As it stands, this amendment states that “none of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion” except in the cases of danger to the mother’s health, as well as rape and incest. The proposed amendment seeks to insert the word “federal” before “funds” in the law.
Joy Yearout of the Susan B. Anthony List states the amendment “… creates a loophole to allow DC to use locally generated revenue from taxes to pay for abortions” instead of federal revenue.

Is suicide really a way to honor life and preserve dignity?

What are the social and cultural implications of normalizing the “right to die?

Will voluntary physician-assisted suicide give way to involuntary physician-assisted suicide where doctors decide whether their patients would be better off dead?

Will the “right” to suicide be transmogrified into a “duty” to commit suicide?

Will the elderly who consume more than they produce be deemed “resource hogs” that have a duty to die and get out of the way?

In an age of scarce economic resources, will the critically ill or the handicapped or the demented be viewed as expendable by their younger, healthier counterparts?

The article also rebuffs the claim that physician-assisted suicide is “dying with dignity,” pointing out that it presents a false choice to the terminally ill – either they can die with dignity at the hands of their physician, or they can go on suffering needlessly and ignominiously.
But targeting the terminally ill is only the beginning for the right-to-die movement. If quality of life becomes the measure of a person’s worth, the elderly, handicapped, and infirm are next in line for “dignified death.”
[Photo attribution: amitbhawani.com]