Skip Nav
Netflix
Tune In to the Sexiest TV Shows on Netflix in August
Game of Thrones
How Game of Thrones Treats Women Badly
Disney
New Danielle Nicole Designs Are at the Disney Store, So Get Your Credit Cards Ready Now!

Say What? Americans Don't Want to Fund Abortion

Say What? Americans Don't Want to Fund Abortion


"I encourage other members of Congress to listen to the American people and the majority of House members who have made it very clear: We do not want taxpayer dollars financing abortion."

— Congressman Bart Stupak defends his controversial amendment to the healthcare reform bill in a New York Times op-ed this week. The "Stupack amendment" bans abortion coverage from the public insurance option and also forbids women to use federal subsidies to purchase a plan that covers abortion. In his op-ed, Stupack says the amendment simply reflects public opinion and the current policy to not use taxpayer funds to cover abortion, but many pro-choice advocates believe it will significantly decrease access to abortion. (And note: unlike the House, the Senate rejected an amendment yesterday that mirrored Stupak's proposed restrictions on abortion.)

Image Source: Getty
Join The Conversation
runningesq runningesq 7 years
yes plasticine - that's HILARIOUS.
plasticine1 plasticine1 7 years
lol imagine all those future pro-choice females abortion kills...
clareberrys clareberrys 7 years
anyonymous #48- most of the women who are getting abortions are getting them in their first trimester - most likely when it is too early to even tell if the fetus is going to be a male or a female. SO you really cannot say "what about all the female babies being killed" because they havent even developed that far...they are literally just a cluster of cells and tissue that doesnt have much form let alone and gender
plasticine1 plasticine1 7 years
sorry biarose (and it's PLASTICINE), about 99.9% of people claiming to be pro-lifers shouldnt be called so because they dont care about about the child's quality of life once theyve pushed their agenda. thats what makes it such a personal decision, and why it is so mind-boggling that other people try to get involved; no one else but the mother knows what kind of life this kid is gonna get, and she has to make the largest effort.
biarose biarose 7 years
Yes, I see what they were trying to say, but I don't agree. Perhaps that is the case for some "pro-lifers" but definitely not all. I'm on of those people who wouldn't be alive today had my mother not been firmly against abortion, so understandably I think the fact that circumstances are not ideal for a child to be brought into the world isn't a very good argument for termination.
clareberrys clareberrys 7 years
biarose - i think what plasticine is trying to say is that it seems that many pro-lifers do not care about what happens to a baby after it is born as long as it is born....for example, a lot of "unwanted" babies that are carried to term and born are exactly that - unwanted, and a lot of them end up in the foster system and dont have permanent homes or maybe they are born into a lifestyle that involves crime and drugs or maybe that baby's mother used drugs while she was pregnant and now the baby is born addicted......there are SO many more things to consider than just making sure the baby makes it out alive - and to pro-choicers the most important thing (IMO) is making sure that IF the baby is carried to term that it will have the best possible life that we can provide for it
biarose biarose 7 years
pasticine- that was uncalled for, and completely untrue. Runningesq- if the baby was out of the womb she wouldn't be allowed to kill it, even though it was "her" unwanted baby.
plasticine1 plasticine1 7 years
*joining into the big abortion discussion* pro-lifers should be called pro-birthers, because they do not give a SHIT about any baby's life after it's born.
runningesq runningesq 7 years
bia - why is it your place to tell a woman what to do with her unwanted baby?
biarose biarose 7 years
why is adoption not an option?
ali321 ali321 7 years
lolita sometimes people take care of themselves and prevent pregnancy the best they can and they still get pregnant. It's so ignorant to just call people stupid. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't fund abortion with taxes, but you completely took away from your point by starting off so rudely.
clareberrys clareberrys 7 years
You go bellavita!!! And good point yogaforlife as well! Need some more open minded and accepting women like you in the world!!
jocupcake jocupcake 7 years
Well said Yogaforlife and Bellavita.
bellavita214 bellavita214 7 years
Kudos Yogaforlife.
bellavita214 bellavita214 7 years
I think people need to remember.... abortion is a LEGAL PROCEDURE. Can I say I don't want my tax dollars to go to schools or bridges because I dont like schools and bridges? This is BS. Stop the judgmental attitudes, compare this crazy stance on abortion (found only n the United States) to other countries whose health is much better than ours (yes they allow abortion), and wisen up people.
Yogaforlife Yogaforlife 7 years
