Democrats promise Biden-era abortion showdown over Hyde Amendment
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats promise Biden-era abortion showdown over Hyde Amendment
WASHINGTON — House Democrats have spent two years passing government funding legislation without picking a fight over abortion, but with President Donald Trump leaving office, party leaders say 2021 will be different.
© Provided by NBC News
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who is set to chair the powerful House Appropriations Committee, said next year the House will eliminate the so-called Hyde Amendment, a decades-old policy that prohibits federal programs like Medicaid from paying for abortions.
"This is the last year," DeLauro said at a Dec. 8 hearing about the adverse effects of the Hyde Amendment. "The time has come in this current moment to reckon with the norm, with the status quo."
"The Hyde Amendment is a discriminatory policy," she said, arguing that it puts politicians between a woman and her doctor and is particularly harmful to rural and low-income women.
But that is guaranteed to face Republican opposition, Senate Appropriations Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said.
"The Republican caucus would resist it," Shelby told NBC News. "We've had the Hyde Amendment a long time. And I think it's pretty clearly embedded in the fabric of our legislation. I support the Hyde Amendment."
The conflicting positions preview a clash over the polarizing issue of abortion next year when the government will have to be funded again.
The Hyde Amendment is named after its original sponsor, former Republican congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. It is not a permanent statute and doesn't require repeal. It exists by being added every year since 1976 to essential legislation passed by Congress to fund the federal government.
President-elect Joe Biden endorsed the calls to scrap the policy during the Democratic primary, abandoning his past support for the measure when he was a senator.
"If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's ZIP code," then-candidate Biden said in June 2019.
But most Republican lawmakers oppose abortion rights and favor the Hyde restrictions. Even if they lose control of the Senate in the Georgia runoffs Jan. 5, they'll retain filibuster power and be able to force a 60-vote threshold to pass a bill in the chamber.
If Biden uses his veto power to demand removal of the Hyde Amendment, it could enhance the Democrats' leverage. But the president-elect's recent focus has been on other matters and it's not clear how much political capital he will spend on that goal.
Conservatives who support Hyde limitations argue that taxpayers who consider abortion to be immoral shouldn't be asked to fund it. Progressives say abortion rights are linked to economic security for women, and contend that it's a double standard to exclude abortion when tax dollars are frequently used to fund programs that some taxpayers object to.
Shelby said that progressives have "tried to remove it over the years and haven't been successful," signaling that the outcome would be the same if they tried in 2021.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., endorsed DeLauro's push to do away with the Hyde Amendment next year.
"I myself have been an opponent of the Hyde Amendment long before I came to Congress, so I would be receptive to that happening," she told reporters Dec. 10, calling the policy unfair to women. "It's long overdue, getting rid of it, in my view."
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
260 visitors
It took about 11 paragraphs for there being mention of what the Hyde Amendment actually does :
"Conservatives who support Hyde limitations argue that taxpayers who consider abortion to be immoral shouldn't be asked to fund it."
That's what it's about. Those who find abortion immoral shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
Will Biden sign on to dropping it? It's a lose-lose proposition for him. His limited cognitive state may even comprehend that much.
Why are those apposed to abortion the only ones that get to pick and choose what to fund with their tax dollars Vic?
Nobody should pick what to fund with tax dollars especially when there is so much division. In that case I prefer we don't fund such things, but we do have elected officials who are supposed to represent all of us and debate the merits of issues. It's too bad that things have become so ideological.
no doubt. I'm sick of my tax dollars being used to subsidize the shortfall of business taxes not collected from right wing money laundries that operate as tax exempt religious organizations and bogus charities.
[deleted]
Then you should oppose the Hyde Amendment.
The Hyde Amendment let's them avoid debating it's inclusion on the merits.
Well gee Vic, since the Hyde Amendment has been around since the 70's, it sure as hell looks like it became ideological long ago.
Imagine thinking that's true.
I thought the Hyde Amendment was denying funding. No?
The Hyde Amendment let's them avoid debating it's inclusion on the merits.
It seems they did debate it's merits - in 1976 and the original Hyde Amendment was passed by the House with a 312–93 vote. That seems fairly non-ideological.
it sure as hell looks like it became ideological long ago.
The 70's weren't ideological. There were progressives, but they had yet to take over our institutions. They were still high back then.
That's a question Sean. Got an answer?
Yes and since you don't think anyone should pick what to fund with tax dollars you should oppose it.
Seems ridiculous to compare the votes on the 1976 House with what could happen in 2021 Vic. We were talking about debates in TODAYS Congress, weren't we?
