The House Is About to Hand a Big Win to the Anti-Abortion Movement

[blue-wave]

Source: Mother Jones

Since the 1970s, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions. The rule has always functioned as a budget rider attached to individual federal appropriations bills. But as early as Tuesday, the House could vote to make it permanent. If members of the House approve the bill, they'll be moving on what has long been a priority for anti-abortion groups just days after the Women's Marches, in which millions of Americans demonstrated against President Donald Trump in what may have been the largest protest in US history. Enshrining the Hyde Amendment into law was one of Trump's primary campaign promises to the pro-life movement.

The bill, dubbed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, would prohibit the use of any federal funds to pay for abortion or for health benefit plans that include abortion coverage. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), the bill's author, proposed a similar version of the legislation in 2013 and 2015. Both versions passed the House but not the Senate.

Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/house-representatives-trump-hyde-amendment

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Women have been his and their targets from day one.

Women simply are 2nd class people who dont know how to make decisions and must have a man do it for them.

period.

this is what you non voters and 3rd party voters wanted...

[Charles Bukowski]

3. "This will bring the revolution faster. Or something"

- Susan "I cant get pregnant anymore, what do I care?" Sarandon.

[CrispyQ]

9. My mother had that attitude.

It was a huge rift between us.

[LanternWaste]

16. The lazy mind is indeed, predicable...

The lazy mind is indeed, predicable... when devoid of substance, it often resorts to the grade-school churlishness of mocking the individual.

The lazy mind will then rationalize its child-like petulance as both relevant and witty.

Or something...

[Charles Bukowski]

17. I don't see an ounce of substance in your post.

But your lame hollow defense #JillNotHill asshats like Susan Sarandon is duly noted.

Here's some more shit she (and the Bernie Busters) can eat:


https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-press-conference-dakota-access-pipline-sean-spicer-white-house-a7542481.html%3Famp?client=ms-android-att-us

This is only Day 4. Are used feeling Teh Bern yet, Suzie?

[DURHAM D]

2. I guess the Republicans want a Women's Equality March

to happen EVERY Saturday.

[MattP]

4. Will it need 60 votes in the senate? Or is it part of reconciliation?

[blue-wave]

5. The article claims it will need 60 votes in the senate

[rurallib]

12. let's hope we can keep 41 senators on our side

[C_U_L8R]

6. Vengeance on women.

My goodness they have issues, don't they.

[sheshe2]

14. Yup.

Mommy issues.

[safeinOhio]

7. Bare foot and pregnant

call it what it is.

[Wounded Bear]

8. K & R ......for visibility..

No surprises here, folks. Batten down the hatches, we're in for a big blow.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. What about taxpayers

who do want their tax money used for these purposes?

Can't we get a check-off box that diverts .0001% of our taxes to
these purposes?

[sarcasmo]

11. The right ending funding for Planned Parenthood through Executive Orders.

[spiderpig]

13. And so it begins...(n/t)

[WhiteTara]

19. or just rolls along

it began at 12:02pm on the 20th with his exec order to repeal the ACA

[manicraven]

15. Was feeling so much better with the successful women's march but am already slipping

back into a feeling between disgust and despair, followed by anger. I hate to wish this on all of us, but I almost want these zealots to go too far, so far, in fact, that their base feels squeezed and extremely miserable. Then maybe the pendulum will swing back, only this time so substantially that they can't suppress enough votes or rig enough machines or hack enough emails to change the outcome in their favor. I know we'd all suffer, but how do we wake up people who didn't bother to vote, voted 3rd party, decided to gamble on tRump, or who knew better but stuck with party loyalty over common sense?

[MontanaMama]

18. I know what you mean, minicraven. I don't want to wish ill on anyone

but sometimes I think that basic rights will have to be stripped from the masses and misery be more prevalent than not to get citizens to rebel in a meaningful way. Makes me sick to say that because I know that there's a whole lot of people who already have it tough. Damn it, I don't know what to hope for any more.

[csziggy]

20. The next step is to bring back the Mexico City Policy to cut funding

For any agency abroad that receives US money and provides abortions as part of their reproductive care for refugee women.

This article is old, written just as President Obama took office but it explains the problem:

The Mexico City Policy and Its Consequences for Refugees

Each year, 19 million women risk their lives to undergo unsafe abortions because the procedure is illegal, severely restricted, or difficult to access. Of women who undergo unsafe abortions, as many as 80 percent face illness, injury, or disability. Globally, unsafe abortions account for approximately 68,000 deaths annually and 13 percent of all pregnancy-related deaths. As alarming as these global statistics are, the situation for refugees and internally displaced women is especially dire due to lack of access to proper facilities and services. Since refugees and internally displaced persons are in similar positions with regard to reproductive health and unsafe abortions, this paper will refer to both populations as “refugees.” A 1999 report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that “25 to 50 per-cent of maternal deaths in refugee settings are due to complications resulting from unsafe abortions.” In addition, many who survive live with the effects of severe complications, including incomplete abortion, sepsis, hemorrhage, and intra-abdominal injury or long-term health problems such as chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, tubal blockage, or secondary infertility.

Many refugees are left with few alternatives to unsafe abortions. Refugee women are often subjected to forced sex and have limited access to reproductive health services, including contraceptives. This can cause a high rate of unwanted pregnancy and increases the need for safe and accessible abortion services. However, the staggering number of maternal deaths caused by unsafe abortions each year among refugees demonstrates that their reproductive health needs are not being met. As with many refugee services, reproductive health programs suffer from a lack of resources and accessibility.

Over the last two-and-a-half decades the issue has been further complicated by the Mexico City Policy. Since the U.S. policy was first instituted in 1985, it has been rescinded and reinstated several times by successive presidents of different parties. Most recently, President Barack Obama rescinded the policy on January 13, 2009. The Mexico City Policy banned U.S. funding from going to any organization that performs or promotes abortions, “provides advice, counseling, referrals or information regarding abortion, or [lobbies] a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available,” even if the money used for those services are private funds. Critics dubbed the policy the “global gag rule” because it restricts these humanitarian organizations from discussing abortion as an option for pregnant women. Since President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, many family planning and reproductive health organizations that serve refugee populations lost funding. This, in turn, has impeded access to all forms of reproductive health services, including safe abortions.

President Obama’s removal of the policy is an excellent start to undoing the damage done by the policy over the last eight years. However, much more remains to be done to ensure that refugees have access to safe abortion services. Additionally, there is no guarantee that this policy will not be reinstated in the future after the current administration leaves office. It is important to understand the consequences of this policy for refugees when considering its possible reinstatement by a future administration. The inconsistency of U.S. policy puts organizations that provide reproductive health services at a disadvantage because they face continual uncertainty about their funding.

http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/64

[elmac]

21. its a big thank you to the religious fanatics

who helped get sniffles elected. We will never have a true Democracy as long as there is no separation of church and State.