by Tom Diemer of http://www.politicsdaily.com/
In a year when fixing the economy is expected to dominate debate on Capitol Hill, abortion — an issue that won’t go away — is crowding onto the Republican agenda. Two bills — one permanently barring taxpayer funding of abortions and the other forbidding federally financed abortion coverage under the new health care law — got hearings this week in the House. And they riled up activists on both sides of the debate. Emotions came to the fore Tuesday at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. It attempts to write into permanent law the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal dollars from being use to pay for abortions through Medicaid or any other federal program. The Hyde Amendment must be renewed annually.
That bill, sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), would also re-impose a ban on government funding of abortion in Washington D.C. That provision brought out about a dozen red-bandana-wearing activists protesting what they saw as an infringement on the city’s right to self-govern. They made their point and left the Capitol Hill hearing room without incident. A supporter of the bill, Kelly Fiedorek, told the Washington Post that consideration of anti-abortion legislation is consistent with a focus on jobs. "We are in a financial crisis," said Fiedorek, a staff attorney for Americans United for Life, "so this ensures that federal taxpayer funds are going to things that are important to the American people and not to something like abortion." The second bill in play would amend the health care reform law to ensure that it does not permit abortion coverage. Advocates for the law have argued that it already rules out using any federal money for abortions. President Obama even signed an executive order reiterating the restriction. But many Republicans insist that provisions of the law could subsidize abortion providers and they campaigned on the issue last fall.
The measure, set for a hearing Wednesday in an Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, has bipartisan sponsorship in Reps. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) It also would prevent the government from denying funding to hospitals or other institutions that don’t want to provide abotions. Action on the abortion bills comes as no great surprise, as House Speaker John Boehner is anti-abortion and promised to be the "most pro-life speaker ever." Boehner may well have enough votes to get both bills through the GOP-controlled House. Even so, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, questioned, "What happened to the jobs agenda?" when the legislation was introduced last month. "How many people will be employed as part of their campaign to attack a woman’s right to choose?" On Tuesday, Sen. Al Franken was one of a half-dozen Democratic senators objecting to the House bills. "Supporting a woman’s right to make decisions about her health means ensuring that women can access the full range of reproductive health care services safely and with dignity," he said in a statement. Sen. Barbara Boxer said, "We are sending a clear message to House Republicans that their agenda on women’s health is extreme, it breaks faith with a decades-long bipartisan compromise and it risks the health and lives of women."
What these radical Republicans don’t understand is that women will DIE if they do not have a safe place to be able to have abortions.
everyone needs to remember that if you are PRO-CHOICE regarding abortion, you are NOT NOT NOT PRO-ABORTION. The Roe vs. Wade decision in essence gave women the right to CHOOSE to have an abortion.
It is reasonable to say that abortions should not be done in the last trimester unless there is an overwhelming medical condition (i.e. the other is going to die).
If the American people want to see the “back door clinics” open again (as they were before Roe vs. Wade), the blood of those who cannot CHOOSe to have abortionsin a safe and legal manner will be on their hands. And what will they do then?
I don’t think federal money should pay for abortions. Personally i believe abortion is wrong unless its absolutely nececcasary to protect the mother, on the other hand i dont believe in telling people how to live their lives.
The only woman in Congress I see in this article is pro-choice, the rest I see are guys. In rape and incest abortion should be a choice, same goes if the mother’s life is in danger…they want to let moms die now and also if the fetus is found to be unable to live outside the womb, that was one of the services Dr Tiller provided, of course he was murdered. When guys can have babies they can have their say. Sad thing is that a lot of this is motivated by money, the bible beaters like to spend cash on this, jobs? what jobs?
Oh, but this is far, far more threatening than simply “no federal taxpayer funding for abortions”.
This bill would also get right in the middle of totally PRIVATE insurance programs, allowing right-wing doctors and other healthcare professionals to impose their morality on their paying customers by allowing them to “opt-out” of performing life-saving procedures on women due to their “religious consciousnce” objections.
It would also ban any insurance agency who participates in an government exchange or otherwise receives government assistance from even offering coverage for any abortion, unless they offered the same type of coverage without coverage thereof….resulting in huge increases in costs for insurance companies and thrir beneficiaries.
And even worse, it would deny important and vital tax credits and exemptions to insurers who offer coverage for abortions..resulting in a massive tax increase.
Imagine that….right-wingers who talk smack about “big government” and high taxes calling for even more government intervention and higher taxes…all imposed on a woman’s vagina. Because…all sperm is sacred, I guess.
This is the ultimate death panel for women…and should be opposed by anyone with a heart and a working brain cell. Women are simply more than just sperm deposits and baby factories.
Anthony
I am pro-choice. Its a womans right to choose if she wants to have the baby or abort it. The procedure itself is a medical procedure so why shouldn’t it be covered by insurance? Plastic surgery and breast implants are elective surgery and I can understand why most insurance refuse to pay for elective surgeries.
Many of the women that choose to have an abortion do so because they cannot afford to have and raise the child and they choose abortion instead.
Common sense should tell us that its better for the states to pay $500-1500 for termination procedure then to force the woman to have the baby and then put it up for adoption, foster care, or struggle to raise the child when she may not be able to do so thereby putting a much greater burden on the state then the original $500-1500.
I would like Anti-Republican legislation passed. As George Carlin once noted, Republicans are so fucking concerned about the unborn, but once you are born its “Fuck You, you’re on your own!”