H.R. 3: The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
President Obama paid lip service to opposing taxpayer funding for abortion. So, let’s see him join with GOP House Speaker John Boehner in supporting a common-sense codification of the bipartisan ban. Make your words matter, Mr. President.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) held a press conference today to discuss the introduction of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” Pledge to America legislation that would codify the Hyde Amendment by permanently prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion across all federal programs. During his opening remarks, Speaker Boehner announced that he has directed that this bill receive the designation of H.R. 3 as “one of our highest legislative priorities.”
Following are Speaker Boehner’s opening remarks:
“Our new majority has pledged to listen and focus on the will of the people. We’ve begun to carry out this commitment by cutting our own budget and repealing the job-destroying health care law.
“Today we’re here to talk about keeping another commitment to the people – and that is ensuring their tax dollars are never used to fund abortions.
“A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the people and ought to be the law of the land. But current law – particularly as enforced by this Administration – does not reflect the will of the people.
“Last year, we listened to the people through our America Speaking Out project, and they spoke out on this issue – loudly and clearly. So we included it in our Pledge to America, and today we begin to make good on that commitment.
“Congressman Chris Smith has introduced bipartisan legislation that codifies the Hyde Amendment and other similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion across all federal programs.
“This common-sense legislation reflects the will of the people and deserves the support of the House. It is one of our highest legislative priorities. As such, I have directed that it receive the designation of H.R. 3. I appreciate Congressman Smith’s steadfast leadership on this critical issue.”
More here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Who’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
22 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
34 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
110 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 Comments
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
It’s hard to believe that an advanced modern society thinks killing babies is a solution.
50 million dead babies silently scream “Not enough!)
No, it isn’t hard to believe…sadly.
You used the key word – believe.
The beliefs – if they have any such things as “beliefs” – of the materialists who hew to a particular worldview don’t make them feel uncomfortable about, and recoil in horror from, abortion.
ThackerAgency said:
It’s hard to believe that an advanced modern society thinks killing babies is a solution.
I sure wish them luck getting H.R.3 passed! We do not need to be funding abortions at all!
L
Given Obama thrice voted against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Act, I think we know where his sympathies lie.
Question, wouldn’t this bill have to pass the Senate too? If so, I would not be surprised if Obama supported it in public and then ensured that Reid killed it in the Senate.
To them, the baby is collateral damage. It’s about fighting for the cause.
I would support this legislation as long as they passed related legislation that no additional money is to be received by mothers who are already receiving social assistance to raise their current children.
Overall, abortion is a bad thing, but one good aspect of it is that the segment of the population that represents ‘welfare breeding future welfare recipients’ is slightly contained by such an action.
If you remove funding from abortion, hence making it more expensive, less of it will be consumed. With less consumed, more kids will be born to mothers who can’t financially meet the responsibilities involved in raising a child. Therefore, more welfare services will be dispensed which will in the future, produce more welfare recipients – kind of like combound interest on a bank deposit.
I don’t buy the “permanent” part. How can they pass any legislation that is binding on future congresses?
Okay folks, let’s get on the phone and call your reps!!!
Even if you know they’ll vote for it, still it’s important to show your support!
Welfare reform passed during the 1990′s and was signed by Clinton. It was quite successful, but the Democrats have effectively repealed it.
I would love to see Roe v. Wade overturned in my lifetime.
I would assume that most abortion facilities receive funding from many different sources. If the law says no federal funds go to abortion, they will just move it to a different line item in the budget. Call me cynical.
Didn’t the anti-American 2009-2011 congress add some sort of language/provision to one of the bills they passed that would require a higher majority of votes than usual to repeal that particular bill?
Is what they did constitutional?
If you want to support the pro-life movement and are near San Francisco on Saturday (Jan. 22), come out to join the Walk For Life West Coast.
All of the details are here:
http://www.walkforlifewc.com/event.htm
Over 20,000 people joined the Walk last year.
This year over 30,000 people are expected to join the Walk.
The Walk is incredibly well organized and a real inspiration!
Permanent in as much as it remains federal law unless it’s repealed by a later Congress.
See, the Hyde Amendment is just that: An amendment. It’s attached to appropriation bills to prohibit that money being used to fund abortions. It only applies to the appropriations legislation to which it’s attached.
Right now the Hyde Amendment needs to be passed constantly, attached to appropriations legislation. This new legislation will make the text a standing federal law instead.
OK, that makes sense.
I doubt it, but I’m no constitutional law expert. We have a self-identified lawyer on the board who could probably answer that, but he gets upset when I refer questions or topics to him and accuses me of “obsessing”.
Much like ACORN.
The argument from the left will be that since abortion is a right, the gov’t has to pay for it.
Well, according to SCOTUS (and the Heller and McDonald decisions) owning a firearm for personal defense is a right. So, does that mean the gov’t has to pay for any pistol I want, plus all required training classes and permits?
Just because it’s a right, doesn’t mean the gov’t has to pay for you to exercise it. Maybe we can get rid of public defenders, too.
The SCOTUS didn’t really declare that a woman had the right to an abortion.
