Posted on 05/04/2011 1:15:05 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to Rep. Jackie Speier of California, ending taxpayer funding for abortion would amount to an imposition of “religious belief.”
Speier made the remarks during procedural debate on H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which is expected to receive a final vote Wednesday.
Speier criticized Republicans for advocating small government fiscally but “big government when it comes to regulating your bedroom.”
“This is about whether we should use the tax code as a moral club to impose the religious beliefs of some members of Congress on the American people,” said Speier, minutes before the measure was cleared for general debate in a 243-177 vote.
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska pointed out, however, that the large majority of Americans strongly oppose taxpayer funding for abortion.
“Certainly we can all agree that the U.S. government should not take tax dollars from hardworking Americans to fund abortion,” he said. “No matter how difficult the circumstances, I believe we can and must do better as a society, and as a minimum, tax dollars should not be involved.”
H.R. 3 would make permanent the annual Health and Human Services appropriations rider known as the Hyde amendment, which prohibits public funds from paying for abortions except in cases of rape and incest.
Top pro-abort House leaders, including Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, also complained that the House Judiciary Committee report’s interpretation of the rape exception was too stringent and would force women to undergo an IRS “rape audit” in order to receive coverage for the abortion procedure - a claim GOP supporters on the floor called “simply not true.” Pro-life sources on Capitol Hill noted that the rape exception already in place for Medicaid and other federal programs does not require such audits.
Critics also argued that the measure would amount to a tax hike, a claim that has been rebutted by both the Joint Committee on Taxation and the anti-tax lobby group Americans for Tax Reform.
GOP lawmakers this afternoon argued that the bill, which already has more than half the House signed on as co-sponsors, simply applies the spirit of the Hyde amendment evenly to the federal government.
“Abortion is not a business the government should not be involved in,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN).
Roe, an OB/GYN, also pointed out that it was science - and not just religion - that was the backbone of H.R. 3.
“I’ve seen human development occur from the earliest stages of a small fetus all the way through birth,” said Roe. “We must make our laws consistent with our science and restore full legal protections to all waiting to be born.”
Exactly, the ONLY moral option is to recognize personhood as a constitutional right from the moment of conception.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Wrong! Even an athiest can see abortion is killing babies. Religious faith is not necessary to tell right from wrong. It is just that faith based groups are the ones that are seen fighting the fight.
WRONG! Forcing us to pay for abortions is forcing us to deny our religious beliefs!
Forcing me to allow my tax dollars to be used for abortion is ‘imposing a religious belief that EVIL is OK’ on me.
What, then, would you call taking money from a Christian and using it to kill? Oh, that’s right, you call them “taxes”.
As usual, a lying democrate tries to characterize the exact opposite of the truth as a factual statement. In reality, if you force the American people to fund with their tax dollars an activity that many of them find abhorrent you are imposing the immoral and anti-religious beliefs on the American people. This bill will prevent that from occurring. People who are not morally or ethically opposed to abortion are absolutely free to use their own money to fund it if they like. It really infuriates me that nobody had the balls to point that out and call this vile fool Speier a lying bastard to his face.
Make no mistake, they are making you pay for it for a reason - to make you COMPLICIT.
Why else would they require just/at least “one dollar” of every person’s insurance premium in 0bamacare to go to abortion services?
Part of this presentation comes from their unrightful assumption of the “neutral” ground. They aren’t imposing any religious ideology, in their mind, because they have none. Their worldview just “is”, and everyone else’s ideologies are based on non-neutral religions.
Religious beliefs aside, I’m just tired of funding birth control for the oversexed entitlement crowd...
Very, very true, but the other side is remarkably blind to that.
Why else would they require just/at least “one dollar” of every person’s insurance premium in 0bamacare to go to abortion services?
That’s exactly where their argument falls apart. If it is not ok to impose Christian beliefs on others, why is it ok to impose other beliefs on Christians? Here’s a crazy idea...How about the government stay neutral on personal issues and let the individual decide for themselves what he believes is right?
As I heard someone say a while back,
it would be fair if we use the “cut and choose” method of government.
If the left gets to “cut”, ie, say who has the power,
then we get to choose who we want to be.
If they choose government to have the power, I choose to be the government. If they choose the individual, I choose to be the individual.
Hi, Mr B!!!! You are wise, as always. :)
I intended post #18 for you.
Restoring full legal protections to all waiting to be born might be a little easier if we first stop calling our yet to be born children a fetus.
That sounds so... un-human and easier to dismiss in one's mind. Killing a fetus doesn't sound as bad or evil as killing a child, or a yet to be born child...... Just my thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.