If you care so much about saving a child's life - how about looking into the number one cause of death in children - lack of access to clean water and sanitation. A child under the age of 5 dies ever 15 seconds in developing countries due to water-related illnesses (90% of which is diarrhea caused by bacteria such as e. coli, giardia, cryptosporidium). Maybe focus on saving the lives of children already born instead of the few embryos aborted. The number of abortions is but a drop in the bucket compared to the number of children dying of preventable illnesses. I don't see people throwing a stink about the 1.5 million children who die from simple diarrhea.
CaterpillarGirl CaterpillarGirl 7 years
yoga, i dont care about the money, i care about the cost of life.
Yogaforlife Yogaforlife 7 years
I think Stupak is stupid ;-) Maybe it's polish for lacking intelligence? I second Runningesq, chrstne, chloe bella, mondaymoos, and medenginer. Conservatives cry about being fiscal and yet they want to deny covering abortions which is the more fiscal alternative vs. having a child that will cause both mother and child to receive social services for 18 years. For people who cry "make them pay for their mistakes - they had sex without protection", you better be trying to pass bills that deny health coverage for illnesses related to smoking and obesity. Whereas an unwanted pregnancy can be an accident (birth control/condoms fail, rape, etc.), nobody ever accidentally picks up that cigarette or accidentally eats McD's every day. Those are choices that they continously make, unlike those who do have responsible, safe sex and accidentally get pregnant. People don't want to pay for abortions, well I don't want to pay for welfare for the child and mother for 18 years. It's morally wrong in your point of view, it's morally irresponsible in mine to push agendas that create overpopulation and poverty.
clareberrys clareberrys 7 years
Mondaymoos -"From a purely fiscal perspective, allowing health care funds to pay for abortions will save taxpayers money. Many women who opt for abortion as an option cannot afford to care for a child, and so would be taking advantage of the many social programs available, whether they need them or not. And more often then not, this starts a cycle of abuse of government programs for the "needy" in families. Given the choice, I'm much more willing to pay $600 in tax dollars for an accidental pregnancy termination than 18 years of WIC, unemployment, child care credits, free housing, etc." Im so happy someone finally brought this up. In some cases, we will end up paying a lot more in welfare over a long period of time but for some reason people dont care about that. Maybe people think that if abortion is added to this bill that all of a sudden people will just be getting abortions non-stop? I think it could be a great thing. What about a young mother from a lower class family who doesnt want to keep her baby but cant afford to have an abortion (it costs almost $400) so therefore she has the child. If it were covered by insurance it would provide more options for young women or for women who simply cant afford the procedure. And then people are going to respond with "well you can give it up for adoption". Well, too bad during pregnancy you are going to incur a lot of costs (doctors visits, maternity clothes, prenatal vitamins, etc, etc) and then not too mention I think giving up a child for adoption seems a lot easier said then done. You are expecting a mother who has carried her baby inside of her for 9 months to just say okay bye and have no idea what kind of life that child will have. Not to mention that taxpayers will be paying for those children to stay in the system for a long long time.
CaterpillarGirl CaterpillarGirl 7 years
I shouldnt have to pay for abortions with my taxes, simple enough.
biarose biarose 7 years
I'm too scared to share my opinion on this topic
Jemma84 Jemma84 7 years
I am FIRMLY pro-choice, but I agree with this amendment, save for certain exceptions-- in the case of rape or incest, if the mother's health will be at significant risk by carrying the baby, in the case of severe birth defects, etc. Considering the constant debate over abortion rights, I don't think it's fair to use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion. As long as birth control is covered, of course. Accidental pregnancy should be the responsibility of the mother... Not the taxpayers.
outsung outsung 7 years
Running: Education is definitely the place to start regardless of the health care decision. I'm 19 and ashamed to admit that there are people my age who think that pulling out counts as contraception, you can't get pregnant if the girl is on top and that you can't get an STI from oral and the list goes on. These same people have also been having sex a lot longer than I have. It's almost scary.
Is There an Alt-Left Like There Is An Alt-Right?
Who Is Running For President in 2020?
Missouri Senator's Zoo and Abortion Comments
Single-Payer Healthcare Pros and Cons
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds