On September 30, 1976, Henry Hyde brought a proposed amendment to the House of Representatives regarding the federal funding of abortions in the United States.  When the law was originally passed, it banned federal Medicaid from being used to perform abortions, however it was not until later that the amendment would be reformed.  The amendment is a rider to the HHS appropriations bill, meaning it needs to be revised and passed annually; over the past few decades, it has gradually been altered. The current standing of the law allows certain circumstances including, rape, incest, and life threatening illness to the mother to qualify for the use of Medicaid and government funding.  Although opposing parties may view the amendment to be a hindrance of freedoms for poor, pregnant women in America, it really stands to protect those who work hard for their paychecks.  Even though the amendment has gained bipartisan support for years, the religious and ethical aspects immensely outweigh political affiliation.  When discussing a topic as morally encompassing as abortion, one must be aware of the wavering line between church and state.  The Hyde Amendment does not inflict further blurred lines, but rather widens the gap between government regulations and the moral rational of pregnant mothers.  Because of this, it is crucial that government officials continue to implement the Hyde Amendment to help American taxpayers protect their money from funding abortions in the United States.   

The topic of abortion has been debated for decades, however, a conclusion has never been reached.  Although abortion is a heavily discussed topic, the most overlooked aspect is, arguably, how the procedures are paid for.  The court case of Roe v. Wade made the act of abortion a legal right in 1973, and the legality of this decision has not changed since.  Abortions can legally occur throughout the duration of a woman’s pregnancy, getting increasingly expensive as time progresses.  Although abortions are a right for every woman, there are many women below the poverty line, as well as women who cannot afford medical insurance who consequently stand at a disadvantage.  Because of this, some view the implementation of the Hyde Amendment as “inappropriate” and “discriminatory” towards those who cannot privately fund the procedure (Hull 184).  Mr. Flood, one of the first to oppose the law, stated, “a vote for this amendment is not a vote against abortion. It is a vote against poor people” (Hull 184).  Even though this amendment was not brought forward to degrade or make life harder for low income individuals, it does make health care more difficult for them to attain.  In a Southern California, Interdisciplinary Law Journal, Alyssa Engstrom states, "one in four women with Medicaid coverage subject to the Hyde Amendment who seek an abortion are unable to obtain one due to lack of coverage."  It is common for those who do not have the private funding or support from a non-profit, to resort to unsafe, illegal abortions.  The World Health Organization approximates that 13% of maternal deaths that occur annually are a result of self-inflicted abortions.  In the eyes of many, making abortions “free” to low income women, would solve this ill-fated dilemma.  “Free,” however, in this circumstance means federally funded, or paid in full by taxpayers.  In a podcast conducted between Todd Wilken and Carol Tobias, President of National Right to Life, the point was made that making taxpayers fund abortions, inadvertently puts the government “stamp of approval” on them.  Funding and essentially encouraging the procedure of abortions, by making them “free” for low-income women, would not reflect positively on the government, but rather show American citizens that government officials support it whole-heartedly, which is not always be the case in every circumstance.  If more non-profit organizations existed, the need for federally mandated tax dollars would not be necessary to fund these procedures.  Nothing in life is free, despite the ignorant misconception that the cost of goods and services in America are dispensable.  Federally mandated tax dollars ease the potential burden on the wallets of mothers seeking abortions while attacking the moral conscience and bank accounts of everyone else.  Instead of imposing the bill of abortions on those that are completely uninvolved, tax payer dollars could fund preventative methods and education instead; but that’s a whole other argument.  Nevertheless, if Americans’ tax dollars went towards non-profit organizations, the need for government assistance would substantially decrease.  Although the implementation of the Hyde Amendment imposes more difficulties for impoverished women, or those who need extra financial assistance, it is only logical not to force hard working Americans to pay for the morally controversial procedure. 

