A new bill in the U.S. House of Representatives would prohibit the use of federal funds for nearly all abortions, including statutory rape.
Under the bill, a few exceptions to the ban would remain, and “forcible” rape would be one of them. That’s a significant change from the current language, which is more broadly interpreted. The inclusion of the word “forcible” would implicitly exclude non-violent instances of non-consensual sex, such as statutory rape, or when a woman is drugged.
U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, of Colorado Springs, is one of the bill’s 173 co-sponsors.
The bill, HR 3, has been titled the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” It would still allow federal funds to be used for abortions if the pregnancy is endangering the woman’s life.
Lamborn spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said in an email, “Congressman Lamborn agrees with the majority of Americans that taxpayer dollars should not pay for abortions, with only narrow exceptions permitted.”
The measure’s primary sponsor is U.S. Rep. Christopher Smith, R-New Jersey. Colorado U.S. Reps. Cory Gardner and Mike Coffman, both Republicans, are also co-sponsoring the bill.
The bill summary, from thomas.gov:
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act – Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion.
Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)
Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion, including any medical deduction for such amounts or any credit for such an employer-sponsored plan.
Prohibits the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District.
Provides that such prohibitions shall not apply to an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of forcible rape or, if the pregnant woman is a minor, incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician.
Makes such prohibitions applicable to District funds.
Creates a cause of action for any violations of the abortion provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including an injunction or order preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to institute an action to affected health care entities and the Attorney General.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive, investigate, and refer to the appropriate federal agency complaints alleging a violation of PPACA abortion provisions.
this is the jobs killing bill to stop abortion
another slow day at the awfice ?
Lamborn is one sick person that he hates women so very much.
seriously…this is why he’s in Congress??? I cannot believe he place this as a priority!!! The country needs economic help – but then he’s opposed to any earmarks EXCEPT military related ones? And now he’s about to punish women who were raped????? He’s an embarrassment…
Good for Lamborn! Finally someone with the courage to make women face the fact they are murdering unborn babies who could have been productive citizens. 50 million dead in the name of convenience is wrong. Lamborn doesnt hate women- feminists do!
“Lamborn is one sick person that he hates women so very much.”
Kill a dog and people will tear you limb from limb. (see the other story on killing sled dogs if you don’t believe me.) Try to save a baby and you’re a hater. Moral confusion runs rampant.
Colorado Springs voters, punishing rape victims since….
Good to see Lamborn is focused on jobs, the economy, and things that matter as opposed to legislating his fringe ideological views.
I’m not so sure this is a smart thing to do. How would changing this language affect our state statutes governing crimes against women?
Factfinder57: Maybe he is foisting off on us 50 million more individuals who will grow up to be on welfare, be drug addicts, or criminals. At the least they will be 50 million more mouths to feed, 50 million more drains on the environment, and 50 million more reproducing humans causing our total population to kill our earth. When will you right wing bible thumpers realize that “go forth and propagate” was fine when the population of the earth was only in the millions, but when we face 10 billion people by the turn of the decade it is TOO MANY PEOPLE for the earth to sustain.
Rep. Lamborn views women as chattel.
if you moronic catholics would use the pill you woulndt need abortion
…..this idiot needs to back to bitting NPR’s ankles.
His fear of women is on a par with that of the Islamic fundies living in caves of N. Pakistan…..hmmmm that’s odd, you never see Lamborn and Osama Bin Ladin in same place at the same time!!!!
WOW
hiding under the capitol dome the whole time….that’s brazen!
If Mr. Lamborn wants to reduce the number of abortions he should be focusing on good, age-appropriate, comprehensive sex ed. Abstinence-only has been shown to be a failure repeatedly. You want to reduce abortions, reduce unwanted pregnancies–and you do that, at least in part, by good education and, yes, access to contraception. You can cry all you want that kids shouldn’t be having sex, but they do–and you probably weren’t a virgin when you got married either. Kids who have good information have a better chance of making good choices. What other topic do we take a “less educated is safer” approach on. “Don’t talk to them about the risks of drugs/alcohol. That way they won’t have any.” I agree there are too many abortions, but you have to be realistic about how to reduce the numbers—and targeting victims of rape isn’t it.
Yet more proof, as if it’s needed, that forced birth proponents feel that women are less important than the fetuses we carry. Nothing more than incubators. In fact, if you can drug us and impregnate us against our will, so much the better because then we won’t be able to do a damn thing about it unless we happen to be wealthy.
And how many of those supposed 50 million did you plan to adopt fictionfinder? How much would you have even donated to charity to make sure they all had food, shelter, clothes? Based on your comments in the school breakfast threads, we know you wouldn’t have spent a single thin dime in taxes.
And don’t give me the “then she should have kept her legs closed” line. In the first place, this bill you love so much is going to make that a null point, since anything that doesn’t leave physical damage won’t be considered rape enough. Hold a gun to her head so she consents in fear for her life? Not rape enough. Threaten to kill a beloved pet? Not rape enough. Drug her? Not rape enough. Wait until she’s asleep and just do it? Not rape enough. Condom breaks and you just decide heck with it and keep going? Totally her fault.
