Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H. Joint Res. 43

Should a Regulation Preventing States From Defunding Abortion Providers be Overturned?

Argument in favor

States should be able to prevent grant funding for family planning from going to abortion providers if they’d rather prioritize providers of of comprehensive primary and preventive care. Money is fungible, it can be spent on anything, and when taxpayer dollars go to abortion providers they’re essentially a government subsidy.

TuckerWantsLiberty's Opinion
···
02/13/2017
"A regulation preventing states from defunding..." is an obtuse way of saying "a regulation forcing states to fund...". States, just like citizens, should not be forced to fund (and in fact constitutionally cannot be forced to fund) any organization. No corporate subsidies. The fact that this one is healthcare-related, and more specifically abortion-related, is entirely irrelevant. End all corporate subsidies, and likewise end the federal government's forcing states to provide corporate subsidies, which is unconstitutional. And please, spare those of us who recognize that money is fungible the foolish arguments that "government money is already prevented from funding abortions!" If government money is keeping your lights on then that frees up other money that would have kept the lights on to now fund abortions. If I pay the rent and utilities of a meth addict and he can now use his money to continue his addiction, it makes no difference that my money didn't directly buy the meth. I've subsidized and enabled his behavior. The solution is no corporate subsidies whatsoever. Notice that nothing about this prohibits private support, so go fund them yourselves. Just don't use the government to force me to fund something I oppose, and I also will not use the government to force you to fund anything you oppose.
Like (191)
Follow
Share
Chuck's Opinion
···
02/13/2017
A growing fetus is a human being. A woman does not have the right to kill another human being just because it may be inconvenient to her. With the universal access to contraceptives, it is not excuse. If she didn't want to get pregmant, she should have taken precautions. Period. End of discussion.
Like (111)
Follow
Share
Rhonda's Opinion
···
02/13/2017
I think once a person realizes that there is a TRUE REAL BABY in the womb at an early stage, they should put the baby up for adoption if they do not want it. To make a heartfelt decision to KILL A BABY, YOUR BABY, is unthinkable! If a person has medical issues or if a baby has medical issues that no person or baby should chance or go through, then, and only then should it be terminated, and only after 2 to 3 opinions. But if a person chooses to KILL THEIR OWN BABY, that's a choice they have to live with and pay for themselves.
Like (61)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Federal funding is already prohibited from going to abortion providers. Preventing government funding from going to abortion providers will limit women’s reproductive healthcare options and undercut other essential services those organizations offer like access to contraception, testing for sexually transmitted diseases or cancer.

Mj's Opinion
···
02/13/2017
No federal money goes to abortions. Do not let them fool you, this is an attack on women's abilities to access family planning and health services such as contraceptives and cancer screenings.
Like (2381)
Follow
Share
Betsy's Opinion
···
02/13/2017
Abortion is legal in the United States. TRAP Acts unconstitutionally try to restrict access to a medical procedure that all US women have the right to. No matter what individual legislators may think of abortion, they cannot and should not restrict access to it. By taking even funding for family planning and cancer screening services away from abortion providers, legislators are further harming their constituency by denying access to vital, potentially life-saving, preventive care. Legislators need to put the needs of *all* of their constituents over their own personal belief systems.
Like (1450)
Follow
Share
Beth 's Opinion
···
02/13/2017
No public funds go towards paying for abortions at Planned Parenthood. Those funds are used from private donations. Public funds go towards reproductive education, birth control, women's health screenings, etc.
Like (1016)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H. Joint Res. 43?

This resolution would repeal a Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation that prevents states from denying family planning funding under Title X of the Public Health Service Act to organizations because they provide abortion services. The rule was finalized during the final weeks of the Obama administration and took effect on January 18, 2017.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress is able to overturn regulations finalized within the last 60 legislative days with simple majority votes on a joint resolution of disapproval in both chambers and the president’s signature. CRA resolutions also prevent the federal agency that created the regulation from issuing a similar rule without being directed to do so by Congress.

