H.R. 3 funding bill aims to ban abortion deceptively

This week the House Judiciary Subcommittee will hear testimony on H.R. 3, the artfully titled “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion,” bill. Playing upon the voters’ call for spending cuts, the leaders behind this bill are falsely advertising it as an effort to protect the taxpayer from funding abortion. In reality H.R. 3 would further restrict access to abortion coverage in the private insurance market. Federal funding for abortions was prohibited long ago through the Hyde Amendment, Title X, and other restrictions. H.R. 3 blatantly disregards traditional Republican principles of limited government, personal liberty and the value of small businesses.

A main goal of H.R. 3 is to directly attack private health insurance plans by imposing a new tax on individuals who choose and pay for a plan that covers abortion services. The bill is also a direct assault on already cash-strapped small businesses. It would require small businesses to pay taxes on health insurance benefits of their employees if the plan includes abortion coverage. This would directly impact the majority of Americans and small businesses, as 87 percent of private insurance plans include such coverage.

ADVERTISEMENT
Beyond the title’s hypocritical and not-so-subtle taxation, H.R. 3 would disadvantage an entire spectrum of women and families. From the brave women serving in our military overseas to federal employees and the poorest of our citizens, this bill directly aims to restrict access for those in need. Women in the military would be denied the right to privately pay for abortion procedures in military hospitals overseas. The end result is forcing them to seek medical assistance off base even in hostile and unsafe regions. Ironically, the leading congressional committee, the Senate Armed Forces Committee, which is empowered with legislative oversight of the nation’s military and benefits for members of the military, voted to repeal the radical restriction just last year. This bill would purposely obstruct access to reproductive health clinics that provide preventative services, screenings, prenatal care, flu shots, etc. In many places, these clinics are the only access lower-income families receive for health services. If the goal of this bill is really to protect our bottom line, providing these preventive services is much more cost effective than covering long-term illness or emergency care.

Most alarming, this proposed policy would allow individual states to refuse coverage and care for abortion, even in life-threatening situations. Under the bill, current ‘conscience protection clauses’ would be unduly expanded, giving individual states the ability to reject current requirements of Medicaid to cover abortion in instances of abuse or for life-threatening pregnancies. Health care professionals who refuse to provide medical care based on their own moral objective would not be required to refer patients to a willing health care provider. This clause could extend to emergency rooms where women go for urgent care, leaving those in life-threatening health situations without time-sensitive medical care.

As a Republican organization, we proudly worked to elect common sense GOPers to Congress. We did so based on the promise of an agenda focused on solving our nations economic crises. The fact that House leadership has made this deceptive ‘funding’ bill number three on the list of priorities is disappointing. H.R. 3 is not an effort to promote fiscal responsibility, but an insidious attempt to expand government intrusion into personal medical decisions and inject subjective moral beliefs onto all Americans. 

Washington, D.C.


Super Bowl Pepsi ad brings race to forefront

From Pam Hairston

After reading the online comments following the article about how Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas (D) was upset about the Super Bowl Pepsi commercial where a black woman hits a white woman with a Pepsi can, I was compelled to write and comment.

Although I found this commercial more sexist than racist, I found many of the comments quite racist and downright disturbing. Perhaps Congress needs to establish a Senate Race Relations Committee similar to their Foreign Relations Committee, which was established in 1816. After all, race is STILL the touchiest subject in America. Peace.

Washington, D.C.