Here is a thought. If men don’t want to cause abortions, they should keep it in their pants. That would also mean the women couldn’t get pregnant. Funny how you never hear people of fictionfinder’s ilk saying that…
These are the “back to the Constitution” people. Where exactly in the Constitution does it give FEDERAL legislators control over my reproductive organs? Where in the Constitution are they given the right to define “rape”? When they should be focused on jobs, energy and the economy, they continue to meddle in issues that are best left to women and health care providers. They think we sent a message in the November election? We’ll make the message MUCH clearer with the 2012 results!
2 questions for our beloved Dougie Lamebrain – Why do you hate women? Where are the jobs?
So, a young girl, raped by her father would be forced to carry the child to term?
LAMEborn, you’re sck.
Lamborn, you are a walking POS
I’m to the point where I just hate both parties and all politicians. When are they going to face the issues and do what’s best/right for the country.
this is not hard to believe coming from a man whos state has the worst child abuse in the nation….ladies just have the procedure done in another state that values your opinon and lets you make the best choice.
Those aborted babies since Row vs Wade – ~50 million more people to pay your social security when you need it. That is about the number needed to support our bankrupt system. So maybe Rep Lamborn is looking out for our financial well being in the congress.
Where is it written that the Federal Government has the right to tell a worman what she can and can’t do with her body. I have never had an abortions, but do not comdemn a woman for having one. Lamborn is a fool and I would never cast a vote for him. Leave women alone and let them decide what to do with their bodies. Get Lamborn out of Washington and all the men like him. Where are the jobs Lamborn?
This lame brain idea will go down in flames, but I’m sure the Senator will continue to waste time and resources with futile efforts to control womens bodies.
Note that the article states that “The inclusion of the word “forcible” would implicitly exclude non-violent instances of non-consensual sex, such as statutory rape…” then it states that the bill “Provides that such prohibitions shall not apply to an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of forcible rape or, if the pregnant woman is a minor, incest;” These two statements are contradictory. Statutory rape is by definition of a minor, therefore the abortion is not prohibited. Similarly, abortion for incest is not prohibited. This is a case of inflammatory and false reporting.
Doug Lamborn is a pathetic neanderthal.
I am embarrassed to know this disgusting individual represents us.
[...] REDIRECTING FUNDS: A new bill in the U.S. House of Representatives would prohibit the use of federal funds for nearly all abortions, including statutory rape. U.S. Reps. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, and Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, are among the bill’s 173 co-sponsors. The Gazette [...]
I agree with both sides, women should not use abortion as a form of birth control, but to some of you people that are so blind, as a woman that has been raped and thankfully didnt get pregnant, I cant imagine having to go to term with something that was forced upon me and having to look at that child every day of my life and have a reminder where that child came from, even if given up for adoption the reminder would still be there and it has been proven that children born from less than ideal circumstances have more mental problems than those conceived out of love. Would you want your daughter to be forced to carry your husbands,grandfathers, brothers or uncles baby? Before you condemn walk a mile in my shoes then you have the right to throw stones but not until you’ve lived my circumstances. and yes he should be focusing on the economy not women who are legitimately asking for help
ok ladies, time to man up on this…if your developmentally disabled daughter is having sex with her teacher and gets pregnant…it isn’t rape according to these fanatics. And, being a single mom, with no insurance…you aint getting the morning after pill from your Doctor who accepts medicaid. This is how you vote? REally??
Laborn’s bill is focused on the government and ultimately taxpayors, NOT paying for abortion. If a woman want one, she pays for it. With the exceptions noted.
So let this be a warning for 2nd amendment fanboys.
If you are going to rape, use a gun to coerce your victim. Coercion with a gun leaves no mark unless you slap someone up side the head with it.
If a rape victim has to prove that the rape was forcible then standard coercion technigues like a few punches will leave marks that are evidence.
After all, it is just her word against yours.
50 million more people to get old and sick– and in one day– you take their medication away from them–and that’s how you get rid of the old, when the government is through with them. That’s whats going on now!!!! Millions of people on Darvocet for pain–had their pain medication yanked off the shelves in one day, and are left with one choice, the hard drugs that make you sick–what are they up to—————–as far as this article—————I say ya, I will have the rape baby —IF YOU CASTERIZE THE MAN THAT DID THIS TO ME. always THE WOMAN PROBLEM—-i DON’T READ WHERE THERE IS ANY TALK ABOUT THE MAN HAVING TO SUFFER FOR WHAT HE DONE, OR HAVING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. You make woman sound like HORAS when all the time it is the MANHORES out there just roaming the streets. When did Lamborn make himself the TOP Commander and be able to tell a woman if she was raped or not —Is he hiding behind every bush. If you men rape and play with children–off with your head—this crap would stop. It is the mans fault–you should get together and vote on what you want to be done or let us woman get some laws going for you. where are the jobs—everyone wants to talk about anything but jobs–not working
It’s good to be an independent.
WELL SO MUCH FOR SPELL CHECK—WHORE—–MANWHORE—-WELL THE MANWHORE IS GOING TO HAVE 2 MEETINGS —IN TODAYS PAPER ALSO—LETS GO ,AND GATHER UP YOUR TOMATOES.
He’s a sick twisted puppy for sure, but there’s an R behind his name so he’s getting re-elected, even though far better R’s exist here….
[...] that allows federal funds to be used for abortions in certain cases, which include rape. The bill, H.R. 3, would have narrowed the exception for rape to “forcible” rape. That would exclude non-violent rape, such as statutory rape or when women are drugged or [...]
credit score…
[...]Lamborn co-sponsoring bill to redefine “rape” for women seeking abortions – Second Reading : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…