Does the Hyde Amendment, Prohibiting the Use of Federal Funds for Abortions and Allowing Health Care Professionals to Refuse to Perform Abortions, Conflict with Women’s Reproductive Rights?

“The Hyde Amendment and other bans should be repealed because they are discriminatory and harm women’s health.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…

Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs – in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.”

“One of the first concerns immediately following the Hyde Amendment’s initial implementation was whether large numbers of poor women would resort to illegal or self-induced abortions as a result of the public policy change. Indeed, a 1979 study by the Center for Disease Control… linked four deaths to the unavailability of Medicaid funding.

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.”

“Kawana Ashley, a 19-year-old Florida resident, shot herself in the stomach after failing to raise enough money for an abortion. Doctors delivered her child by an emergency Cesarean section, but it died of organ failure two weeks later. Ashley was charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter… [T]he Florida Supreme Court struck down both charges, ruling that a woman cannot be prosecuted for harming her fetus. While Ashley no longer fears a life behind bars, her case is a grim reminder of abortion’s exclusion from the federal Medicaid program…

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…

Some proponents of the Hyde Amendment argue that public funds should not be used for a procedure that many find ‘immoral.’ But to base government’s funding upon taxpayers’ personal objections or moral conflicts is fundamentally skewed. The government must look at each issue from a more objective stance.”