Jason Chaffetz on Abortion
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.
Congressional Summary:Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
Wikipedia Explanation:Title X of the Public Health Service Act, titled "Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" is a US government program dedicated to providing family planning services for those in need. Title X provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information. Priority for services is given to persons of low-income.
Sponsor Remarks by Rep. Mike Pence:It is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion. Last year, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in revenue from government grants; and performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act will prevent any family planning funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. It will ensure that abortion providers are not being subsidized with federal tax dollars.
OnTheIssues Explanation: Federal money is never explicitly provided for abortions. But Planned Parenthood does provide abortions, paid for via private funds. At issue is the "fungibility" of money: Planned Parenthood can use federal funds to supplement their budget and hence free up other funds for abortion. This bill would end that practice.
|Other candidates on Abortion:||Jason Chaffetz on other issues:|
Retiring as of Jan. 2013:
Senate elections Nov. 2012:
CT:Bysiewicz(R) vs.Murphy(R) vs.Shays(R)
IN:Lugar(R) vs.Mourdock(R) vs.Donnelly(D)
MA:Brown(R) vs.E.Warren(D) vs.
MD:Cardin(D) vs.Wargotz(R) vs.Capps(R)
MI:Stabenow(D) vs.Hekman(R) vs.Konetchy(R) vs.Hoekstra(R)
MO:McCaskill(D) vs.Akin(R) vs.Steelman(R)
NE:Nelson(D) vs.Flynn(R) vs.Stenberg(R) vs.Bruning(R)
NM:Bingaman(D) vs.Balderas(D) vs.Sanchez(R) vs.Wilson(R)
OH:Brown(D) vs.Coughlin(R) vs.Pryce(R)
TX:Cruz(R) vs.Jones(R) vs.Leppert(R)
VA:Kaine(D) vs.Allen(R) vs.Donner(R) vs.Radtke(R)
WI:Schiess(R) vs.Neumann(R) vs.Thompson(R) vs.Kagen(D) vs.Kind(D) vs.Baldwin(D)
Senate Votes (analysis)
Email Contact Form
315 Westfield Circle, Alpine, UT 84004