Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held its first business meeting of the year to consider H.R. 358, the misnamed Protect Life Act, that would prevent women from using even their own private funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion and would significantly expand refusal calls that allow women to be denied treatment, even in circumstances where their health or lives are in jeopardy.
During the debate, members of the Committee finally admitted what we knew to be true: hidden under the cloak of so-called "taxpayer funding for abortion," H.R. 358 allows states to deny insurance coverage of birth control.
That's right: the Pitts bill is part of the war on contraception that's being waged by House Republican leaders. They're pushing a spending plan that eliminates the Title X family planning program, which for forty years has provided contraceptives and other basic preventive health care to women in need. They're trying to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of contraceptive care. They are trying to prevent states from even exercising an option to expand contraceptive coverage under state Medicaid programs. And now, they are allowing states to deny women coverage of contraception under the Affordable Care Act.
If she used a pill and he used a rubber, then the whole world would be de populated shortly,, and no blood will have been spilled.. what is it about demonRats that the lust for hacking up the unborn,, what is that shit?
Today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held its first business meeting of the year to consider H.R. 358, the misnamed Protect Life Act, that would prevent women from using even their own private funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion and would significantly expand refusal calls that allow women to be denied treatment, even in circumstances where their health or lives are in jeopardy.
During the debate, members of the Committee finally admitted what we knew to be true: hidden under the cloak of so-called "taxpayer funding for abortion," H.R. 358 allows states to deny insurance coverage of birth control.
That's right: the Pitts bill is part of the war on contraception that's being waged by House Republican leaders. They're pushing a spending plan that eliminates the Title X family planning program, which for forty years has provided contraceptives and other basic preventive health care to women in need. They're trying to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of contraceptive care. They are trying to prevent states from even exercising an option to expand contraceptive coverage under state Medicaid programs. And now, they are allowing states to deny women coverage of contraception under the Affordable Care Act.
H.R. 358 is Part of House Republican Leadership War on Contraception | National Women's Law Center
Angry yet? I know I'd like to punch someone.
These guys did say they would be all about jobs, am I correct? And instead, they're about setting back women's rights 100 years?
Your thoughts?
H.R. 358: Protect Life Act
112th CongressThis is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the House of Representatives ("H.R."). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.
Bill numbers restart from 1 every two years. Each two-year cycle is called a session of Congress. This bill was created in the 112th Congress, in 2011-2012.
The titles of bills are written by the bill's sponsor and are a part of the legislation itself. GovTrack does not editorialize bill summaries.
Track H.R. 358
This feed includes all major activity on this bill and its amendments, references in the Congressional Record, and relevant upcoming committee meetings.
Preview Feed >
Primary Source
See H.R. 358 on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution.
Summaries
Congressional Research Service Summary
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.
1/20/2011--Introduced.
Protect Life Act - Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being to used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Requires any qualified health benefit plan offered through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions. Prohibits a federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance under PPACA from requiring any health plan created or regulated under PPACA to discriminate against any institutional or individual health care entity based on the entity's refusal to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, require or provide such training, or refer for such training. Creates a cause of action for any violations of the abortion provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including injunctions and orders preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to institute an action to affected health care entities and the Attorney General. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive and investigate complaints alleging a violation of PPACA abortion provisions. Requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure that no multistate qualified health plan offered in an Exchange provides coverage of abortion services.
I'm comfortable with the Hyde Amendment as a measure for when taxpayers money should be used for abortion. If the Dems would stop trying to force Americans to pay for abortions, the GOP wouldn't have to waste time fighting it.
If she used a pill and he used a rubber, then the whole world would be de populated shortly,, and no blood will have been spilled.. what is it about demonRats that the lust for hacking up the unborn,, what is that shit?
Everyone -- except the GOP, apparently -- agrees that that wider use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy would be best. Read the linked article in the Op, Willow. This is not merely an attack on abortion rights.
It is an attack on birth control.
If she used a pill and he used a rubber, then the whole world would be de populated shortly,, and no blood will have been spilled.. what is it about demonRats that the lust for hacking up the unborn,, what is that shit?
Everyone -- except the GOP, apparently -- agrees that that wider use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy would be best. Read the linked article in the Op, Willow. This is not merely an attack on abortion rights.
It is an attack on birth control.
The Affordable Care Act included, as part of the compromise on abortion, a provision that made clear that nothing in the health care law would preempt state laws on abortion. H.R. 358 expands this provision, preventing the new health care law from preempting any state law - now or in the future - that has to do with "conscience rights." The Energy and Commerce Committee counsel admitted today that this provision goes WAY beyond abortion. In fact, it gives states carte blanche to undo, in the name of conscience, almost any federal requirement in the Affordable Care Act.
This loophole means that, under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."
The Affordable Care Act may finally mean that all new health insurance plans will cover contraceptives. And now, under the cloak of "taxpayer funded abortion," members of the Energy and Commerce Committee admitted today that the bill would allow states to opt-out of this guarantee.