Federal funding for abortions is prohibited under the Hyde Amendment (which the House recently voted to make permanent), but tax dollars can still go to healthcare providers that offer abortion services for other purposes.

Impact

People receiving family planning services at providers that offer abortion services; healthcare providers; states; and HHS.

Cost of House Bill H. Joint Res. 43

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) introduced this resolution overturning the Obama administration’s rule blocking states from defunding abortion providers along with Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who introduced companion legislation in the Senate. In a joint op-ed in the Washington Examiner, Black and Ernst condemned the Obama administration’s “final parting gift to Planned Parenthood” and added:

“State legislatures around the country have spoken out about their preference for prioritizing more comprehensive primary and preventative care for the receipt of Title X funding, and their voice should be respected by bureaucrats in the federal government… According to its 2014-2015 annual report, Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortion procedures in just one year. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the abortion industry in this country. Nor should they be forced to foot the bill for an organization like Planned Parenthood that has displayed such blatant disregard for human life.”

The Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote an op-ed calling on the Trump administration to not overturn the Obama administration’s regulation. They fear that overturning it could force states to opt to “forgo federal planning dollars, to the detriment of the health clinics that millions of lower-income people have come to rely on for basic healthcare.” The editorial board said that “lawmakers shouldn’t hold women’s health services hostage to their crusade against abortion, which women have a legal right to seek. The HHS rule will help more lower-income women get the reproductive-health and screening services they need.”

This legislation has the support of 146 cosponsors in the House, including 145 Republicans and one Democrat.


Of Note: 10 states prohibit organizations from receiving family planning funds — seven block funding to abortion providers or groups affiliated with abortion providers, while three block all private organizations.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Fibonacci Blue / Creative Commons)

Official Title

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients.

