New House bill that NEEDS reading HR3

[charisstoma]

Thank you Seth for posting this!


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text

Look at all of it of course but especially:

‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion-



19
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest;


There is a distinction between forcible rape and other kinds of rape. Definition of "forcible" raped in the past did not include date rape, drugging including intoxication, martial rape, or statutory rape and in some states there is no distinction, so it would be classed as plain rape.



Reading the prior sections, the insurance companies would need to sell you a separate policy, which would not be included as a credit for health care on your taxes and any payment from that policy would be included as gross income in a tax return.



‘SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.
‘For taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this section-


3
‘(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,


2
‘(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and


3
‘(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.


http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/01/29/dearjohn-for-when-boehner-decides-your-rape-just-wasnt-enough/

Comments

[theotherdibbler.livejournal.com]

...I do not understand.

(Also, can you put it behind a cut, pretty please? Big text dump on my friends page)

Sorry. I was agitated and forgot the lj-cut

[charisstoma.livejournal.com]

Our newly elected House of Representatives are trying to enact a new federal bill that restricts abortion through financial means.

It affects if you're poor and can not afford health insurance and/or a separate policy for the possibility of being raped (like a supplemental flood insurance rider). Except the policy can't be attached to your existing health insurance policy if you want to keep your tax benefits pertaining to your regular health insurance and don't want to have to include any payments for health treatment from the insurance company as the amount they use to figure out your yearly tax owed.

I think you and many other countries have health insurance supplied by the government as a matter of course and can probably buy extra if you want to supplement it. We have to buy our health insurance policies and/or have our employers kick in for part of the premiums paid to have it. Those too poor to carry health insurance have some paid for by the government state or federal. Sometimes the hospitals will eat the cost if it's life threatening and they can't shuffle it off to a different hospital.

It's okay. :)

[theotherdibbler.livejournal.com]

So your House of Reps is trying to screw people over? Good luck to you that they don't manage it.


I'm not sure how health insurance here works. I know I don't have private health insurance, but I do have a Medicare card, and Medicare covers some things (like getting some of youre money refunded for particular treatments or medications). It is all very confusing and I ignore it for the most part. I'll get health insurance when I have more cash and remember to do so, in the meantime I'm just hoping Idon't need it.

Re: It's okay. :)

[charisstoma.livejournal.com]

It will be interesting to see if the morning after pill will be concidered in as abortion. There are some that place it as another form of abortion.

Re: It's okay. :)

[theotherdibbler.livejournal.com]

I've heard of people who consider contraceptives to be akin to abortion, in that they prevent conception in the first place, and thereby prevent babies from being born. They just make me gape in disbelief. Contraceptives exist to protect people's health and to help control unsustainable population growth (ignoring the part where it's unsustainable anyway). Some people just don't think.

[theskimblishone.livejournal.com]

Here, you don't have to pay for all of (most of the essential) healthcare, and you get refunded for some things, but you'll wait forever if it's not urgent, too. (Like, my PT bills wouldn't be covered by Medicare. Hurrah for Workcover.) So you either pay yourself, or get private health insurance which pays for part of it. (I do have it - $105 AU a month for singles hospital cover with extras like really good dental/optical/whatever.) I have no idea how Medicare handles abortions, though. Or my health insurance, for that matter...

That bill is just obscene.

a separate policy for the possibility of being raped - seriously, do they not realise what's so WRONG with that? *rages*

[charisstoma.livejournal.com]

They're protecting 'the lives of little unborn children'.. they think. The poor will go to backroom abortionists to die from botched procedures like they've done in the past. Seriously dislike the political people involved in this.

[theotherdibbler.livejournal.com]

I'm very divided on the matter of abortion, I believe that unborn babies deserve to be allowed to live and that killing one is little different to killing a baby after it's been born. But on the other hand, I can understand and fully support abortions in the case of a) health risk to the mother and b) pregnancy arising from rape (and I am calling any sex that isn't fully consensual between two or more legal and mental adults in their full right minds and unaffacted by any chemical or psychological 'persuasions' as being rape - excluding someone having sex while drunk or high with a partner or partners they'd just as readily have had sex with on that occasion if they'd been sober).

But no government has the right to make a law about who can and can't have an abortion or under what conditions it's 'allowable'. Even ignoring the very huge issue that, as you said, this will force people to turn to horrifically unsafe methods instead, they just don't have the right to dictate something like that to people.

