HHS spending bill advances without Hyde amendment

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  3 weeks ago  •  47 comments

By:   Nathaniel Weixel (MSN)

HHS spending bill advances without Hyde amendment
A key House subcommittee on Monday cleared a spending bill for the Department of Health and Human Services without including a decades-old rider prohibiting funding for abortions, kicking off what is likely to be a long and bruising fight.For the first time in 40 years, the Hyde Amendment was excluded from the spending bill introduced and then cleared by the House Appropriations labor and health and human services subcommittee.The bill also...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



A key House subcommittee on Monday cleared a spending bill for the Department of Health and Human Services without including a decades-old rider prohibiting funding for abortions, kicking off what is likely to be a long and bruising fight.

© Greg Nash Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)

For the first time in 40 years, the Hyde Amendment was excluded from the spending bill introduced and then cleared by the House Appropriations labor and health and human services subcommittee.

The bill also does not include the Weldon Amendment, which has been in place since 2005 and prohibits denying federal funding to entities that do not want to cover or provide abortion services.

The legislation now goes to the full Appropriations Committee for a markup and eventual vote.

The Hyde amendment bans federal programs like Medicaid from covering the costs of abortion services. The ban has been added to federal spending bills every year since 1976.

While it has been the sticking point in health care legislation negotiations, the amendment has also enjoyed bipartisan support as a compromise position between Republicans and Democrats.

Many Democrats argue that the decades-old ban disproportionately impacts low-income women who rely on Medicaid for health care.

Both Democrats and Republicans have supported the Hyde amendment in annual government spending bills, but vocal opponents have upped the pressure in recent years to lift the ban.

During the campaign, President Biden reversed his previous longtime support for the measure and pledged to end it after coming under intense pressure from fellow Democrats and advocacy groups. His $6 trillion budget request released in May does not include the amendment.

The legislation fulfills a vow made by Appropriations Committee chairwoman Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) late last year, who said the status quo was no longer acceptable, and the ban needed to be removed.

During Monday's markup, DeLauro acknowledged that despite the quick voice vote, the hard work will come at the next step.

"I know this is an issue on which many of us disagree," DeLauro said. "But regardless of the original intent of Hyde, it has disproportionately impacted women of color, and it has ultimately led to more unintended pregnancies and later riskier, and more costly abortions."

"We are finally doing what is right for our mothers, our families, our communities by striking this discriminatory amendment, once and for all," DeLauro added.

But Republicans are ready for a fight, and are expected to try to reinstate the ban in the House during negotiations.

"These protections need to be reinstated for this bill to move forward," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the subcommittee's top Republican. "Quite frankly, everyone in this room knows this bill will never pass the United States Senate without their inclusion."

It's unlikely that the legislation could pass the Senate without the Hyde amendment intact.

Even if all Democrats support removing the ban, which is unlikely since Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has publicly supported the measure, Democrats don't have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

Well, now at least, Democratic sycophants can stop lying about them wanting government to pay for abortions.

What is there that Democrats aren't willing to tax folks more for in order to fund their social agenda?

Anything at all?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1    3 weeks ago
Well, now at least, Democratic sycophants can stop lying about them wanting government to pay for abortions.

I've never understood why a legal medical procedure was excluded.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    3 weeks ago
I've never understand why a legal medical procedure was excluded.

Have you ever understood why plastic surgeries are largely excluded?

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
Have you ever understood why plastic surgeries are largely excluded?

In certain cases they are not excluded.  You understand that.....right????

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
In certain cases they are not excluded.  You understand that.....right????

Please, exactly what the FUCK do you think "largely excluded" fucking means??????

Jesus, just read what is plainly there and stop trying to "interpret" what everyone else can plainly read and understand.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    3 weeks ago
Please, exactly what the FUCK do you think "largely excluded" fucking means??????

So you are okay with some plastic surgery being covered by government funding.  Why do you feel that some should be covered and some should not?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

Is it even POSSIBLE that you answer a simple question?

I don't think the government should use taxpayer funds so some chick can have bigger tits or some guy can have a better chin or nose or hair implants.

If you think it is an appropriate use of funds, so be it, but I think it a monumental waste.

I'll never understand why some people think things should be free just because they want something.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
I don't think the government should use taxpayer funds so some chick can have bigger tits or some guy can have a better chin or nose or hair implants.

But it is okay as long as the plastic surgeon is dealing with life threatening situations?  Is that where you draw the line?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

You haven't bothered to answer any of my questions, so what makes you think I'll answer any more of yours?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    3 weeks ago
You haven't bothered to answer any of my questions, so what makes you think I'll answer any more of yours?

I don't think you will.  You finally figured where I was going with the questions and decided to deflect .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.8    3 weeks ago

I have answered far more of your questions than you have of mine, as anyone who can read can easily ascertain simply by reading all of the above comments.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.10  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

They are born takers and not makers…

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
2  charger 383    3 weeks ago

Good, it is a cost effective use of funds and supports a woman's right to not be pregnant 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  JBB    3 weeks ago

Good!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3    3 weeks ago
It's unlikely that the legislation could pass the Senate without the Hyde amendment intact.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    3 weeks ago

It's DOA.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

Oh, gosh, then we will be regaled with tall tales about Republican "obstructionism".

