H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."
I understood why some people might think this is a good idea...until I started to read the details, and understand the ramifications.
In order to allow for exceptions, this act has singled out "forcible rape" as eligible for funding, and set forth some somewhat bizarre classifications regarding other specific circumstances of sexual assault.
'The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion-- '(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
'(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.'
So...
"If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense." --Nick Baumann
Also, if a woman is drugged and date-raped, coerced, or otherwise incapacitated without 'excessive force' (whatever that is supposed to mean), she's SOL: no fed funding. Statutory rape? Sorry kids. Oh, unless it's incest. Then it is covered...as long as you're underage. Incest between adults? Nope, not counted as rape by this definition. Limited mental capacity? Developmentally delayed? Not rape either, according to this proposal.
Who's in charge here?
I understood why some people might think this is a good idea...until I started to read the details, and understand the ramifications.
In order to allow for exceptions, this act has singled out "forcible rape" as eligible for funding, and set forth some somewhat bizarre classifications regarding other specific circumstances of sexual assault.
'The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion-- '(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
'(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.'
So...
"If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense." --Nick Baumann
Also, if a woman is drugged and date-raped, coerced, or otherwise incapacitated without 'excessive force' (whatever that is supposed to mean), she's SOL: no fed funding. Statutory rape? Sorry kids. Oh, unless it's incest. Then it is covered...as long as you're underage. Incest between adults? Nope, not counted as rape by this definition. Limited mental capacity? Developmentally delayed? Not rape either, according to this proposal.
Who's in charge here?
