Several different blogs have recently gone into hysterics over HR 3, which was introduced into the US House of Representatives with 173 sponsors. Let's discuss several of its provisions which have been the subject of debate, and compare them with what is actually meant. To see the full text of the bill, (it is actually fairly short), click HERE
I might note that this bill violates one of the Republican and Tea Partiers' first rules, in that there is nothing in the bill indicating where in the constitution that Congress is authorized to pass this legislation . Of course, Congress IS authorized to do this by the powers vested in Article I, Section 8. But, at the beginning of this term of Congress, the Republicans and Tea Partiers made it clear that they were going to require every bill to have a clause which establishes its "constitutional legitimacy", and this bill does not do so. Perhaps that requirement only applies to bills that are sponsored by Democrats?
Sections 301, 302 and 303 of the bill speak about prohibiting the use of federal or public funds, including trust funds, to fund abortions. Simply put, this means that no government subsidized program, including any program such as medicaid or medicare, can fund an abortion. If a woman wishes to have an elective abortion, she must pay for it out of her own pocket. It also states that the woman cannot have a tax benefit for self-funding an abortion.
Section 305 and 306 allow for insurance companies to offer separate plans to women that will cover abortions, and I presume that an insurance company could also offer a separate abortion policy if it so desired. It also states that taxpayer funds are not to be used to buy such insurance. Again, this is in keeping with the desire that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, that she pay for it out of her pocket, and not have the taxpayer pay for it in any way.
Section 309 is the section which seems to bring certain people almost to the point of hysteria. This section has two parts. One part states that Section 301, 302 and 303 shall not apply when there is a case of forcible rape. This has been seized upon by some, perhaps with agendas of their own, to imply that force would be necessary to be proven, and that somehow, the Republicans are "redefining" the crime of rape. That is complete hogwash. Rape, at the common law, had 5 elements to make it a crime. Those were: penetration, force or resistance, non-consent, absence of a marital relationship, and mens rea. Modern statutes have evolved considerably from that. A handful of states allow for a prosecution without proof of force, but this is not the prevailing view in the United States. However, what counts as force has changed considerably, to include intimidation, psychological force, and other non-violent means of forcing the act. A review of state statutes reveals that in all states under this law, no changes will need to be made to the rape classifications in order for a woman to seek an abortion after being raped.
Section 309 also has a provision for incest where the victim is a minor. Incest is a completely separate crime versus rape. In the case of a minor, there may be an underlying rape charge, especially if it is shown that the victim was coerced into sex with someone prohibited by family relationship. An adult, however, is presumed to be able to give consent. If the woman did not give consent, or was coerced into the sexual act, then again, it may be rape, and the statement above about Section 309(a) would apply. An incestuous relationship where the woman is of legal age, and freely consents to the sexual act, should not be treated any differently than any other case of a sexual relationship where the woman finds she is pregnant and then has second thoughts. I realize that abortion up to a certain point is legal in the US, whether I like it or not, and if it is going to remain legal, the government has a right to refuse to pay for it.
In short, HR3 is a bill which seeks to make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions. If a woman chooses this drastic end to a human life, she should pay for it out of her pocket, and the taxpayers should not be complicit in assisting her in doing so.
3 comments:
They may or may not have violated the rule. Here is the text.
(c)(1) A bill or joint resolution may not be in- 6
troduced unless the sponsor submits for printing in 7
the Congressional Record a statement citing as spe- 8
cifically as practicable the power or powers granted 9
to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or 10
joint resolution. The statement shall appear in a 11
portion of the Record designated for that purpose 12
and be made publicly available in electronic form by 13
the Clerk.
The copy and paste did not work great but it is readable and it looks like the statement is not part of the bill but a seperate statement placed in a specific section of the congressional record for that purpose. Since this should be an easy promise to keep I would hope they don't break it in the first 30 days.
Interesting article TOE. I agree, that abortions should be not be funded by the government, unless for rape, incest, or legitimate health reasons.
That being said, if a woman decides to have a baby even though it would be in her financial interests to have an abortion rather than giving birth to a baby AND knowing she does not want to keep it, should the government have a moral obligation to pay for the hospital bills?
Financial reasons should never be the reason for an abortion. Free or low cost medical care for pregnant women is already common place, and isn't really an issue.
Post a Comment