What Fresh Hell Is This?

May 5, 2011

Update on HR3

The House voted overwhelmingly for HR3 last night. 235 Republicans voted for it (no Republicans voted against) and were joined by 16 Democrats.

Jason Altmire (D-PA) among them.

Huffingtonpost has an update:
A closer look at a House bill marketed to the public as a "common-sense" ban on taxpayer-funded abortions reveals an aggressive, multi-pronged effort to restrict insurance coverage for and reduce access to abortion.

H.R. 3, also known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act," would go beyond making the Hyde Amendment, which has already banned federally-funded abortions for the past 30 years, a permanent federal law. The legislation, sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), would also enact strict procedural requirements for private insurance companies that cover abortions and deny tax credits to small businesses that purchase health insurance plans offering abortion coverage. Eight-seven percent of private insurance plans currently include such coverage.

Further, H.R. 3 would eliminate privately funded insurance coverage for abortion in the state-based exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act. The policy team at NARAL Pro-Choice America estimates that 13.5 million women who receive health coverage through Medicaid and other government-sponsored programs would permanently lose access to abortion coverage if the measure, facing a floor vote Wednesday, passes.
Which it did. And after the bill passed, Huffingtonpost posted:
“Members of Congress who supported this egregious assault on women will hear from outraged Americans through phone calls, protests, petitions, and most importantly, at the ballot box in 2012,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “As this legislation moves to the Senate, we also will mobilize our members to urge their senators to stop this bill in its tracks.”
If you're feeling like you need to discuss this with Congressman Altmire, his contact info can be found here.

10 comments:

Eric Williams said...

I'm not going to get into a debate over abortion here, but I do want to correct a point about the Hyde Amendment (using a pro-choice source).

"The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment."

HR3 narrows the rape loophole. However you might feel about HR3, it's not redundant to the Hyde Amendment. Lots of progressives are spreading that misinformation today.

Maria Lupinacci said...

"HR3 narrows the rape loophole."

Yeah, before everyone wanted to be raped. It just won't be as much fun now.

Grace said...

Eric, I checked the link you provided and did not find the words 'rape loophole'.
HR3 redefines rape and victimizes the victim by making her prove her attacker forcible rape her - this is inhumane.
The phrase 'rape loophole' is being used by the GOP/Fox/hate radio crowd.
Your reference to a 'loophole' regarding rape is disgusting. Do you not have a wife, mother, sisters, or daughters?
We aren't here to be abused and used for the criminal, sexual perversions of misogynists. We are people and we deserve respect.
Maria, thanks for putting this information out there. You show unbelievable strength in dealing with low information people, I could not deal with crap they throw at you.

Maria said...

Grace,

David gets the credit for this post.

Maria

Eric Williams said...

If you actually read what I wrote, Grace, you'd know that the link I provided contains the quoted text. I was responding to this:

"the Hyde Amendment, which has already banned federally-funded abortions for the past 30 years".

I have seen several variations on this theme in social media. The information at the link reports the fact that the Hyde Amendment has had exceptions for several years. HR3 is not redundant to the HA, an assertion frequently made, because it puts limits on the existing exceptions.

I called the exceptions loopholes because, as a citizen who find abortion morally repugnant and reprehensible, I do not wish to see my tax dollars funding it unless medically warranted and unavoidable. Rape and incest, as horrific as they are, not not meet this criterion.

Please do not presume to know my motivations. I am not in the "GOP/Fox/hate radio crowd". They surely dislike me as much as I dislike them. I am a libertarian.

You ask, "Do you not have a wife, mother, sisters, or daughters?"

My daughter is too young to have an opinion on the matter, but my mother, my sister, and several other female members of my family, each with their own political preferences different from mine, are pro-life. None of them believes that a child must receive the death penalty as the result of the heinous acts of a rapist. None wants tax dollars paying for killing the unborn.

You say, "We aren't here to be abused and used for the criminal, sexual perversions of misogynists. We are people and we deserve respect."

You are absolutely correct. That is why I support Feminists for Life. Women deserve better than abortion.

I did not comment on this post to argue whether or not abortion is right or HR3 is a good law. I merely sought to correct misinformation. Now that I have allowed myself, perhaps foolishly, to be drawn into such a debate, I request that you cease use of ad hominem arguments. I have responded to you respectfully and request that you do the same.

Eric Williams said...

I accidentally omitted my wife in my list. She is also strongly pro-life.

Maria Lupinacci said...

"I called the exceptions loopholes because, as a citizen who find abortion morally repugnant and reprehensible, I do not wish to see my tax dollars funding it unless medically warranted and unavoidable. Rape and incest, as horrific as they are, not not meet this criterion."

I find lots of things morally repugnant and reprehensible -- the war in Iraq comes to mind -- but, the guys in Congress still make me fund them with my tax dollars.

Funny how that works...

Eric Williams said...

"I find lots of things morally repugnant and reprehensible -- the war in Iraq comes to mind -- but, the guys in Congress still make me fund them with my tax dollars."

1. This isn't the time/place for a debate on Just War theory.
2. War is a red herring to this discussion.
3. I do not believe the Iraq War is just. I marched against it in 2003. Happy? ;)
4. To paraphrase a famous quote, a government big enough to provide what you consider moral goods is big enough to provide what you consider moral evils. Politics is a game of one party expanding government to do its bidding, much to the chagrin of the other party or parties; when another party is in power, the do likewise. This is a big reason why I support minarchy and subsidiarity. The government quickly grows well beyond the control of its original masters and enslaves them. The smaller government is, the less insidious the tyranny of the majority is.

Eric Williams said...

Oops. I left out the word "leviathan" between "government" and "quickly grows". ;)

Maria Lupinacci said...

Not trying to debate war, just or otherwise. I am saying that you said you don't want your taxes paying for something you find "morally repugnant and reprehensible." Fine. Neither do I, but I don't get the same choice that you do. It is a perfectly good and valid comparison.