The SCOTUS decided that the constitutional right to privacy prevented the Federal Government from prying into a woman’s medical condition and doctor-patient relationship.
By the same reasoning, giving my kid the car keys on a Friday night entitles him to drive from Oklahoma City to Dallas, as long as he’s back home by midnight.
and the trunk isn’t all sticky
The level of discourse seems to have sunk to a rather low level today: sticky trunks, fellatio, trains; it’s starting to look like a Paris Hilton blog.
Being conservative does not mean one cannot laugh at things, or that we think sex is yucky (or should only be used in a derogatory sense to degrade women or children or homosexuals when it suits us)…like some I could mention.
Sex is great. It just isn’t usually one of the main topics on this blog. Don’t get too hung up on an offhand humorously-intended comment.
I’m the opposite of ‘hung-up’–besides, I didn’t mean you, txvet2.
That’s only a 3 hour drive. So it’s doable.
Not round-trip.
Not anymore. Back when I lived in Wichita Falls, you could actually drive 120 mph on most of those roads. Cops don’t have any sense of humor anymore.
I thought that’s what the back seat was for? You are an adventurous wench aren’t you?
For many young liberal women, abortion is THE answer to being inconvenienced. They don’t even think about it as killing a baby. I am glad to hear about this bill since I don’t want to aid and abet in anyone’s abortion.
The car was a metaphor, Rogue!
Aw man.
Not a Matador, an LTD. Pay attention.
And a sticky trunk simply means that one of the long-necks must have popped.
True, it’s just another form of birth control. It isn’t about sickly little babies or saving a woman’s life. And, from the elite point of view, it’s about population control among certain never-to-be-specified ethnic groups.
TXVET2: AMEN
Mitch: I’ve never seen so many dead hookers in all my life!
Jimmy: Lord knows I have.
I’m in a terrible dilemma.” “Yeah, I don’t care much for these foreign cars either.”
- Dorothy Granger and Moe (PUNCH DRUNKS, 1934)
(trying to keep up Rogue struggles to pay attention)
So, long-neck popping is a metaphor for that word that Spacey likes that rhymes with Horatio?
Just wondering. The left, along with the baby-killing democrats at NARAL have been whining about the Republican plan to pass this bill claiming it would just be a waste of time since UrkelCare doesn’t cover abortion.
If that’s the case, why not just let the bill pass then if it won’t mean anything?
It’s not like Congress has been doing much substantive in the past two years anyway other than stealing us blind.
No, that’s a Hornet, similar to a Matador but smaller.
It’s also a firm indication of that ‘advanced society’s’ decline…
It’s been said many times before, but it always bears repeating: The left confidently predicts that they’ll soon take over the country because of the voting patterns of minorities. The fact that they’d already have attained that control if they hadn’t murdered 50 million of the their own constituents never seems to sink in.
the libs may just have been doing us conservatives a favor over the years killing off 40 million no doubt liberal voters to be. We’d really be in a pickle trying to beat the dead voters not to mention the 40 million more votes they’d have.
I’ve said it on here before and probably will again, I’m all for choice…pick any contraceptive you want but no abortions except to save the mother’s life. Could possibly be room for rape victims and incest. Convince me.
I’d rather it was “no federal funding for any medical procedure.”
{o.o}
They will just find some organization to funnel the funds through. Money is fundgable. The Feds give X amount of funds – not for Abortion – but it simply allows the organization to shift X amount of funds from not-so-picky contributors *to* abortions. Same net effect.
I wonder how much Tax Dollars funded that butcher of Philadelphia over the years.
On January 21st, 2011 at 12:02 am, rightisright said:
I know personally a woman who was told by doctors that if she didn’t abort her baby, she would die.
She chose not to abort.
And both she and her child are alive today.
On January 21st, 2011 at 12:02 am, rightisright said:
When, in America, do we sentence the child to death for the crime committed by their father?
The woman should not be forced to raise a child conceived by rape or incest. But the woman should also not be allowed to “choose” the death penalty for the innocent child.
Carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. The woman will have less emotional scars if she choses adoption, not abortion.
The emotional scars from being the victim of rape and incest are bad enough. Don’t make it worse by adding the emotional scars of becomming an accessory to murder.
FirstSkirt, another reason why gov’t should not be funding any charities, non-profits, etc. If I don’t give money to PETA because I don’t agree with their policies, then the gov’t shouldn’t be able tax me and then send those taxes to PETA. That’s just me benefacting PETA by proxy. And that’s wrong.
Do we have actual numbers of how many cases of rape or incest result in pregnancies? I want real numbers, not some percentages pulled out of NOWs and NARALs @$$. And how many of those pregnancies become abortions? Are the percentages large enough to even consider this?
These are legitimate questions.
TooMuchTime #51 - Absolutely correct. Switching taxpayer money to support reprehensible programs is so morally corrupt.
Another issue: A man told me his girlfriend had an abortion unbeknowst to him. He was devastated as he wanted this baby beyond measure. She never even told him or asked for his “choice” on the matter. Another casualty of this whole disaster known as pro-choice.