FoxNews.com reports that
Congress has blocked federal dollars from paying for abortion coverage for decades now. But that could change if pro-choice Democrats have their way.
It’s not a surprise that money dictates policy in Washington. Want to understand how a given lawmaker or presidential administration feels about a particular issue? Look to how much money – or little – they devote to a project.
If they spend any money from the federal coffers on a particular program at all.
That’s why the Hyde Amendment has been a part of every government spending bill since 1976, just after the Supreme Court ruling which legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade.
It’s named after late Rep. Henry Hyde. R-Ill. Hyde is known for two things. He chaired the House Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2001 and was the lead House impeachment manager for President Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial. He also crafted the Hyde Amendment, barring the government from spending money on abortions.
Few were more ardent pro-lifers in Congress than Henry Hyde.
“It violates your right to be born,” said an impassioned Hyde on the House floor during the summer of 1995 about abortion. “Your right to life, which our Declaration (of Independence) says, is a fundamental endowment..it is inalienable, the right to life.”
But the Hyde Amendment also represented a form of Congressional détente. Pro-choice and pro-life lawmakers reached a “deal” in the 1970s. It prohibited the funneling of federal dollars to Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program for abortion services.
Like most compromises, it was negotiated, as Henry Clay might say, “to hurt.” The Hyde Amendment made sure both sides took it on the chin – although both pro-choice and pro-life advocates alike might argue their side absorbed more of an impact than the other. Pro-lifers want to eliminate abortions completely. The Hyde Amendment certainly didn’t do that. A proposal to ban abortion would probably never make it out of the House – even with a Republican majority. That’s to say nothing of overcoming a filibuster in the Senate. Meantime, pro-choice lawmakers thought the Hyde Amendment was unfair for women who rely on health care assistance from the government. The Hyde Amendment impeded that.
“We believe that who you are, where you live, your zip code, your income, should not determine whether you have coverage for the basic part of reproductive health care,” said Rachel Fey of The Power to Decide, a group which works to prevent unplanned pregnancies.
However, Democrats have now stricken the Hyde Amendment from the House version of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. The full House approved a multi-spending bill package late last week to fund the government for fiscal year 2022. That plan included the labor/HHS appropriations bill, sans the Hyde Amendment.
“I am proud that this bill promotes equal treatment for women through increased funding for Title X and by repealing the discriminatory Hyde Amendment,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. “But I do believe repealing the Hyde Amendment is the best thing we can do to support our mothers and families and help prevent, rather than penalize unwanted pregnancies and later, riskier and more costly abortions.”
Fey called this a “game changer.”
But, upending 45 years of federal policy enraged pro-life Republicans.
“There are non-starters. There are game enders,” said Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., about DeLauro’s maneuver.
“This is a real red line for the Republican Conference,” observed Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the top GOPer on the House Appropriations Committee.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tipped her hand on the Hyde Amendment at a December, 2020 press conference.
“Way before I was in Congress the Hyde Amendment was there. I was thinking, ‘How can we get rid of that?’ So it’s long overdue, getting rid of it, in my view,” said Pelosi.
She forecast that the Democratic House would craft a bill to torpedo the Hyde Amendment in the coming year.
But the annual appropriations process in Congress is a complicated path. It was historically significant that the Appropriations Committee and full House halted the Hyde Amendment. But then there is the Senate. And, annual spending bills have to clear two rounds of filibusters with 60-vote thresholds each. So despite the House action, few believe that ending the Hyde Amendment will ever survive the Senate.
If you are surprised that Pelosi and Company are attempting to end the Hyde Amendment, then you have not been paying attention to “The Party of Death”.
Prior to 1973, abortions were allowed in some states but restricted or almost banned in others. Every state legislature made their own decision on whether to allow abortions and under what circumstances. There was no Federal Law in regards to abortion. Then, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade. It declared a Texas anti-abortion statute unconstitutional and, in doing so, affected abortion laws in many other states.
For any low information voters who might be reading, I present the following summary:
Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated any state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions.
“We … acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” — Justice Blackmun (1973), majority opinion in Roe v. Wade
When you talk to Far Left Democrats about this stopping of a beating heart, they will claim that, a human fetus is “just a clump of cells”.
From the scientific perspective, Dr. Carlo Bellieni, in his book “Dawn of the I: Pain, Memory, Desire, Dream of the Fetus,” says:
As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother’s voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?
There are also direct proofs. For example, we register how the movements and cardiac frequency of the fetus vary if we transmit unexpected sounds through the uterine wall. And we see that at first the fetus is startled, then it gets used to it, just like we do when we hear something that does not interest us.
In fact, the scientific evidence is immense. We cannot understand how it can be thought that it becomes a person at a certain point, perhaps when coming out of the uterus.
From the physical point of view, at the birth very little really changes: Air enters the lungs, the arrival of blood from the placenta is interrupted, the type of circulation of blood in the heart changes, and not much more.
As I often say, only blind faith in magic arts or some strange divinity can lead one to think that there is a “human” quality leap at a given moment — certainly not science.
Several years ago, then-President Obama, who was brushing away tears on Tuesday Morning on behalf of limiting the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens, said the following,
Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.
My question for Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Elite, is:
When do children stop being a “punishment” and start being precious lives to shed tears over?
Is it simply a matter of “Political Expediency”?
Until He Comes,
DONATIONS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly