Talk:No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Untitled
"The Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook used in compiling statistics, explicitly defines "forcible rape" as "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." It goes on to state "'Against her will' includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of her youth)."[10]" So the clarification of "against her will" is irrelevant to the topic of the page, unless the rape was forcible?Ninahexan (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The complaint being leveled is that the definition of "forcible rape" is redefining rape to exclude cases where the woman was drunk/drugged/coerced/etc; MoveOn.org posits that based upon the "new definition", that the woman would have to show bruises/broken bones for it to be considered forcible rape. Thus, the clarification is very much relavent because the definition of "forcible rape" explicitly includes what the critics are claim it will exclude.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I know, the explanation about "against her will" merely explains what rape is, though as far as I can tell forcible carnal knowledge of a female would be rape anyway.Ninahexan (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC) What I mean is that the way it is stated here suggests that the against her will thing somehow qualifies as forcible rape, where the definition said that it needs to be forcible AND against her will. This means that if the rape was not forcible, yet still against her will, it would not technically be forcible rape. The "and" in the definition should be highlighted somehow.Ninahexan (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually the most cognizant argument I've seen that the wording might have any impact on the definition, because the handbook uses the "and"; whereas the other sources don't. But that actually makes my feelings stronger that the piece of mental state should stay---the criticism has been that if a person is drugged/incapacitated/unconscious/etc that it would no longer be rape, but handbook explicitly says otherwise.  Remember handbooks are not policies/rules, but rather guidance on how to interpret the policy/rules.  If anything, the sentence using the "and" from the handbook would appear to be contrary to the stated definitions elsewhere by the DoJ.  But I think it should stay, as well as the guidance on how to interpret "against her will."  (Whether it is or isn't, is not something I want to debate here---I'm just concerned with reporting what the sources says.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not signed in, though I commented earlier. What I was concerned about is that the last part of the page might lead people to think that the definition of forcible rape was forcible carnal knowledge OR sex against will, while it is important to know that in the context of the proposed bill both would need to be present. It is disconcerting that this area of law needs debate. A minor might not need to be physically forced to engage in sex due to their undeveloped mind, whereas an adult faced with a similar predator might require physical coercion. I don't think anything should be removed from the page, I think it should be made explicit what protections are being removed by the proposed amendment.203.158.44.83 (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Apart from the semantics related to what constitutes forcible rape (because rape itself is not enough) is that the title of this page is a misnomer, since it would not eliminate taxpayers finding abortions. The title that I have seen in most other spheres is HR3, which is how it is referred to when linked to this page. I am waiting for an act titled- No taxpayer funding of the death penalty.203.158.44.83 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the bill would actually do away with taxpay abortions is irrelevant, the title of the proposed bill is "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"; which is how bills are referred to. HR3 is insufficeint, because HR3 is not a title, but rather an indexing system that gets reused every congress.  In other words, there are over 200 different bills labeld "HR3." ---

External links modified
The last part of this article reads like a promotion for Florida's Debbie Wasserman. Did she write the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.143.44 (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110109042540/http://www.nrlc.org//AHC/HydeAmendmentText.html to http://www.nrlc.org/ahc/HydeAmendmentText.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs update?
The article gives the impression this bill only existed in 2011, but in Googling the name "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" I'm seeing that it was also brought up in subsequent years, most recently 2015. Can someone who is knowledgeable add updated info to the article?ElsaObuchowski (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)