House approves bill barring taxpayer money for abortions


(CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday barring the use of any taxpayer money for abortions, days before a large contingent of anti-abortion activists are scheduled to attend the annual “March for Life” in Washington.

The measure passed mostly along party lines, 238-183.

Currently, the so-called “Hyde Amendment,” which is regularly attached to annual funding bills, already prohibits federal agencies from using funds for abortion services. The measure approved on Tuesday would make that amendment permanent.

The amendment includes an exception for those abortions that are undertaken to protect the life of the mother or done in cases of rape or incest.


H.R.7 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017

Sponsor: Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4] (Introduced 01/13/2017)

Like clockwork, Rep. Chris Smith’s name is always seen in pro-life legislation. :thumbsup:


I don’t like the exception for rape and incest, but this is progress.


I don’t like it either…but we need to stop most of the funding. I wish we could stop it ALL.


Are you flipping mad? This is horrible. Now how many women are going to aim for more dangerous means to get an abortion.


More dangerous than what? Murdering the innocent life inside the womb? If those women lived responsibly, then they wouldn’t find themselves in that position.


Wow now blaming the victim. So if the person was raped via incest they are not living responsibly?


This is for tax payer funding. It was this way before Obama, there were still abortions,
sad to say. Women need to know some of the potential consequences of abortions.
But PP and others have made arguments that it is a “substantial burden” if she gets
the information and has to come back for the abortion. Maybe because seeing a
sonogram of the baby causes some to not have the abortion? What if they are told
there is a higher rate of suicide, broken and abusive relationships, infertility, breast cancer,
emotional problems, addictions, and auto immune diseases in women who have


The vast majority of cases are not due to such circumstances.

Citing such cases is just a smokescreen for the majority of convenience abortions.


I was just about to say the same thing!


It’s also a smokescreen hiding what abortion really is.


I would ask you to provide evidence to support the claim


Source please. Also convenience abortions? I never heard of that term. I am more shocked by the anti rape and incest lines being said here. I’m just stunned.

Also yes there were abortions before Obama and even during Obama’s administration but it dropped to a low seen around the time of Roe v Wade. Given that is probably due to better access to condoms and better sex education.




I’m not sure that “we need to provide safer ways to murder people” is a good argument to be making. We do need to provide better support and counseling to people in such difficult situations.


Okay. So how about better sex education classes? Better access to condoms and other measures that prevent pregnancy? No longer shaming sex or having it seen in narrow terms? Dropping the idea of abstinence as a means of prevention?


I’m assuming ‘convenience abortions’ refers to people who have abortions because having a baby would interfere with the work life/personal life or because they don’t feel ready to have a baby yet. These are generally major reasons why one has an abortion. Rape and incest count for well below 2 percent of abortions.
See pg. 113


Let me ask you this: is abortion murder?





DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit