Democrats seek reversal of ban on federal abortion funding

Published August 17, 2016 - 12:05am

NEW YORK (AP) — The law that bans federal funding for Medicaid coverage of most abortions is now in the spotlight some 40 years after it was passed by Congress, emerging as an election issue in the national debate over the procedure.

First approved in 1976, and renewed annually ever since as part of the congressional appropriations process, the Hyde Amendment makes exceptions in cases of rape or incest, or when a pregnancy endangers a women’s life.

For most of its existence, the amendment had broad bipartisan support in Congress, but that’s now changed. At their recent national convention, Democrats for the first time included in their platform a call for the Hyde Amendment to be repealed. Their presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, is embracing that stance, even as it risks creating friction within the party.
---
...

In the House, Democrats have introduced a bill that would nullify the Hyde Amendment and require the federal government to ensure abortion coverage in public health insurance programs, including Medicaid. No one from the chamber’s Republican majority is among the measure’s 119 co-sponsors.

Despite the political obstacles, advocates of repeal are upbeat as they succeed in drawing more attention to the amendment.

“I don’t think we’re as far away as people might think,” said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., a leading abortion-rights supporter. “We got tired of tacitly accepting that a ban on Medicaid money was acceptable.”

Click to expand...

Read more:


Democrats seek reversal of ban on federal abortion funding | West Hawaii Today

For years the Hyde amendment has made it very difficult for low-income women to obtain a legal abortion that is much more accessible for woman with good incomes.

From: Fund Abortion Now . Org

The Hyde Amendment has a disproportionate impact on women of color, both because women of color are more likely to live in poverty and to rely on Medicaid for health care, and because women of color are also more likely to seek abortion care.

And immigrants, both citizens and non-citizens, are far more likely to live in poverty than those born in the United States. Most immigrant women, even those who have citizenship, are excluded from federal Medicaid altogether.

Because of the Hyde Amendment, low-income people sell their belongings, go hungry for weeks as they save up their grocery money, or risk eviction by using their rent money to pay for an abortion.

Some of them never manage to get the money they need to pay for their abortion – which means that they are forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...balance this out....

federally funded abortion: one time cost
federally funded welfare, education, health care, ... : 18+ years worth of continuous costs

Economically speaking it's relatively simple.

So because some people are poor the democrats want to force other people that are opposed to abortion to pay for these poor peoples abortions.

Nice.

The douchebag crew strikes again.

How about republicans put on the table a repeal to the Hyde amendment instead. I don't want to pay for ANY abortions.

I support personal freedom, liberty, privacy, and the right to make your own medical choices. That includes the woman's right to choose. I do not support the government paying for a personal choice.

You can't have it both ways. Either the government has the power to get involved in a woman's personal health care choices which could include the power to restrict abortions if the government chooses to do so as well as the power to take tax funds and assist women in paying for abortions, or they don't have the power at all.

If you don't want the federal government getting involved in your private lives (remember that the GOP is control of both houses of Congress right now), then don't have the federal government pay for your private choices.

The federal government uses their money to control everything they help pay for. Don't believe me? Then ask any state or local official if they can run a federally funded program the way they want or if they have to do what the feds tell them.

This is a bad idea. The Hyde Amendment is a restriction on government power, and that's a good thing.

Dragonfly said:

Hmmm...balance this out....

federally funded abortion: one time cost
federally funded welfare, education, health care, ... : 18+ years worth of continuous costs

Economically speaking it's relatively simple.

Click to expand...

You're right. With your logic, so is killing people on welfare. So is killing old people, which I believe will come in my lifetime and I'm old. That's why the liberals are calling it euthanasia. That sounds so much better than murder.

The honest thing to do would be to discuss the issue of abortion fully and propose a Constitutional amendment. I suspect the amendment would support early abortion, prohibit late abortion, and have a public board of doctors to certify medically necessary abortions. I was visiting with a midwife from the Netherlands and she said their system gave the woman total right to an abortion early. Later it was prohibited without a medical reason and a panel of doctors, and not simply a hired hack, had to approve the abortion.

We all know why the Supreme Court miraculously found the hidden "Right to an Abortion" instead of suggesting and amendment.

Beaudreaux:
"I support personal freedom, liberty, privacy, and the right to make your own medical choices. That includes the woman's right to choose. I do not support the government paying for a personal choice."

I would agree, up to the point the child can live outside the mother. If she screwed around and got pregnant and then screwed around for five months perhaps she accepted some responsibility for the child's welfare.

Now, if the choice is to have the baby when the mother cannot possibly support the child we have to pay for that choice, too. I prefer paying for life than for death.

I recently visited with a friend's daughter who is a 16-year old fetus and probably as happy as most 16-year olds. She was born in the process of an abortion. Tiny but did not need extraordinary care in the hospital, was never in an incubator, and she's doing fine.

Btw, shouldn't the people have more say in abortion if they start paying for them on a larger scale?

Patrickt said:

You're right. With your logic, so is killing people on welfare.

The honest thing to do would be to discuss the issue of abortion fully and propose a Constitutional amendment. We all know why that's never been done.

Click to expand...

Basically his logic is something like it's better that you're dead so that I save some money. :lol: Many pro-choice democrats never realize how dark their position is.

Henrin said:

Btw, shouldn't the people have more say in abortion if they start paying for them on a larger scale?

Click to expand...

You basically said in one sentence what I tried to say in numerous sentences in post #5. Some folks just never seem to understand the long term adverse consequences to things they think would be a good idea.

Dragonfly said:

Hmmm...balance this out....

federally funded abortion: one time cost
federally funded welfare, education, health care, ... : 18+ years worth of continuous costs

Economically speaking it's relatively simple.