We can all agree that it makes medical, and logical, sense for abortion to remain legal in extenuating circumstances; rape incest, and life threatening illness to the mother.  Without clinics where women can access safe and necessary abortions, many will resort to self-infliction and other hazardous methods to stop their pregnancies.  However, the funding currently implemented still uses American dollars to pay for these procedures.  According to a study conducted at Duke University, taxpayers subsidize approximately 24% of abortions annually through Medicaid, despite the restrictions imposed by the Hyde Amendment.  Although it may not seem like a large percentage, this is equivalent to taxpayers paying for approximately 250,000 abortions per year.  Thinking about it, that’s a quarter of a million children killed on the tax payers’ dime, even with the amendment in place.  Without the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid would “be liable for 300,000-500,000 additional abortions every year” (Conover).  Originally created to provide health care to those who were unable to work, Medicaid has, since then, expanded to provide payment for medical procedures for low income citizens.  Medicaid is funded dually between the government and the states, meaning the states have free range when deciding the qualifications for individuals to gain access to the program.  Because the states have independence with their funding, a larger fraction of the Medicaid cost used to cover abortions comes directly from the states rather than the federal government.  In 2010, the government funded 331 abortions, which is only 15.6%, while the states funded 113,000 (Conover).  If the Hyde Amendment were not in place, one can imagine the significant inflation of annual abortions.  The implementation of the amendment in conjunction with Medicaid however, allows the states to increase funding for the procedure regardless of the reason.  In states, such as Maryland, public funding is used to abort babies with “fetal abnormalities,” (National Abortion Federation) which is a direct violation of the Hyde Amendment.  Despite the loopholes that states use to provide additional, or a reduced amount, of funding for abortions without the Hyde Amendment, the number of aborted babies in our nation would skyrocket, as well as tax dollars used to fund them. 

The influence of privately funding and non-profit organizations account for a large percentage of annual abortions that occur in the United States.  Planned Parenthood was founded in 1916 as a non-profit organization, providing health care to women around the world.  In the instance of an unwanted pregnancy, women typically turn to Planned Parenthood first to get help.  Many women who seek out this organization fall under the category of needing Medicaid to support them.  In 2014 alone, the organization provided 10.6 million services, and 328,000 of which were abortions (Kurtzleben).  The agency receives $500 million in government funding annually, including taxpayer dollars via Medicaid. Seventy-five percent of the total, according to a Planned Parenthood spokesman (Kurtzleben), is actually received through Medicaid.  The Planned Parenthood model however does not focus solely on the act of aborting babies, but informing the public of reproductive rights, STIs, contraceptives and more.  Because the states impose their own directives on tax dollars and abortion financing, it does not make sense to make abortion funding a necessary aspect of tax regulations.  Instead of managing the flow of tax dollars and allotting a percentage of money towards abortion, the government should introduce another form of noncommercial, or privately owned, organization to aid in funding the procedures.  If there were to be more non-profit organizations like Planned Parenthood who inform the public, especially young teens, of all things reproduction, maybe there would be less money spent on aborting “accidents,” and more money spent on teaching reproductive safety.

Discussing the need to secure public and government spending on abortion poses the issue of how much money will then be spent on raising and caring for the children who are not aborted.  According to the National Council for Adoption, adoptive parents are awarded a tax credit annually of approximately $13,000.  This tax credit is either subsidized by the government, or paid for by American taxpayers.  Being that 31.640% of adoption agency revenue comes from public support, tax dollars are a significant, and crucial, aspect when deciding to put one’s child up for adoption (The Cost of Adoption).  Without tax dollars and government support, there would be significantly less adoptions, and far more abortions.  Abortions can cost up to $2,000, depending on the time of pregnancy, whereas the cost of adoption is significantly higher; up to thirty thousand (The Cost of Adoption).  However, looking passed the numbers, taxpayers should ask themselves if the value of life, is worth more than the value of a dollar.  Because Medicaid also funds the tax credits given to adoptive parents, this means that taxpayers are funding both adoption and abortion.  There are many restrictions on the amount of money given to adoptive parents; “the income limit on the adoption credit or exclusion is based on your modified adjusted gross income” (Tax Topics).  Money is not just handed to adoptive parents, but rather calculated based on their annual salary and ability to care for another child.  The cost of life, for most people’s moral conscience, is much more important and valuable than the cost of death when given the choice.  Regardless of which political side someone associates with, or their views on health care, many will support the side of life.  The Hyde Amendment is significant when talking about adoption because not only does it limit funding for otherwise “unnecessary” abortions, but when a woman is not ready, she is challenged to look deeper into her options.  A survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute found that approximately 95% of abortions that occur in the United States every year, would not meet “the stringent Hyde Amendment standards” (Conover).  Consequently, the women seeking abortions out of pure inconvenience or lack of want for a child, must seek alternative funding.  If the implementation of the Hyde Amendment was halted and government funds were legally able to pay for the procedure, more tax dollars would be attributed to abortion than to adoption.  Despite challenges that come along with being an adopted child, 90% of all adopted children have a positive outlook and feeling towards their experience (Adoptions).  Sensibly speaking, if the children placed in the situation are happy, the mothers and fathers of the adoptive children do not have to care for the child they could not support, and the adoptive parents receive a tax credit, who would choose abortion over adoption?  

