1/26/17 Morning Reading List: H.R. 7

Just some links to keep folks up to date on the aftermath of yesterday’s passage of the anti-abortion bill H.R. 7.

Some statements from Democrats who opposed the bill are starting to come out. Here’s one from Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who spoke about the issue from the House floor.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, Republicans are crowing over the bill’s passage. Here’s a statement from Rep. Robert Pittinger (R-NC) who uses some pretty convoluted language to defend restricting health care choices for subsidized Obamacare recipients. He also points out that the vote was “bipartisan,” which if you remember, means it got 1.6% of the Democratic caucus on board.

Also getting local coverage for “standing for life” were Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), who knows “how precious each and every life is” but also supports the death penalty, and Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH), who believes “hardworking Ohioans have an expectation that their tax dollars will not be used to fund a practice they abhor,” which is probably a surprise to Ohioans who don’t particularly feel like using $14 billion of their tax dollars to build a wall.

If I can hop up on my soapbox here for a second, the idea that this is a service to taxpayers and not simply a matter of “we hate abortion and we hate Obamacare, and look, they overlap!” is silly. My taxes get used for plenty of things I don’t like. We don’t get to pick and choose them, and making an argument that we should be able to, especially when it comes to this legislation, is disingenuous. Taxes are the rent we pay to live in a stable country. They’re the get-out-of-jail-free card we use to avoid the problems most of the rest of the world have. Whether we like it or not, we don’t get a line-item veto over how they are spent.

There’s still no word on when and if the Senate will act on the legislation, but President Trump has promised to sign it.

This entry was posted in Civil Rights and Liberties and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to 1/26/17 Morning Reading List: H.R. 7

  1. Sheronda says:

    Amazing that no one gives a crap about the taxpayers who want to ensure that everyone has access to a safe and legal medical procedure.


  2. cyeganian says:

    I have to keep reminding myself that it’s actually not saving anybody anything because the HYDE AMENDMENT ALREADY PROHIBITS IT. Nobody’s getting a check in the mail from all their taxes that went to abortion – taxes already don’t go to abortion. I keep losing sight of that amidst all the hubub.


    • Sheronda says:

      And there’s that. Does this new legislation make any exception for women who have miscarriages late in their pregnancies?

      These are the folks that are supposed to balance the executive and judicial branch. I’m legitimately scared.


      • cyeganian says:

        There are exceptions set forth in the legislation:

        308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother
        The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion—

        (1)if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

        (2)in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s