H.R.3 – No Taxpayer Money for Abortion Act Sponsored by Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ)

Written by: Rachel Pazda
I recently was made aware of a bill that is before the House of Representatives, H.R. 3 – No Taxpayer Money for Abortion Act. Based on the title it would seem the goal of Rep. Smith and others who are supporting the bill is rather straight forward… to stop taxpayer money from funding abortions. Fair enough, members of Congress have the right to propose bills for and against Reproductive Rights; it’s what makes our country great, the right to fight for what you believe in even when a person across the aisle disagrees with you. But the bill isn’t just about abortion funding; it’s about funding abortions that are being sought by rape victims.

Although it would be easy for me to, without pause, destroy the whole bill with simple logic and legal argument, I will focus on only one key point: Mr. Smith and his compatriots are attempting to redefine rape. The fight for rape to even be properly acknowledged in society has yet to be won, and if the wording in H.R. 3 is not drastically altered the progress made for victim’s rights will be effectively negated. According to the bill, only victims of “forcible rape” will be eligible for tax dollar assistance to fund the abortion of a pregnancy that was a result of the assault. The phrase “forcible rape” is not elaborated or defined throughout the rest of the text. Which raises some somewhat obvious, but non-the-less important, questions: What is force? Is coercion force? What about refusal to accept “No” for an answer? What if the rapist had drugged the victim, would that be considered force? Or is a rape victim only allowed to claim to be “forced” if she is covered in blood and bruises? If the victim is on life support due to her injuries and is unable to even request an abortion because she is in a coma, is that force enough? Or would the abortion still be unfunded due to the fact that since the rape victim is unable to make the decision it would most likely fall to the family to make the decision and since legally the woman cannot be forced to have an abortion wouldn’t it technically be illegal to fund the abortion procedure with tax dollars? Seems like a rather complicated, unnecessary can of worms that would re-victimize women who have been raped because Mr. Smith doesn’t want to pay for abortions with tax revenue. Perhaps I am wrong to believe that we should actually increase funding to help the victims of rape with counseling and medical services rather than decrease their aid, but I don’t think I’m wrong. It is wrong and irresponsible for our government to pass a law that is in its very essence a definition of victim blaming and minimization of trauma experienced by women who are raped, whether their bruises are in their skin or in their psyche.

As an individual, I ask you to take action and speak up! Call your Congress people and let your representatives in Washington and in your state capitals know what you think. I know I will make my representatives aware that I am not ok with this law and as citizens representatives they are obligated to vote as their constituent’s desire. I have included a link that can be used to find out who your representatives are if you are unsure.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Just choose your state, enter your zip code + 4 digit zip code extension and click on “Contact My Representative”.  You will be directed to your representative’s website.

Below is a link to the text of H.R.3.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3

“It might be more worthwhile if we stopped wringing our hands and started ringing our congressmen.”  ~Author Unknown

16 and Abortion?

Thoughts from Courtney Bauer

One of my favorite shows is MTV’s 16 and Pregnant. I tune in every Tuesday night. When it first came out, the creators of the show said they wanted to have a show that actually shows the struggles of being a teen mom. The goal was to scare teens into practicing smarter sex. Many people argue that the show “The Secret Life of The American Teenager” on ABC Family glorifies being a teen mom. The main character is shown looking great and going back to regular high school after having her baby when in real life, this isn’t usually the case. I applaud both of these shows for bringing up the issue of teen pregnancy and getting people talking, but WHERE are the ABORTIONS?!!!

Each year in the U.S. about one million abortions are performed. Fifty-two percent of those abortions are performed on women under the age of twenty-five. So, if there are so many young women getting abortions why are there no shows about teens choosing that option? After all, at the end of each episode of 16 and Pregnant the girls say that they were not ready to have baby.

Some people believe the abundance of sex on T.V. is encouraging teens to have sex at young ages. If this is true than the lack of abortion on T.V. is reinforcing to the teens that it is not an acceptable option. Perhaps networks don’t want to show abortion on their shows because it is a very sensitive topic? 16 and Pregnant does show some of the girls giving up their babies for adoption. However, the reality is that far fewer adoptions take place each year in the U.S. than abortions.

Most teenagers, if not all, are not ready to be parents. If teenage girls gets pregnant they need to have options available to them. If television shows showed more women getting abortions and talking about abortions, it would open teen’s eyes to the fact that it is still an option.

The Murder of Dr. Tiller

On May 31, 2009, Dr. George R. Tiller, a late-term abortion provider in Kansas, was murdered while attending church services. For years, Dr. Tiller had been threatened and harassed by anti-abortion supporters: He was shot in both arms and his clinic was bombed and vandalized.

Dr. Tiller’s murder comes a few weeks after President Obama called on Americans to have an open and honest debate on abortion. Obama said he was “shocked and outraged” by the murder. “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence,” he said.

We often forget about the power of words. Dr. Tiller was called a “murderer” and “baby killer,” and his murder is a tragic example of how words can incite violence. While Tiller was physically and verbally attacked, not all people who are anti-choice condone violence. In fact, Operation Rescue, an anti-choice organization, has spoken out strongly against the murder of Dr. Tiller. And while people on both sides of the abortion issue feel very strongly, we can all agree that violence is never the answer.

It would be great if we—whether we’re pro- or anti-choice—could come together in support of preventing unplanned pregnancies and addressing those hard ethical questions that come up when a woman’s life is endangered by a pregnancy.