When a woman gets an abortion, not only is her unborn child killed, but the procedure itself poses serious health risks to the mother as well.  After a study was conducted in Finland, it was found that women who obtain an abortion are four times more likely to die within the next year, than women who carry out their pregnancy to delivery (Abortion Risks).  It has also been found that mothers who obtain an abortion are more likely to die later in life from suicide, natural causes, homicides, and injuries often associated with accidents.  Researchers have concluded that 10% of women who abort their children have immediate complications, while others experience difficulties later down the road (Abortion Risks).  The psychological effects of abortions are just as strong, if not stronger than the physical.  Emotional distress and mental health are factors that typically follow the act of getting an abortion.  According to Everyday Health, women who abort their child are more likely to obtain a mental health disorder prior to the procedure, end future pregnancies due to fetal abnormalities, and have a negative attitude towards abortions.  When implementing the Hyde Amendment, the government is not furthering the amount of emotional distress of American women, but providing support and easing the burden of losing their children when the circumstance is mitigating.  If the federal government were to support the funding of all abortions under any circumstance, ill-informed mothers would undergo the procedure, experience the loss of their children, and suffer the emotional anguish afterwards, all because they did not want to have a child and they “were not ready.” The Hyde Amendment not only protects taxpayer dollars from fixing the “mistake” of reckless women, but helps prevent women from going through these troubles unless it is a matter of life or death.  

The implementation of the Hyde Amendment was intended to help protect tax dollars and money from the federal government from funding abortions in the United States.  The instances of rape, incest, and life threatening complications to the mother consist of a small fraction of the total abortions that occur annually in the nation.  There are many downsides to limiting funding for those that experience financial trouble in their day to day lives.  However, if funding was available to everyone seeking abortions without question, the amount of money attributed to the morally taxing decision would increase at an exponential rate.  The existence of non-profit organizations and privately funded corporations, like Planned Parenthood, make it easier for all women to access the reproductive procedures and education that they need in order to be happy and healthy.  The Hyde Amendment does not stand to make abortions illegal or stop them from happening, but rather causes women to look deeper into their conscience and ask themselves if their temporary nuisance is deserving of a permanent, gruesome solution.  Pregnancy can be exciting, shocking, burdensome, and even dangerous depending on the situation.  Unless conception is the result of rape or incest, or could possibly kill the mother within the duration of the pregnancy, abortion is not the only option.  There are millions of people out there who wish to have children and physically cannot that would be more than willing to adopt an unwanted child.  Anyone in the right mind would willingly give more money to support a helpless child, than support a mother who wishes to kill her baby out of pure convenience.  Implementing the Hyde Amendment means taxpayer dollars are going to the right places.  It means abortions around the world are occurring only when a true dilemma presents itself.  It means that those who cannot afford to save their lives themselves, are getting the help they need to do so, in a safe and legal manner.  The Hyde Amendment is an essential aspect that needs to remain in place to ensure tax dollars are going to the right places, supporting morally sound procedures, and not encouraging a permanent solution to an inconvenient struggle.  