[theskimblishone.livejournal.com]

But no government has the right to make a law about who can and can't have an abortion or under what conditions it's 'allowable'.

This. I don't understand how someone can get up and say what's right or wrong for all women regardless of one's position on the choice/life debate. The arrogance is just appalling. How dare someone impose their beliefs on a whole state/country/populace?

[theotherdibbler.livejournal.com]

Next we bring in a law that says that all men over forty must be castrated to prevent deaths from testicular cancer. Sounds perfectly reasonable, yes?

Possibly all people of a particular race (toss a die and pick one) be sterilised so they can't reproduce, based on some notion of racial superiority or something. Just as reasonable yes? Or maybe we can bring back racial segregation to keep race lines pure?

In fact, if we're going to impose laws based on the personal beliefs of a select few, I personally vote we make a law that only people who have proven they can be good parents be allowed to have children. That would have far more beneficial outcomes for society as a whole than dictating who can have an abortion. Of course, we'll then have to legally define 'good parent'. And those who wish to become parents and are cleared to do so but are unable or unwilling to physically reproduce themselves, can select others to produce offspring on their behalf, then raise the child(ren) from birth as normal. Sounds like a good plan to me. *ignores all the gaping logic holes that arise from attempting to inflict a badly thought out ideal on a real population*

[theskimblishone.livejournal.com]

*grimaces*

I don't understand how the unborn have priority over the living, I really don't, but that's what will happen.

I looked it up, Medicare does fund abortions here. Thank heavens for that!

[theotherdibbler.livejournal.com]

I understand valuing life, and I understand affording the unborn with rights to existance, but I agree that the rights and health of the unborn shouldn't take precedence over the rights and health of the living. Especially given that a pregnancy that affects the health of the mother affects the health of the baby, and an unwanted child is bound for a miserable life unless they get amazingly lucky, so you're not even really protecting the babies themselves. Plus of course the previously mentioned unsafe abortion methods taken up by the desparate, which are dangerous to everyone involved and ought to be seriously considered when weighing up the 'benefits' of such a ruling. They're not going to save anyone by trying to force people to comply with their narrow-minded rules.
(On a different scale, it reminds me of those people you see on TV sometimes, who deliberately drive hellishly slow to 'make the roads safer' by forcing everyone behind them to slow right down too - ignoring the fact that in reality this will only incite road rage and reckless driving, thereby making the roads less safe as a direct result of their driving slowly.)

Yay for Medicare.

[mee-eep.livejournal.com]

For all it's criticised - thank heavens for our NHS, we're VERY lucky in the UK. In Wales particularly as even prescriptions are free now (though with current ecconomy it's not to be taken for granted).

I'm against the concept of abortion, I think life should have value and not be flushed away. But reality is not rose tinted. Rape victims should not have to nurture their attackers and bring an unwanted baby into the world. Children should not be unwanted, and I'd rather a baby aborted than risen in misery, burdened with their fathers crime. Some women can seperate the child, but not all.

[charisstoma.livejournal.com]

Yeah.
There's this interesting book Unwind distopian. http://www.amazon.com/Unwind-Neal-Shusterman/dp/1416912053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296538706&sr=8-1

[mee-eep.livejournal.com]

Not heard of that one. It sounds interesting and likely very dark.
I've not read anything non-fluffy in an age.

[abstract-whisk.livejournal.com]

Augh. Things like this make me so angry. I was informed about the subject on FB and linked to this article. Horrible, horrible. >:(

[charisstoma.livejournal.com]

Followed a few articles like that. The bill itself is interesting reading too. Makes me irrationally angry.

This is supposedly to help cut the deficit (you know that it's one excuse they'll make)amongst other things-- they had better not vote themselves raises this year or next.

[clodiametelli.livejournal.com]

It sounds horrendous (and very complicated). The distinction between 'forcible' rape and some other kind of rape (?!) is very creepy.

I agree with Meep that we are very lucky to have our NHS in the UK (currently under siege by our own lovely government).

The thought of someone bringing a child into the world or continuing with a pregnancy she desperately wanted to end because of rape or some other reason, purely because she couldn't afford an abortion is gloomy. As you say, desperate people will turn to backstreet abortionists or the child may be unloved or neglected.

[charisstoma.livejournal.com]

*sighs* Sometimes it's so easy to see the Puritan influence here.