Therefore I oppose the notion that my tax dollars can be used for an elective abortion. I don’t mind helping pay for an abortion that is the result of rape, incest, or a pregnancy that threatens the mother’s life but I do not want to facilitate abortion as a form of birth control or a way to maintain someone’s perceived quality of life sans children. If a man and a woman don’t want to have children, it is their responsibility and theirs alone to ensure they don’t get pregnant. It is not the shared responsibility of the community or the nation to bail them out of a situation they had the power and means to avoid. If a couple is in a financial position where child birth would be disastrous to all involved (the parents and the child or children) then it’s the responsibility of the parents to do whatever it takes not to have a child. It isn’t the tax payer’s responsibility to help pay for the consequences of their actions. I understand that no contraception is 100% effective but even that does not make it the tax payer’s responsibility to help pay for someone else’s abortion. The bottom line is that if you are in such dire straights that another mouth to feed would be disastrous, you should either explore abstinence or adoption or take financial responsibility for an abortion, should you chose to have one.

H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, would overturn existing legislation (the Hyde amendment) that already prevents tax payers’ dollars from funding elective abortions. The Stupak-Pitts amendment ensures that the spirit of the Hyde amendment lives on. Women can still have abortions, they just can’t be funded by tax dollars, which is already the case and has been since 1976.

H.R. 3962 is being used to advance an agenda cloaked in “women’s rights.” It is not a woman’s right to require anyone else to help pay for an elective abortion.

Get Involved

• Tweet your support
  
• Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
  
• Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter

Contact the Administration and your representatives

Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.

No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

It seems pretty simple to me; no federal tax dollars authorized or appropriated by H.R. 3962 will be used to fund elective abortions. It doesn’t say that women can’t have abortions. It doesn’t say a policy can’t pay for an abortion. It simply says that funds authorized or appropriated by H.R. 3962 can’t be used for elective abortions.

But house democrats wrote a letter to Momma Pelosi stating the amendment “represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled.” What a great example of hyperbole. Or is it outright misinformation?

First and foremost, the amendment does not target a range of anything. It implicitly targets only elective abortions. Secondly, it doesn’t differ much from the pre-existing Hyde amendment, which already accomplishes the same thing (which would change if H.R. 3962 is passed into law without the Stupak-Pitts amendment).

So far I can’t find any specific examples of how Stupak-Pitts would restrict women’s ability to access even a small range of reproductive health services. Where in its 95 words does Stupak-Pitts reach much further than the Hyde amendment, as Planned Parenthood asserts? Inquiring minds want to know.

Of course, Planned Parenthood advanced the argument that abortions are a form of birth control and this amendment would make that option too expensive for women:

The Stupak/Pitts amendment would purportedly allow women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider to cover abortion. But such abortion riders do not exist because women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies…

Abortion is not an option simply because you ‘didn’t intend to become pregnant.’ If you really, really don’t intend to become pregnant, than you really, really ensure you have protection…multiple forms if you’re that serious and even abstinence if you’re hard-core.

The bottom line is that even though I’m pro-choice from a libertarian point of view, I don’t want my tax dollars funding abortions that are simply a means of birth control. For that reason, even though I don’t support H.R. 3962 as a whole, I support the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

Get Involved

• Tweet your support
  
• Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
  
• Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter

Contact the Administration and your representatives

Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.

To learn more

• Visit CATO on health care reform
  
• Read Changing Your Perspective on Health Care & The Price You Pay at InsuranceInTheLight.com
  
• Read the similar posts listed below
  

(4) CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LIABILITY LAW.—The contents of an alternative liability law are in accordance with this paragraph if—
(A) the litigation alternatives contained in the law consist of certificate of merit, early offer, or both; and
(B) the law does not limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.

Malpractice insurance is one of the largest expenses a physician incurs and that cost is passed on, which directly increases the cost of healthcare. If this bill truly intended to drive down the cost of health care, tort reform would be included. The fact that it explicitly removes any limits on attorneys’ fees or caps on damages clearly indicates which special interest group has a stake in this bill and it isn’t a patient advocacy group.

Get Involved

• Tweet your support
  
• Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
  
• Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter

Contact the Administration and your representatives

Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.

To learn more

• Visit CATO on health care reform
  
• Read Changing Your Perspective on Health Care & The Price You Pay at InsuranceInTheLight.com
  
• Read the similar posts listed below
  

The House health care bill: great on coverage, fairly financed, affordable. http://bit.ly/2uWVUu #hcr #publicoption

Yet another example of misguided union backing of the current administration.