joint resolution Progress

  • EnactedApril 13th, 2017
    The President signed this bill into law
  • The senate Passed March 30th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 50 Yea / 50 Nay
  • The house Passed February 16th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 230 Yea / 188 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
    IntroducedJanuary 30th, 2017
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    TuckerWantsLiberty's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    02/13/2017
    "A regulation preventing states from defunding..." is an obtuse way of saying "a regulation forcing states to fund...". States, just like citizens, should not be forced to fund (and in fact constitutionally cannot be forced to fund) any organization. No corporate subsidies. The fact that this one is healthcare-related, and more specifically abortion-related, is entirely irrelevant. End all corporate subsidies, and likewise end the federal government's forcing states to provide corporate subsidies, which is unconstitutional. And please, spare those of us who recognize that money is fungible the foolish arguments that "government money is already prevented from funding abortions!" If government money is keeping your lights on then that frees up other money that would have kept the lights on to now fund abortions. If I pay the rent and utilities of a meth addict and he can now use his money to continue his addiction, it makes no difference that my money didn't directly buy the meth. I've subsidized and enabled his behavior. The solution is no corporate subsidies whatsoever. Notice that nothing about this prohibits private support, so go fund them yourselves. Just don't use the government to force me to fund something I oppose, and I also will not use the government to force you to fund anything you oppose.
    Like (191)
    Follow
    Share
    Mj's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    No federal money goes to abortions. Do not let them fool you, this is an attack on women's abilities to access family planning and health services such as contraceptives and cancer screenings.
    Like (2381)
    Follow
    Share
    Betsy's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    Abortion is legal in the United States. TRAP Acts unconstitutionally try to restrict access to a medical procedure that all US women have the right to. No matter what individual legislators may think of abortion, they cannot and should not restrict access to it. By taking even funding for family planning and cancer screening services away from abortion providers, legislators are further harming their constituency by denying access to vital, potentially life-saving, preventive care. Legislators need to put the needs of *all* of their constituents over their own personal belief systems.
    Like (1450)
    Follow
    Share
    Beth 's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    No public funds go towards paying for abortions at Planned Parenthood. Those funds are used from private donations. Public funds go towards reproductive education, birth control, women's health screenings, etc.
    Like (1016)
    Follow
    Share
    Brodriv's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    Reducing funding for family planning will only create the need for more abortions!
    Like (568)
    Follow
    Share
    Amy's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    Abortion rates are as low as they have ever been since Roe v. wade., and declining, still. No one wants to have an abortion, but sometimes it must happen. Keep it safe, legal and accessible. Abortion is exactly 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget and denying funding to them will deny them the ability to perform the vast bulk of their services...providing healthcare esp to low income to women of all ages and color. Let's keep abortion rare and find women's healthcare providers.
    Like (557)
    Follow
    Share
    Carly's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    Support the right of all women to make autonomous decisions about their own bodies. Vote no.
    Like (363)
    Follow
    Share
    Toni's Public Comment
    ···
    02/13/2017
    Clinics that provide abortion also provide health services that are extremely important for women, they shouldn't be blocked
    Like (284)
    Follow
    Share
    Rori's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    "Restricting Funding for abortion" is a bit of a misleading phrase when the funding restriction would limit so much more. "Restricting women's access to reproductive care and family planning support" would be more accurate and the idea is reprehensible (and smacks of the attitude of geographical locations that restrict women's rights and available care in much more obvious ways). This is a quiet form of restriction and oppression, but it is just that nonetheless.
    Like (237)
    Follow
    Share
    Anna's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    Access to abortion is not a woman's issue. It is a societal issue. By allowing a woman to control her own body, she becomes more educated, contributes more and can serve our country more fully. Don't oppress women; it's bad for everyone.
    Like (183)
    Follow
    Share
    Brianna's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    "The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices." Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    Like (177)
    Follow
    Share
    TruckFump's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    No federal funding goes toward abortions. Everyone knows this.
    Like (128)
    Follow
    Share
    Chuck's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    02/13/2017
    A growing fetus is a human being. A woman does not have the right to kill another human being just because it may be inconvenient to her. With the universal access to contraceptives, it is not excuse. If she didn't want to get pregmant, she should have taken precautions. Period. End of discussion.
    Like (111)
    Follow
    Share
    Kathy's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    Planned Parenthood is an essential source of health care for many women and must be protected.
    Like (104)
    Follow
    Share
    Jane's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    I believe we cannot look to limit women's rights to make decisions about having (or not having) babies until we also take responsibility for the services (living, mental health, etc.) required for the unwanted children. In my opinion, it is a far greater crime to force someone to live a life where he/she is not wanted... perhaps on the street or in circumstances where he/she isn't even safe... than to end a pregnancy that is not wanted.
    Like (88)
    Follow
    Share
    Lizeeparadise's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/16/2017
    Please do not let them fool you. Public money does not go toward abortions. By voting yes you are taking money away from other programs such as cancer screenings. If you want to fight abortions more money should be put into realistic preventive education! Not defunding programs that provide it. Makes no sense!
    Like (64)
    Follow
    Share
    Noah's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    We need to protect women's right to choose, and allowing states to scrap this right is unacceptable.
    Like (61)
    Follow
    Share
    Rhonda's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    02/13/2017
    I think once a person realizes that there is a TRUE REAL BABY in the womb at an early stage, they should put the baby up for adoption if they do not want it. To make a heartfelt decision to KILL A BABY, YOUR BABY, is unthinkable! If a person has medical issues or if a baby has medical issues that no person or baby should chance or go through, then, and only then should it be terminated, and only after 2 to 3 opinions. But if a person chooses to KILL THEIR OWN BABY, that's a choice they have to live with and pay for themselves.
    Like (61)
    Follow
    Share
    Holly's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/16/2017
    This isn't about abortion. This is about hurting women's access to reproductive health services and medical care. Say NO!
    Like (57)
    Follow
    Share
    Nancy's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/13/2017
    Do NOT deny family planning funding to organizations that provide abortions. Women's reproductive rights are at risk and should be decided by the individual woman.
    Like (56)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE