Results tagged “Hyde Amendment” from Blog for Choice
Today, 37 years ago, Congress passed the Hyde amendment. This measure has effectively taken the right to choose away from countless women who struggle financially. The Hyde amendment blocks federal funds from covering abortion services in almost all circumstances for women who get their health insurance through Medicaid.
A new report from The Guttmacher Institute shows the "dire consequences [of the Hyde amendment] for women and their families" when they've been denied assistance for abortion coverage.
The numbers are stark. One in four women on Medicaid who seek an abortion have been unable to get one. And right now, 33 states have similar bans in place - meaning that only 17 states provide low-income women access to abortion.
For a woman who already struggles financially, the Hyde amendment makes the road to accessing abortion care infinitely more challenging. The cost of the procedure increases over time, meaning that for low-income women it may double or triple because of how much longer it takes to save enough money to pay out of pocket. For 25 percent of these women without insurance coverage for abortion care, they end up with no choice.
And what becomes of the millions of women who are discriminated against under Hyde? According to an eye-opening "Turnaway" study, "when a woman is denied [an abortion], she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line."
The responsibility falls on our elected officials to look at the hard facts about what happens to women who are impacted by this horrible anti-choice policy. But until then, women and their families continue to pay the price.
Check out our graphic in solidarity with the millions of low-income women and families affected by Hyde and share it with your friends:
This bill will force anti-choice lawmakers to go on the record as to whether they believe that women who put their lives on the line for their country should face more obstacles than women stateside when it comes to making personal, private decisions.
We're just concerned that policy, however well-intentioned or virtuous, not ever mask a net tax increase.
- This bill is not about public funding. Federal law is clear: federal funding of abortion is forbidden, except in very narrow circumstances.
- The bill manipulates the tax code to advance an extreme anti-choice agenda. It would force millions of small businesses to pay taxes on their health-insurance benefits if their plan includes abortion. About 87 percent of insurance plans on the market currently offer abortion coverage.
- The bill resurrects the core provisions of the failed Stupak-Pitts abortion-coverage ban, and jeopardizes the ability of private citizens to use their own dollars to purchase abortion coverage in the new health system.
Less than two weeks ago, the House leadership launched a full-scale assault on women's access to birth control, cancer screenings, Pap smears, and other basic health care. Now, they are waging a war on women in the private insurance market. This bill jeopardizes the ability of insurance companies to cover abortion care, even for women with wanted pregnancies who experience unanticipated health-related complications, such as breast cancer. Abortion may be the best option to protect their health and ensure they can have children in the future, yet this bill tells insurance companies they can't cover this care.
|Anti-Choice Attacks||"Stupak on Steroids" bill (H.R.3)||Pitts bill (H.R.358)|
|Bans private coverage of abortion care in new health-care system||X||X|
|Expands refusal laws (hospitals and other health-care corporations can refuse to provide reproductive-health services)||X||X|
|Includes tax penalties for purchasing private-insurance plans that cover abortion care||X|
|Recodifies Hyde amendment (ban on public funding for abortion care) and other anti-abortion provisions||X|
|Allows hospitals to refuse to provide life-saving abortion care to women||X|
|Creates jobs and gets the economy back on track|
This hearing reinforces just how out of touch John Boehner and other anti-choice politicians are with our country's values and priorities. This hearing will also bring more attention to Boehner's refusal to answer questions about how this mean-spirited bill creates even more obstacles to medical care for rape and incest survivors.
If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.
Here's a quick news round-up on the passage of health reform.
Watch Donna Crane, NARAL Pro-Choice America's policy director, explain to the viewers of ABC News 7 (DC local station - WJLA) why the two-check system in the new health system is unworkable:
In the Washington Post, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, spoke about the challenges the Hyde amendment faces and the organization's forward-looking plans:
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, another organization favoring abortion rights, said Sunday that the Obama-Stupak deal was "a stark reminder of why we must repeal this unfair and insulting policy."
But the path forward would not be easy with Congress as it is presently constructed, she suggested. "Achieving this goal means increasing the number of lawmakers in Congress who share our pro-choice values. Otherwise, we will continue to see women's reproductive rights used as a bargaining chip," she said.
And finally, Keenan was also quoted in a Politico story that focused on choice, health care, and the 2010 midterm elections:
NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan told POLITICO that the lesson learned from the health care battle was that the abortion-rights movement, which has lacked the votes needed to shut down abortion funding language from anti-abortion Democrats throughout the health care reform push, needs more allies in Congress.
"From our point of view, we are concentrated on changing those numbers," said Keenan. "We absolutely will be taking a look at those anti-abortion lawmakers, and if we can, we will take a run at them."
BTW, we're now watching the Senate as debate starts on the reconciliation bill.
On Wednesday, December 9th, the New York Times published an op-ed by Congressman Bart Stupak in which he makes misleading claims about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the House Health Care Reform bill. Here, Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA), author of the Capps Amendment, provides a reality check to the claims in that op-ed.
Stupak Claim: Our amendment maintains current law, which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion.
Reality: The Stupak-Pitts Amendment goes well beyond current law by contracting access to abortion services and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde Amendment its proponents claim. It dramatically restricts consumers' ability to purchase comprehensive health plans that include coverage for abortion services in the health exchange. In contrast the Capps Amendment, which was included in the original version of the House bill, continued the prohibition of federal funding of abortion services, but did so without restricting insurance coverage of this legal medical procedure when it is paid for with private funds. Reputable third parties, like a recent study from George Washington University, have found that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment would restrict coverage of abortion services even when paid for entirely with private funds.
Read it in its entirety at RH Reality Check.