Click to expand...

End all federal funding for all of those things... Save even more money, problem solved.

But if they try to start taking our money by force to kill innocents then they will have insurrection and they will deserve it.

JayDubya said:

End all federal funding for all of those things... Save even more money, problem solved.

But if they try to start taking our money by force to kill innocents then they will have insurrection and they will deserve it.

Click to expand...

Hell, I'd support funding abortions by the feds just so people who talk about delusional insurrection fantasties would be forced to walk it like they talk it, and we both know that isn't going to happen.

Dragonfly said:

Hmmm...balance this out....

federally funded abortion: one time cost
federally funded welfare, education, health care, ... : 18+ years worth of continuous costs

Economically speaking it's relatively simple.

Click to expand...

That logic has been used by numerous governments to rid their country of "undesirables" for millennia. I would give you a list, but I don't want to Godwin this thread with one of the examples. I don't think abortion is genocide, although some do. I do, however, feel that the reasoning used in your post to justify abortion has to be the worst justification possible and is the most dark and evil thing I've seen posted here in a while. I don't think you meant it that way and I fell you were sincere, which actually makes it worse.

Henrin said:

So because some people are poor the democrats want to force other people that are opposed to abortion to pay for these poor peoples abortions.

Click to expand...

Can we naturally extend your objection to an argument for unreservedly banning federal funding of anything at least one taxpayer opposes or is there some kind of special context for abortion alone?

Henrin said:

You can't have it both ways. Either the government has the power to get involved in a woman's personal health care choices which could include the power to restrict abortions if the government chooses to do so as well as the power to take tax funds and assist women in paying for abortions, or they don't have the power at all.

Click to expand...

The objection is to the unconditional ban on any federal funding of anything relating to abortion. Repeal of that would just mean that funding for abortion would be permitted in the same way as funding for anything else, with similar practical conditions and restrictions. That’d be entirely separate to any government rules and laws regarding when, where and how abortion is permitted in general.

Henrin said:

This is a bad idea. The Hyde Amendment is a restriction on government power, and that's a good thing.

Click to expand...

Then why single out abortion. If government is so bad, why not restrict everything? Or are you being disingenuous and just using this a false cover for a moral objection to abortion?

Abortion is an elective medical procedure. Many of the same, and perhaps better, arguments could be made for other elective medical procedures (plastic surgery, braces, dental implants and lasik) being publicly funded.

Good.

If the extremist right wants to continue trying to destroy access to abortion, the pushback should be expanded access and funding.

JayDubya said:

End all federal funding for all of those things... Save even more money, problem solved.

Click to expand...

:mrgreen:

I like the way you think.

Tanngrisnir said:

Hell, I'd support funding abortions by the feds just so people who talk about delusional insurrection fantasties would be forced to walk it like they talk it, and we both know that isn't going to happen.

Click to expand...

Over abortion funding via taxes? You may be wrong on that one. Of all the topics that has the real potential to move a large number of people to act irrationally, abortion is the one. I sure wouldn't take the chance and use abortion to call their bluff.

HonestJoe said:

Can we naturally extend your objection to an argument for unreservedly banning federal funding of anything at least one taxpayer opposes or is there some kind of special context for abortion alone?

The objection is to the unconditional ban on any federal funding of anything relating to abortion. Repeal of that would just mean that funding for abortion would be permitted in the same way as funding for anything else, with similar practical conditions and restrictions. That’d be entirely separate to any government rules and laws regarding when, where and how abortion is permitted in general.

Then why single out abortion. If government is so bad, why not restrict everything? Or are you being disingenuous and just using this a false cover for a moral objection to abortion?

Click to expand...

Why am I being credited for saying any of that?

ttwtt78640 said:

Abortion is an elective medical procedure. Many of the same, and perhaps better, arguments could be made for other elective medical procedures (plastic surgery, braces, dental implants and lasik) being publicly funded.

Click to expand...

I believe taxpayers already pay for braces.

ttwtt78640 said:

Abortion is an elective medical procedure. Many of the same, and perhaps better, arguments could be made for other elective medical procedures (plastic surgery, braces, dental implants and lasik) being publicly funded.

Click to expand...

Liposuction, post lumpectomy or mastectomy breast reconstruction surgery, hair implants, and reading glasses. All of which should be paid for by the government. /sarcasm

Well done, more good examples of those unintended consequences I mentioned earlier.

Doing away with the Hyde Amendment is a bad idea.

HonestJoe said:

Can we naturally extend your objection to an argument for unreservedly banning federal funding of anything at least one taxpayer opposes or is there some kind of special context for abortion alone?

Click to expand...

It's something like sixty-eight percent of the population that is opposed government funded abortion and forty-nine percent of the population that is pro-life.

Henrin said:

So because some people are poor the democrats want to force other people that are opposed to abortion to pay for these poor peoples abortions.

Nice.

The douchebag crew strikes again.

Click to expand...

You're forcing me to pay for all kinds of ****, so deal with it.

Deuce said:

You're forcing me to pay for all kinds of ****, so deal with it.

Click to expand...

Really? Hmmm...I wonder what I'm forcing you to pay for.

Henrin said:

I believe taxpayers already pay for braces.

Click to expand...

Mostly if they are "medically necessary" and for those under 21. This CHIPS dental benefit is based on parental income and the state's definiton of what (and who) is covered.

Dentist Tells His Story - "Medicaid for Braces is Over" - Texas Dentists for Medicaid Reform

https://chipmedicaid.org/en/Get-Help/Questions-About-CHIP-Coverage

Henrin said:

:mrgreen:

I like the way you think.

Click to expand...

Anarchists of a feather flock together.