Stop anti-abortion bill H.R. 3

In the midterm elections, Republicans hammered President Obama for his handling of the economy and spoke unceasingly about the dire need for jobs. So where is the Republicans’ focus now that they have control of the House of Representatives?

Abortion.

That’s right. Abortion. Great. After all their talk about the economy, one would think newly-elected Republicans would have their priorities straight. Yet House Speaker John Boehner says banning taxpayer funding for abortion will be one of the GOP’s highest legislative priorities.

Boehner is referring to the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, or H.R. 3. This act would make permanent the Hyde Amendment, which has been renewed each year since 1976 and bars the use of federal funding for abortion, primarily through Medicaid.

When it was first introduced by Representative Chris Smith, R-NJ, on Jan. 20, H.R. 3 attracted a great deal of negative attention. Most of the outrage was directed toward the bill’s language, which bans taxpayer funding for abortion except in the case of forcible rape. Forcible rape?! Last time I checked, rape is forcible by definition. This is a slippery slope with serious implications.

Under this legislation, a rape victim would be forced to demonstrate to her insurance company that her rape was, in fact, “forcible.” The wording also excludes victims of statutory rape or date rape from the exemption. These facts have special implications for people our age. College-aged women are four times more likely to be raped than any other group, and one in four will experience sexual assault. Imagine if you, your friend, classmate, or sister was a victim of rape. Imagine seeking an abortion, having to prove the assault was “forcible,” and then being denied coverage because there was alcohol or a date rape drug involved.

As a 21-year-old woman, I find this terrifying. And so should other Columbia students.

Rep. Smith eventually changed the wording in response to intense criticism and outrage, but the damage has already been done. His attempt to redefine rape was appalling and demonstrates just how insensitive and obtuse the proponents of this bill are.

In addition to trying to make the lives of rape victims significantly more difficult, Smith and the other 173 cosponsors of the bill seek to limit Medicaid abortion coverage to victims of incest over the age of 18. How can these members of Congress consciously make a distinction between adult and minor victims of incest? Why should a 19-year-old victim be forced to have a baby, the product of incest, simply because she is a legal adult?

Despite the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’s name, the bill doesn’t simply focus on permanently banning federal funding of abortions. The bill also places restrictions on Americans with private health insurance plans. Under H.R. 3, Americans who choose to purchase or keep a private health care policy covering abortion will be given a tax hike.

Another abhorrent anti-choice bill introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) is ironically titled the Protect Life Act. Currently, hospitals are required to treat all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. What happens if a woman requires an emergency pregnancy termination to save her life? According to Rep. Pitt, anti-abortion health care providers should simply be able to do nothing, essentially letting the woman die. Emily Stewart, public policy director at Planned Parenthood, said, “These bills would take comprehensive private health insurance coverage for abortion away from millions of American women—even those who face serious health problems from a pregnancy—and make existing restrictions even worse." These bills would not only continue to severely limit the rights of low-income women on Medicaid—they would affect all American women.

H.R. 3 and the Protect Life Act are not the only actions anti-choice legislators have taken since the midterm elections. In states where the previous governor had opposed and vetoed anti-abortion bills, lawmakers are reviving bills and reintroducing them to new, anti-choice governors. State governments have seen a powerful change. While 21 governors were anti-choice last year, now 29 governors strongly oppose abortion. According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, 15 states have both anti-abortion legislatures and governors. Last year, there were 10. Anti-choice groups are giddy over what Michael Gonidakis, executive director of Ohio Right to Life, called “the best climate for passing pro-life laws in years.”

Anti-choice groups and lawmakers should hold off getting too excited—Democratic members of Congress and pro-choice groups are gearing up for a fight, and the Columbia community must take a stand.

The conservatives who whine about the dangers of “big government” intrusions into health care and tax increases on the super-wealthy are the proponents of these disgusting bills. This is the ultimate hypocrisy. Talk about overreaching—telling a woman she cannot use her private money to purchase a private health care plan of her choosing.

Alexandra Katz is a Barnard College senior majoring in political science. Umm, Excuse Me runs alternate Tuesdays.