The topic is the Hyde Amendment and THAT is unequivocally ideological.
That's funny since I see a lot of whining going on around here about progressive influence of the media, education and the military.
Please stop being obtuse.
Why should I grant your request when you failed to grant mine?
[deleted]
Why should I opposed something that does not fund abortion?
Seems ridiculous to compare the votes on the 1976 House with what could happen in 2021 Vic.
Why? Wasn't it debated on the merits in 1976? Have the merits changed?
The topic is the Hyde Amendment and THAT is unequivocally ideological.
An amendment that keeps taxpayers out of abortions is ideological?
That's funny since I see a lot of whining going on around here about progressive influence of the media, education and the military.
Ya, they've come a long way. We didn't even notice!
I have already told you TWICE.
I haven't read the debate so I have no idea.
Undoubtedly.
Undoubtedly.
If it was too insignificant to notice, why all of the whining?
Ditto.
You picked the little fucking thing to argue about Tex, not I.
No worries.
I find separating small children from their mothers immoral and yet, I am forced to pay for it. I find wars immoral and am forced to pay for them. I find mass incarceration of people with mental and substance use issues immoral and, once again, I am forced to pay for it. c'est la vie.
Write to your representative.
That's exactly what I used to tell my kids when they didn't want to wear their bike helmets..
Fortunately, I didn't have that problem, mine wanted to wear them.
It shows how extremist the Democrats have become on this issue. Using taxpayer funds to directly pay for abortions has never been popular, which is why Democrats passed a version of the Hyde Amendment even when they maintained overwhelming control of the Federal government under Obama. [deleted]
Oh please DO explain how a fetus can be aborted AFTER birth Sean. Please be specific.
se DO explain how a fetus can be aborted AFTER birth Sean
My [ [Deleted ] [ bad. "The ] [ ] ] authors argue what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ [deleted]
Let's call a spade a spade. Deleted Happy?
[ Inflammatory Content ]
[ Content that arguably and unnecessarily seeks to anger others is prohibited. This does not preclude inherently hot topics for debate (e.g. the abortion debate). A topic designed to engage others in thoughtful discussion or debate (e.g. ‘At what point in a pregnancy do we have a human being?’) is welcome. One that seeks to inflame (e.g. ‘Pro-choice means killing babies’) is not. ]
[deleted]
Actually, NO.
Abortion is NOT killing babies after birth.
FAIL.
Linking to and quoting from medical journals is now a COC violation...
No surprise. When you can't deal with the truth, censor it.
[No, Sean, the words deleted were yours, not the link.]
deleted
The Hyde Amendment has existed for nearly 45 years, through multiple administrations on both sides of the political spectrum. Somehow, like abortion, I doubt there will be any significant changes made to it, much less a revocation. Complaints and arguments about the Hyde Amendment ultimately amounts to little more than blowing hot air.
On the nose. Religion is too firmly entrenched in the government for it to be otherwise.
Most, if not all arguments I've heard against abortion or funding of abortion have been based on religion or religious beliefs. Maintaining a separation of church and state should invalidate any religious based arguments. Not that they're something to take seriously to begin with.
All arguments I've heard are religion based. Strangely enough, the bible indicates that god is pro choice, but his followers like to cherry pick...
If all arguments are religious based, and I tend to agree they are (or at least emotionally based), then perhaps that's why abortion rights have never been successfully challenged. There's no rational argument to be made against abortion.
Please list them, scientifically accurate arguments that is.
Pre-birth = abortion
Post-birth = murder.
So your 1st claim is already proven wrong, they are NOT called the same. I hope you have other arguments that are more rational.
Abortion rights HAVE been successfully challenged on an incremental basis all over the country and upheld in some cases by the SCOTUS. There are far too many states where abortion is de facto outlawed because their are so over-regulated it's almost impossible to get one.
What "science?" I mean real science. Not your idea of "science."
The right to abortion itself hasn't been successfully challenged. But many states, as you point out, try to circumvent abortion through over regulation and protocol. Of vourse, thus places an unnecessary and undue burden on the woman, which has also been successfully argued in the courts too.
Yes, they insist that the 'right' hasn't been repealed while making it as unavailable as possible. Threatening and attacking doctors and clinics, one clinic in a state, multiple appointments days apart requiring overnight stays, invasive ultrasounds and much more.
All slimy tactics employed when they do not get their way. And it's the women who suffer for it.
I highly doubt it.
Notice how our inquiries go unanswered?