Correction: The original version of this article contained an error. Rep. Jackie Speier of California’s 12th District had a miscarriage in the early 1990s.

An anti-abortion bill passed in the House of Representatives on Thursday has raised questions around the nation and at UCLA over women’s reproductive rights.

If passed into law, the bill, called the Protect Life Act, would prevent federal money from going to health insurance plans that cover abortions. Under the act, women would not be able to buy plans that cover abortion using money from President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The bill would also make it legal for hospitals that receive federal money, like Medicare and Medicaid, to choose whether or not they wish to perform an abortion procedure, including in life-threatening cases. Currently, hospitals that receive federal money are legally required to provide emergency care to patients who need it, or transfer the patient to a hospital that can.

House representatives who support the bill said in speeches to Congress that the bill is an effort to keep taxpayer dollars from going toward plans that pay for abortion procedures. It also lets hospitals have a choice as to whether or not they wish to perform an abortion based on their own stance on the issue.

A woman would have to look to privately funded practices for an abortion under the bill if a hospital chooses not to perform the procedure, said Sarah Haley, an assistant professor of women’s studies at UCLA.

“It will have a disproportionate impact on those who cannot afford private insurance,” Haley said.

Abortion costs at some clinics in Los Angeles vary from about $500 to more than $2,000, depending on the trimester and method of abortion.

First-year physiological sciences student Cierra Jordan said she thinks taxpayers should not have to pay for abortions.

“We don’t want to spend our money on somebody’s problems,” she said.

But she has a different opinion on women with life-threatening conditions.

“If she could die, (a woman) should be able to get an abortion,” Jordan said.

The bill was originally introduced in January and has sparked controversy among the bipartisan Congress. According to a statement released by the White House, the bill “intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom” and “unnecessarily restricts” health care options for women.

The White House strongly opposes the bill, according to the statement.

Chris Bruzela, a fourth-year economics student, said he thinks the issue is complicated, especially when it comes to cases of rape, incest or emergencies.

“They should be able to make a choice so that they will be safe in the end,” he said.

Rep. Jackie Speier of California’s 12th District said on the House floor the bill was a step backward for women’s rights. Speier had a miscarriage in the early 1990s and required a similar procedure to end her pregnancy.

But Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said to the House on Thursday that most Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions and the bill does not infringe on the rights of women.

The bill is now set to be debated in the Senate. If the bill reaches the White House, it will most likely be vetoed, according to the statement.