of the sort. Even in places like Sweden, not everyone goes to university, and many of the medicines you think are so important, weren't available until the 20th century. Do you honestly believe that every person who was born before 1900 should have been aborted?

But hey let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion.  Let's have the state pay to euthanize the crippled kid down the street without his consent. After all his life is going to be unpleasant. Hmm, what 20th century political party was in favour of that policy...?

[Mercenary]

I feel the same way about war as ardent pro-lifers do about abortion, yet my tax dollars go to fund wars.  Fair should be fair.

Indeed, let's not fund either. Everyone wins.

[k-onmmunist]

truly horrible