Does the Hyde Amendment, prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions, unduly restrict access to abortion for low-income women?
General Reference (not clearly pro or con)
SpeakOut.com, a non-partisan internet activism web site, posted an article on Apr. 24, 2000, written by Jenny Murphy titled "Should Medicaid Cover Abortions?" that stated:
"[In 1976 ] Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) sponsored an amendment to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services [and Education] Appropriations bill which prohibited use of federal funds to pay for abortions. After the Hyde Amendment was signed into law, Medicaid benefits for low-income women no longer covered abortion. In addition, health plans for federal employees, military personnel, and women in federal prisons ceased paying for abortion procedures. In 1981, the Hyde Amendment was revised to allow Medicaid to cover abortions that were deemed necessary to save the life of the mother, and in 1993 the law was further relaxed to allow federally- funded abortions in cases of rape and incest."
Does the Hyde Amendment, prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions, unduly restrict access to abortion for low-income women?
PRO (yes)
CON (no)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in its July 21, 2004 paper titled "Promoting Reproductive Freedom for Low-Income Women" that:
"The Hyde Amendment and other bans should be repealed because they are discriminatory and harm women's health. If a woman chooses to carry to term, Medicaid (and other federal insurance programs) offer her assistance for the necessary medical care. But if the same woman needs to end her pregnancy, Medicaid (and other federal insurance programs) will not provide coverage for her abortion, even if continuing the pregnancy will harm her health. The government should not discriminate in this way. It should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.
With these bans, the federal government turns its back on women who need abortions for their health. Women with cancer, diabetes, or heart conditions, or whose pregnancies otherwise threaten their health, are denied coverage for abortions. Only if a woman would otherwise die, or if her pregnancy results from rape or incest, is an abortion covered. The bans thus put many women's health in jeopardy."
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), a sexual and reproductive rights organization, reported in its Apr. 2000 "The Guttmacher Report" that:
"Six million women of reproductive age obtain health care through the Medicaid system.... The results [of studies] show, with little exception, that restrictions on funding have considerable impact on women's reproductive decisions. In the absence of funding, a significant percentage of pregnancies that would have otherwise been aborted are instead carried to term.....
Studies also have found that women who are able to raise the money needed for an abortion do so at a great sacrifice to themselves and their families....
Medicaid-eligible women wait on average 2-3 weeks longer than other women to have an abortion because of difficulties they have in obtaining the necessary funds.... Such delays also can have health implications, because the risk of complications following an induced abortion increases as the procedure is done later in gestation."
The Michigan Daily, a student newspaper at the University of Michigan, reported in its Nov. 4, 1997 article titled "Desperate Measures: Medicaid Could Reduce Dangerous Abortions":
"As the Hyde Amendment stands, millions of women are denied safe and legal abortions simply because of their low-income status. Oftentimes these women cannot raise the necessary funds for an abortion until later in the pregnancy, at which time the cost is significantly higher. Also, after eight weeks of pregnancy, the risks involved with the abortion procedure greatly increase....
According to the National Abortion Rights Action League, approximately 50 percent of women who obtain abortions after 16 weeks of pregnancy are delayed by the difficulties of financing the procedure. This financial burden often proves an insurmountable obstacle for low-income women. Because of an inability to exercise the fundamental right to choose, these women often turn to back-alley or self-inflicted abortions; these unsafe alternatives greatly endanger their health."
In Harris v. McRae (448 US 297), decided June 30, 1980, the US Supreme Court stated in a 5-4 opinion that:
"The funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment do not impinge on the 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment held in Roe v. Wade, ... to include the freedom of a woman to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy....
The Hyde Amendment places no governmental obstacle in the path of a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy, but rather, by means of unequal subsidization of abortion and other medical services, encourages alternative activity deemed in the public interest.
Although Congress has opted to subsidize medically necessary services generally, but not certain medically necessary abortions, the fact remains that the Hyde Amendment leaves an indigent woman with at least the same range of choice in deciding whether to obtain a medically necessary abortion as she would have had if Congress had chosen to subsidize no health care costs at all."
The United States Conference of Cahtolic Bishops (USCCB) in its Fact Sheet titled "ACLU's Misrepresentations about the Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment," posted on its website (accessed Feb. 25, 2005), stated:
"[The Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment] requires states to reimburse providers for abortions in [the] cases [of rape, incest, or where the pregnancy endangers a woman's life].... [T]he Medicaid managed care law ... instructs states to notify enrollees of any services to which they are entitled that a specific provider does not offer, and to notify the enrollees of how they might obtain such services elsewhere....
This law... explicitly protects providers from having to cover a counseling or referral service to which they have a moral or religious objection so long as they notify enrollees of their policy.... If respect for conscience rights is an 'impediment' to easy access to abortion, that impediment is already enshrined in federal law. "
Concerned Women for America (CWA), a christian womens organization, wrote in their Nov. 24, 2004 press release titled "Omnibus Spending Gets ‘A’ Grades," that:
"In a vote on the Weldon-Hyde Conscience Protection amendment... the Congress approved legislation that will keep agencies at all levels from discrimination against pro-life health care providers. Health care providers will not have to perform abortions in order to receive government funding. Such a provision is important because 86 percent of U.S. hospitals will not perform abortions.
Response from the Left... was immediate and predictable; they call the provision a 'gag rule.'... The complaints, of course, come from people who advocate 'choice' and preach 'diversity.' Congress has given health care providers a choice: If they don’t want to provide abortions, they don’t have to, and their funding will not be affected. That is Democracy and that is freedom of choice."
