PDA

View Full Version : House Bipartisan Committee Introduce No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act "HR 3"


epicSocialism4tw
01-19-2011, 08:39 PM
Anti-abortion legislators will introduce the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act as H.R. 3 on Thursday. The bill intends to prevent federal funding for abortion procedures by codifying the Hyde Amendment, which has long barred federal agencies from paying for abortions.

The legislation is supported by the chairman of an Energy Committee health panel, Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), and the co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.). It also comes in tandem with the Protect Life Act, another measure meant to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0111/Abortion_on_deck_in_health_care_debate.html

peacepipe
01-19-2011, 09:01 PM
not going anywhere. Another BS show pony bill showing the american people that they are wasteing time when they should be actually trying to create jobs. it isn't getting past the senate.

epicSocialism4tw
01-19-2011, 09:01 PM
not going anywhere.

It will be de-funded.

That One Guy
01-21-2011, 11:20 AM
not going anywhere. Another BS show pony bill showing the american people that they are wasteing time when they should be actually trying to create jobs. it isn't getting past the senate.

I think this is a good direction for government - spend their time figuring out what their lane isn't rather than continuing to find new areas to spread their influence to. I'll take this.

Phantom
01-21-2011, 01:09 PM
Life saving abortions ... okay. But should tax payers pay for elective medical treatments such as cosmetic surgery, Lasik, gender change, etc, and of course elective abortion. The answer is NO. But I'm sure I'm wrong and the regulars will straighten me out.

chadta
01-21-2011, 04:06 PM
Life saving abortions ... okay. But should tax payers pay for elective medical treatments such as cosmetic surgery, Lasik, gender change, etc, and of course elective abortion. The answer is NO. But I'm sure I'm wrong and the regulars will straighten me out.

Exactly, if its needed to live then pay for it thats cool, up here in ontario we actually have a group of people trying to get the government to pay for IVF treatment, cuz you need to have a baby to live you know.

Nobody was receptive to my idea of just hooking up barren old ladies with pregnant teenagers, i mean a baby swap makes far to much sense, lets kill babies in this door, and make them in this door.

cutthemdown
01-21-2011, 08:58 PM
not going anywhere. Another BS show pony bill showing the american people that they are wasteing time when they should be actually trying to create jobs. it isn't getting past the senate.

The repubs will continue to pass bills to force the dems in the senate to shoot it down. That will be the strategy.