Even the longstanding Hyde Amendment is no longer a neutral zone in the abortion wars.
Democrats’ objections to the restriction on taxpayer abortion funding — and how it would be applied to new laws — derailed widely supported human trafficking legislation this month and threatened to rend another bipartisan agreement to reform a Medicare payment formula.
And earlier this year, as House Republicans tried to pass an abortion ban, they found themselves warring over adding a rape-reporting requirement to Hyde, which they’ve relied upon for years to ensure federal dollars aren’t spent on the controversial procedure.
Next year will mark four decades since Congress first passed Hyde, and it’s been added on to annual spending bills ever since. The amendment restricts federal funding from being used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when the woman’s life is at stake. (It bears the name of former U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican who died in 2007.)
For a long time the Hyde Amendment seemed to be one of the few areas where abortion activists weren’t actively butting heads — with the exception of the infamous disputes over whether to include it in the Affordable Care Act. Neither side saw the exemptions as ideal but in general, both still picked other battles.
But things have changed over the last few years. Republicans are energized by major gains around the country, as a record number of states have advanced and passed measures restricting abortions or placing more regulations on how they’re performed.
And there are virtually no Democrats left who oppose abortion rights, meaning those on the left have little to lose by pushing the issue more aggressively.
“Over the years we’ve lost virtually every battle that’s been on this floor, and we’re tired of it, so we’re taking a stand and we’re going to hold that stand,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said last week from the Senate floor.
For now, the most recent controversy appears to have ebbed. Even though the House Pro-Choice Caucus supported the Medicare payment bill last week, a handful of Democrats — including Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. — voted against it because it applies Hyde to community health center funding for two years instead of just one.
But Feinstein has said she will support the bill when the Senate likely takes it up next month and other Democrats may hold their fire, too. Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Patty Murray of Washington, who both recently helped filibuster a trafficking bill over how it applied Hyde, didn’t respond to requests for comment Monday.
Even though Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid led the filibuster on the anti-trafficking bill, he’s indicated he won’t try to hold up the Medicare bill. Spokesman Faiz Shakir said Monday that Reid wants Republican leadership to allow some amendments but doesn’t know whether any in his caucus plan to propose amendments stripping out the Hyde language.
The concerns over Hyde language in the trafficking and Medicare bills are more ideological than practical. In the case of the Medicare bill, community health centers already don’t offer abortion services. And the trafficking bill would apply Hyde to a fund for trafficking victims — but those victims could arguably qualify for its rape exemption.
The battles are instead territorial, with each side resistant to losing even a little bit of ground on the issue.
“Every time they take a step forward, they use it to buttress the next step forward,” said Sharon Levin, director for federal reproductive health policies at the National Women’s Law Center.
Even some abortion foes admit the two bills apply the Hyde language to federal law in new ways. But the result isn’t placing any unprecedented restrictions on when and how taxpayer funding may be used for abortions, they argue.
“People didn’t agree with it, but those who didn’t agree with it didn’t lash out at those who did support it,” said Michael New, a political science professor at the University of Michigan who has worked for Americans United for Life. “That seemed like a reasonable compromise for a lot of people.”