House Republican leaders have decided to wage war on contraceptives. They're out of touch with American women. It's up to us to stop them.
If she used a pill and he used a rubber, then the whole world would be de populated shortly,, and no blood will have been spilled.. what is it about demonRats that the lust for hacking up the unborn,, what is that shit?
Everyone -- except the GOP, apparently -- agrees that that wider use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy would be best. Read the linked article in the Op, Willow. This is not merely an attack on abortion rights.
It is an attack on birth control.
It's an attack on birth control? It's about nannyism isn't it? Any grown woman who decides to fuck doesn't need the taxpayer to buy her birth control pills.. for god's sake where does it all end?? You people are nutz.
If she used a pill and he used a rubber, then the whole world would be de populated shortly,, and no blood will have been spilled.. what is it about demonRats that the lust for hacking up the unborn,, what is that shit?
Everyone -- except the GOP, apparently -- agrees that that wider use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy would be best. Read the linked article in the Op, Willow. This is not merely an attack on abortion rights.
It is an attack on birth control.
Everyone -- except the GOP, apparently -- agrees that that wider use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy would be best. Read the linked article in the Op, Willow. This is not merely an attack on abortion rights.
It is an attack on birth control.
It's an attack on birth control? It's about nannyism isn't it? Any grown woman who decides to fuck doesn't need the taxpayer to buy her birth control pills.. for god's sake where does it all end?? You people are nutz.
The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."
Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.
How is that okay with you?
The Affordable Care Act included, as part of the compromise on abortion, a provision that made clear that nothing in the health care law would preempt state laws on abortion. H.R. 358 expands this provision, preventing the new health care law from preempting any state law - now or in the future - that has to do with "conscience rights." The Energy and Commerce Committee counsel admitted today that this provision goes WAY beyond abortion. In fact, it gives states carte blanche to undo, in the name of conscience, almost any federal requirement in the Affordable Care Act.
This loophole means that, under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."
The Affordable Care Act may finally mean that all new health insurance plans will cover contraceptives. And now, under the cloak of "taxpayer funded abortion," members of the Energy and Commerce Committee admitted today that the bill would allow states to opt-out of this guarantee.
House Republican leaders have decided to wage war on contraceptives. They're out of touch with American women. It's up to us to stop them.
H.R. 358 is Part of House Republican Leadership War on Contraception | National Women's Law Center
Abortion Advocates Distorting HR 358
Republicans in the House of Representatives are proposing HR 358, which would prohibit any funds authorized or appropriated by PPACA, affectionately known as Obamacare, to be used for abortions. It also includes language that ensures that private companies (such as Catholic hospitals) are not forced to provide abortions. The bill would insert the following language into PPACA:
(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-
`(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except–
`(A) 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; or
`(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Predictably, pro-abortion forces are up in arms over this proposed bill and are conjuring up the worst (and unlikely) possible scenario to drum up opposition to the bill. Nancy Keenan from NARAL said, “Anti-choice politicians have gone from redefining rape to denying abortion care to women who will die without it.” Jodi Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief at RH Reality Check melodramatically states, “In short: Fertilized eggs are people; women are not.” Michael Stone, a blogger on examiner.com, continued the rhetoric and carried it a bit further by saying that Republicans have declared war on women.
Somehow, all of these pro-abortion folks are failing to mention the exceptions A and B that I listed above. They are in the current text of the bill. And the bill does say it will not prohibit healthcare plans that are not using federal funds from PPACA from covering abortions. None of what the pro-abortion people are saying is really a shocker. They want pregnant women to have as much opportunity to kill their unborn children as possible and they want the taxpayer to foot the bill for it. Anything that pro-life advocates do to prevent the slaughter brings out the worst in the pro-abortion camp.
It's an attack on birth control? It's about nannyism isn't it? Any grown woman who decides to fuck doesn't need the taxpayer to buy her birth control pills.. for god's sake where does it all end?? You people are nutz.
The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."
Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.
How is that okay with you?
Could you please show us in the direct text of the bill where it says this?
Everyone -- except the GOP, apparently -- agrees that that wider use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy would be best. Read the linked article in the Op, Willow. This is not merely an attack on abortion rights.
It is an attack on birth control.
It's an attack on birth control? It's about nannyism isn't it? Any grown woman who decides to fuck doesn't need the taxpayer to buy her birth control pills.. for god's sake where does it all end?? You people are nutz.
The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."
Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.
How is that okay with you?
Everyone -- except the GOP, apparently -- agrees that that wider use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy would be best. Read the linked article in the Op, Willow. This is not merely an attack on abortion rights.
It is an attack on birth control.
It's an attack on birth control? It's about nannyism isn't it? Any grown woman who decides to fuck doesn't need the taxpayer to buy her birth control pills.. for god's sake where does it all end?? You people are nutz.
The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."
Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.
How is that okay with you?
