Should Planned Parenthood be able to force Kansas into allowing taxpayer-funded abortions. by Rachel Lynn Robinson
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Is it fair to say that low-income families are not getting the service they need when it comes to Abortions because of the Hyde Amendment? If you are making the argument that low-income families need to have abortions because they cannot afford to keep a child, about the only justification for abortion that the Hyde Amendment actually prevents, then one could easily argue that these same families qualify for welfare and in most states Medicaid covers various if not all forms of birth control. That is where the Hyde Amendment steps in and states that taxpayers should not have to fund abortions.
The Hyde Amendment like all things in government has its exceptions, and therefore taxpayers cover some Abortions. According to the ACLU Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.Most states have followed the federal government's lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).2 Thirty-two of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law.3 (A handful of these states pay as well in cases of fetal impairment or when the pregnancy threatens "severe" health problems, but none provides reimbursement for all medically necessary abortions for low-income women.) Finally, one state (SD) fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only for lifesaving abortions. (P. F. A.)
Still there is more to the story than that. In the case of an ectopic Pregnancy where the mothers’ is threatened, they do not perform an abortion at an abortion clinic but rather a medical procedure called a D&C or Dilation and Curettage. So technically, when the mother’s life is in danger the taxpayers are not paying to an abortion they are paying for something completely different. When Planned Parenthood or the ACLU makes the argument that it is necessary to perform abortions to save a Mothers life they aren't being completely honest. According to the American Pregnancy Association approximately 50% of women who have a miscarriage have to undergo a D&C, while some women undergo them while the fetus is still viable yet continuing the pregnancy will mean placing the Mom’s life in danger. (A. P. A.)
Planned Parenthood, the number one provider in the United States for Abortions; has sued Kansas in hopes that the state will now provide taxpayer-funded abortions. (Washington Times) When Kansas responded by hiring attorneys for the lawsuit it became a public image argument. Planned Parenthood on the left spouting that if Republican’s are so concerned with Debt then why are they hiring an attorney to protect them in a Lawsuit. If the Kansas Republicans want to save face, they will fire this attorney and go with the Kansas Attorney General. If however their aim is to save lives, to prevent even one unnecessary death from taking place in Kansas then the amount of money spent on the attorney should be irrelevant. (Kansas Hires Koch Brothers' Attorneys)
It is not about whether Planned Parenthood can be open in the state of Kansas, but whether they can provide taxpayer funded abortions. The purpose behind the Hyde Amendment you might recall is to protect us the taxpayers from funding abortions. According to one article, Kansas is not the only state that has taken up the battle with Planned Parenthood. Among others, Indiana has also passed a law in attempts to prevent Planned Parenthood from providing taxpayer-funded abortions. So far, in Indiana, the case went all the way to the State Supreme Court. (T. FUNDING OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD) Unfortunately, for the citizens of that state they lost. Planned Parenthood can continue to provide taxpayer funded abortions while Planned Parenthood continues to promote the lie that the Hyde Amendment prevents these things. One has to wonder just how uninformed the taxpayers really are if the ACLU can post on their website it is just a matter of time before the Hyde Amendment is deemed unconstitutional and then Planned Parenthood will no longer have to hide the fact that they perform abortions at tax payer expense. If other states join in with Kansas and Indiana perhaps, the delay, while the state goes to court, will save even one life making the cost of attorneys justifiable. (Hiding Behind Hyde)
American Pregnancy Association. July 2006. 22 July 2011.
Hiding Behind Hyde. n.d. 23 July 2011.
Kansas Hires Koch Brothers' Attorneys To Defend Against Planned Parenthood. 12 July 2011. 22 July 2011.
National Abortion Federation: Public Funding for Abortion: Medicaid and the Hyde Amendment. n.d. 23 July 2011.
Public Funding for Abortion. 21 July 2004. 22 July 2011.
TAXPAYER FUNDING OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD RESTARTS IN INDIANA FOLLOWING FEDERAL JUDGE’S RULING. 25 June 2011. 22 July 2011.
Washington Times YOEST & FRANZONELLO: Nation’s largest abortion provider: Planned Parenthood. 18 April 2011. 23 July 2011.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1
thumb so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Rachel Lynn Robinson only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Rachel Lynn Robinson is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.