Representative expresses fear that legislation could be used to fuel false accusations

Tax money should not be used for abortions. period!

If some one is a victim of a crime, there is no other case where they get "restored" to their initial state before the crime, unless they have purchased an insurance policy that shares the financial risk between those that choose to participate (such as theft insurance).

Pregnancy is not harmful or in need of "fixing" the same way that broken ribs during an assault would need fixing. Pregnancy is actually a sign of healthy fertility.

Most, if not all, pro-life people I know do not like the provisions of "except in cases of rape or incest" that is inserted in most ant-abortion legislation and would not consider having an abortion even in cases of rape. Many women have given birth to children conceived from rape.

IMO. those provisions are only inserted because pro-abortion people would never understand or consider such legislation w/o those provisions. In other words it is a concession thrown in to smooth over any debate that might arise from people that will argue "that's not fair if a woman is raped..."

Of course it is not fair, but it's not fair if someone get's their TV stolen either, but the government doesn't owe them a new TV.

Men and boys have been raped and were forced to pay child support...

Its amazing how their victimhood gives them a bill from the state?!? How can that be any more inhumane towards males and contrary to what we do for women and their victimhood.

Wow, Kris, that is among the most perverse things I have ever read you say in these comments...

Do you realize that most of the exceptions for rape have nothing to do with compensating women for rape? Without the exemptions, a more fitting analogy is if you get your TV stolen then the government won't let you buy you a new one. If you don't allow someone to correct the wrong inflicted upon them by a crime, it becomes a fundamental breach of liberty. It's no different to try to prevent an abortion in cases of rape than it is to force a man to pay child support when the tables are turned. And FYI they're not inserted into the legislation as a compromise... the entire piece of legislation is always compromise because the "pro-life" crowd will hold up the government from functioning until they pass some sort of law to cater to the religious right.

I want to point out the obvious here - the guy on the Ways and Means Committee opposing this bill is a Democrat! Who proposed the legislation? Pro-life Republicans! Please don't try to twist it around as if the pro-lifers are making a compromise to appease the liberal Democrats here... that is obviously the complete opposite of what is happening. It's not the Democrats who are inserting the exemption. It's crafty Republicans who know they will get pummeled in the next election if they do something so extreme.

Let me quote what the director of the National Right to Life Committee said about this, "does Kind really believe that lots of women will falsely accuse their intimate associates of a serious crime, in order to get a tax-subsidized abortion?" Does this sound like something you could agree with and still call yourself an MRA activist, Kris? So Republicans are fast-tracking anti-abortion bills into the legislature that would in fact increase the number of false rape accusations in order to ban as much abortions as possible... What can I say, Kris? Pick your poison, then.

As far as I'm concerned, the religious right couldn't care less about men's equality and they are showing their true colors here.

You say "a more fitting analogy is if you get your TV stolen then the government won't let you buy you a new one."

I don't agree. My comment does not interfere with a victim's right to liberty. If a woman believes abortion is self-liberating in cases of rape, neither myself nor the government is stopping her from getting one. I am discussing who pays for it - and I don't believe the taxpayer (which is me) owes her one.

That's one of my concerns about the "rape exception"--women will falsely accuse some bloke just to get the abortion. He ends up in a heap of trouble, she gets her abortion. Women have been known to file false accusations for other reasons, such as potential financial gain or because they didn't want to pay the price for their own indiscretions.

I know it's a bit late to add a comment, but I will anyway.

I suppose if a rape victim was to choose to bring the child to life (and many do) we would pay for the birth, But taxpayers pay to save lives all the time. Half the people that walk thru the ER do not have insurance. (for those of you outside the USA, we do not have socialist funded medical care)

But what compels me to not support taxpayer funded abortions for rape victims is that it does not clarify any limits, Why not take the "morning after pill" which is a cost of about $20, it also ensures that the pregnancy being aborted is most likely the rapist's and not from a consensual relationship. What I don't want is taxpayers paying for a near term abortions.

I also realize that men may not be aware about when a surgical abortion can be performed. It cannot be done as soon as pregnancy is detected. A pregnant woman has to wait until she is far enough along (mostly depends on the quality of the ultrasound equipment and the embryo has to be large enough for the procedure to be done safely) but usually 10 weeks into the pregnancy is the soonest a clinic will perform an abortion, (back in the 1980's it was about 13 weeks into the pregnancy that clinics had the technology to do them.)

And yes, I do believe there are women that will say "But I was raped" to receive a free abortion. So I am more inclined to only support taxpayer funded "morning after" pills which is already offered during rape exams. I don't see any reason to support any other taxpayer funded abortion.