Arguments Against Abortion

Introduction
The right to life is a fundamental right given to all Americans. Federal funding should not be used to destroy life. The right to life is found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and reads as follow;
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness (Madison, 1787)
Lawmakers have introduced a bill that prohibits taxpayer’s money to fund abortions. Under the Hyde amendment, if a woman becomes pregnant due to rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger abortion is allowed. This bill prevents funds appropriated by the Federal law to be used to purchase an

insurance policy that covers abortion.
This bill reaffirms constitutional rights and protects taxpayers.

The interest of our nation is to preserve life, liberty, uniting and strengthening America to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT). The main intend with H.R.7 is to close ``a very broad loophole for federally funded abortions for any teenager” (CONGRESS).
First I will address the purpose of the legislation and what it attempts to accomplish. Secondly, discuss why I agree and two reasons supporting my viewpoint. Lastly, I will discuss the oppositions view and their argument, concluding with a review of the legislation and restate why I agree with this bill.
Brief Explanation of the No Taxpayers Funding for Abortion Act
Representative Christopher H. Smith, R-NJ-4 introduced the bill to the House of Representatives on May 14, 2014 and was passed on January 28, 2014. H.R. 7 was referred to the Senate and read twice upon referring it to the Committee on Finance. The legislation is co-sponsor by one hundred seventy-one representatives and supported by the House Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Judiciary. According to Congress Congregational Report:
“H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' would prohibit the Federal funding of abortions, except
in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in

danger.”
The bill permanently includes policies previously passed on a case-by-case basis.
Supporters of the bill believe that when government offers financial aid, government is actually encouraging that activity. Those statistics support Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States (Madison, 1787).
The opposition believes that the bill is not necessary since funding restrictions under the Hyde amendment are narrow and subject to harm women’s life because they delay the medical care needed for an abortion. They state the “bill singles out and excludes abortion” from government funded programs which are to be provided to a specific population (Sher, 2014) ”. They also believe that the bill undermines a women’s right because if they cannot financially pay for an abortion and forced to carry out an unwanted pregnancy. They also report that, under such circumstances women are physically, emotionally, mentally, and financially unprepared to or incapable of caring for a child (Sher, 2014).
Arguments supporting the No Taxpayers Funds for Abortions
As I stated earlier, the no taxpayers funds for abortion is a good bill because it aligns with our constitution to protect the unborn and use tax dollars to further the nations economy. I believe that if financial aid is easily accessible the possibility of its use is higher, undermining the life of the unborn. An action must be taken in order to close the loophole currently being used to pay for abortions with pre-tax funds.
One of the arguments for passing this bill justifies the responsibility congress to defend the life and welfare for the United States. Meaning, that congress is to preserve life to make our nation stronger. The children of today are those that will to protect our nation in the future. I believe this bill must be set in place to eliminate insurance companies to offer abortions as a covered benefit unless it meets the criteria of the Hyde Amendment. As Obama Care Act, a subsidize aid act was passed, many The National Right to Life, Protect Life Act reported “More than one million Americans who were born alive and are with us today, who would have been aborted if the Hyde Amendment had not been in place. (Johnson, 2011). ” For that reason I agree The Hyde amendment is to remain permanently in the “No Taxpayers Fund for Abortion Act”. The After Abortion Organization interviewed post-abortion women and found that women that had abortions reported the feeling of abandonment, betrayal, and desperation, which are negative effects in their lives and have direct correlation to substance abuses. They also reported that the reason for their action was that they were “coerced into aborting their by boyfriends, husbands, friends, and family (Coleman, 2011). ” H.R.7 is needed for the sake of women’s protection and pressure. If elective abortion continues to remain legal, they are to be paid with private funds from individuals.
Another augments that supports my viewpoint is, federal dollars should be used for the good of our nation. This bill supports the Constitutional Authority Statements under the spending Claus:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States....ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1
I believe that taxes collected by congress are to be used for education and offering pregnancy prevention methods. In doing so, it protects and defends the well-being of the United States. This bill eliminates federal funded programs under Medicaid to eliminate abortions as a covered benefit, closing the loophole of federal funds appropriated through the regular annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill that is untouched by the Hyde amendment (Annas, 2009).
Douglas Johnson’s Testimony states the following; “PPACA,” Public Law 111-148, law contains multiple provisions that authorize subsidies for abortion, as well as provisions that could be employed for abortion-expanding administrative mandates. Some of these objectionable provisions are entirely untouched by any limitation on abortion, whether contained in the PPACA itself or elsewhere, while others are subject only to limitations that are temporary, contingent, and/or ridden with loopholes (State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 2014)”.Another way to get around to using tax-free dollars to is by using the flexible spending dollars. Flexible spending accounts offered by employers that set aside pre-taxed dollars are to be use for medically necessary reasons. However, if a physician deems an abortion as medically necessary, pre-taxed dollars can be used to pay regardless if the pregnancy was not caused by rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in danger. A survey reported that “37 percent of the women who would otherwise have had an abortion carried their child to term when public funding was not available (State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 2014)”.
Counter-argument
Now, in order to make an informative decision I will look at the oppositions view point and argument. Proponents of this legislation feel it is unfair because it puts women’s life in danger and deprives them from their constitutional right. They also state the legislation will raises taxes on women, families, and small business that use their own money to pay for abortions or the purchase of an insurance policy that has covers such procedure.
During the House of Representative debate, all representatives who oppose of this bill did not provide concrete facts. They all suggested the same reason of why this bill is not good.
The reason for the proponents to argue that this legislation is unfair and endangers women’s life is due to “The Hyde Amendment” which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through subsidized programs. The Hyde Amendment had to be revalidated periodically and used in “case-by-case basis”. However it no longer needs to be re-approved and has become permanent in H.R.7. They also claim that this legislation’s attempt to make abortion completely unavailable even if paid by non-federal funds. These arguments are made mainly to allow for elective teen abortions. Representatives mentioned several times that medical benefits are being denied to lower class women who cannot afford non-subsidize medical coverage.

Rebuttal
Those opposing H.R.7- No Taxpayers Funds for Abortions argued that this legislation is not good bill because it undermines women’s rights and puts their life in danger. Another main point they argued was that it would increase taxes. However, women are still given right to choose if they want to have an abortion or not. The bill states that no federal fund should be used for such procedure. Most importantly, the federal system has gaps that allow for federal dollars to eventually pay for abortions. The bill does not say women will not denied medical coverage, it states that subsidize policies will not cover for other than reasons in the Hyde Amendment Act

Conclusion
In this paper I explained the legislation and its purpose as well as the supporting committees. I then gave my reasons of why I agree with the law along supporting evidence of my viewpoints. Lastly, I reviewed the opposition’s point of view and arguments while countering their arguments with rational facts.

Although I believe women multiple reasons other than those included in the Hyde Amendment to have an abortion, I believe the H.R. 7 Not Tax-payers Funds for Abortions will safe many lives. Medical benefits will continue to available for those who need it. The change is that some employers have the choice to offer their employees insurance policies with less medical coverage. Insurance policies with abortion coverage is said to remain available for those who choose that option. In my opinion, congress is in a complicated position because not all the people will be satisfied all legislation. However, the ultimate goal for our nation is life preservation, making our nation stronger for the well-being of all.The opposing side to this law is that it does not make abortions illegal. Therefore, women still have a choice whether is ethical or unethical.