I can't wait.

/s

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    2 weeks ago

Thank God for that.  I don’t want my tax dollars paying to kill our children.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

I thought you guys were against government interference in your healthcare decisions.  Wasn't that one of the primary republican complaints against PPACA?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
4  Ronin2    3 weeks ago

Who said Democrats are the party of compromise? The only compromising they expect is from everyone else. 

Thankfully gridlock will see this bill go down the crapper where it belongs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @4    3 weeks ago
Who said Democrats are the party of compromise? The only compromising they expect is from everyone else. 

Democrats unilaterally try to end a decades-old tradition and will undoubtedly attempt to label the GOP as obstructionists if the bill fails to advance (which it will in all likelihood).

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
4.1.1  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    3 weeks ago
Democrats unilaterally try to end a decades-old tradition...

The Hyde amendment has no effect on women of moderate means of better, it punishes the poor by delaying abortions while they save up enough, making their abortions more costly and dangerous, or by forcing the poor to have kids they don't want and can't afford, making them poorer and more miserable. You're right about these things being a decades old tradition for Republicans though...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

The Hyde amendment has been included in legislation for decades.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
4.1.3  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    2 weeks ago
The Hyde amendment has been included in legislation for decades.

Jim Crow laws were exacerbating poverty and misery for blacks for almost 9 decades, but we got rid of them. The Hyde Amendment has been exacerbating poverty and misery for the poor for decades, how about we not wait for 9 decades to get rid of it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

I don't agree that the feds should pay for abortions, which mostly are done by choice.

If you want to pay for them with taxpayer funds, then I want a limit of two paid for by taxpayers and then the father gets a vasectomy and the woman has her tubes tied. No point in wasting funds because some folks are too stupid to learn how to prevent pregnancies in this day and age, where contraceptives are readily and cheaply available,

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

How about we never get rid of it.  How about we repeal roe vs Wade. 

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
4.1.6  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
How about we repeal roe vs Wade.

although it seems contrary to total religious freedom, it sounds like fun to me. but first....

which are the red states that allow people to drive over protesters?

how much should I expect to spend for a sturdy cattle guard for my vehicle?

do stand your ground laws provide coverage should someone be attacked if their vehicle becomes immobilized from accumulated religious debris in the undercarriage?

is florida the only red state that allows both legal activities?

I'm sure a lot of our readers would like to know.

/s  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

Seriously, WTF does any of your post have to do with Roe vs. Wade?

Please STTTTRRRREEEETTTTCCCCCHHHH and make a connection that at least sounds plausible.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.8  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

Dev is being sarcastic. You would not get it...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.1.8    2 weeks ago

Deflection, projection, and denial.

Maybe you can stretch his words for him?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.10  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.9    2 weeks ago

There you go...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.1.10    2 weeks ago

Are you trying to mansplain for him now?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.12  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.11    2 weeks ago

[rmoved]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.13  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.1.12    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.14  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.13    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.15  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.1.14    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
4.1.16  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.13    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.17  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1.16    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
How about we repeal roe vs Wade. 

How about not. But you can always petition the SCOTUS to do that. Good luck with that.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
4.1.19  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
If you want to pay for them with taxpayer funds, then I want a limit of two paid for by taxpayers...

I understand this sentiment and agree with it -- to an extent. Should we have our medical insurance premiums massively increased because people choose to smoke, choose to ride without helmets, choose to use excessive amounts of alcohol, choose to use recreational drugs, choose to play with fireworks, choose to make guns as readily available as cigarettes?

Lots of people are stupid and lots of us have been paying for them in a variety of ways our whole adult lives. I don't think withholding medical care is the right approach. In the case of abortion, a way to dramatically reduce it is universal health care. Planned parenthood offers family planning and birth control to 2.8 million poor women. If we eliminated PP, estimates on the increase in the number of abortions because of the explosion in unwanted pregnancies are 300,000 to twice that number each year. Stop trying to punish people for being stupid and try educating them and helping them.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
4.1.20  devangelical  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.19    2 weeks ago
Stop trying to punish people for being stupid and try educating them and helping them.

trumpsters being the exception to that of course. some of them are just too fucking stupid to help.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.21  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @4.1.19    2 weeks ago

Oh, I don't want to do away with PP.

I am all for any woman having all the abortions she wants and can afford.

I think paying for 2 is plenty, if they can't learn how to prevent pregnancies after 2 abortions, I don't have any hope for them being productive members of society.

There is a difference between being a patsy and being generous.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
5  Thrawn 31    3 weeks ago

Meh.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
6  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

More proof of how radical the Democrats have become over the last 20 years.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago
More proof of how radical the Democrats have become over the last 20 years.

Can you provide a non-religious reason it should not be?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1    2 weeks ago
you provide a non-religious reason it should not be?

Can I provide a non religious reason Democrats should be less radical? 

Um... yeah, it's bad for the country to have a party moving left at warp speed. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
Um... yeah, it's bad for the country to have a party moving left at warp speed. 

Is that your way of avoiding the question?  Topic of this article is the Hyde Amendment and the spending bill.

BTW, I agree, this country should not be moving left or right at warp speed, with a few exceptions.  But moving left at a steady pace will only help the country.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JBB
Tacos!
zuksam


21 visitors