Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Hyde Amendment”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

17 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1980

Does the Hyde Amendment violate religious freedom? Harris v. McRae and the First Amendment.

In Harris v. McRae, the recent case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, the Court for the first time was asked to consider whether antiabortion legislation respects the establishment of religion or violates the free exercise thereof. The Court held that the Amendment did not effect an establishment of religion, and found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to raise the free exercise argument. The writer explores the questions raised, agreeing with the Court's disposal of the establishment argument. He does find considerable validity in the free exercise challenge, but concludes that the Court as presently constituted is unlikely to accept it. In addition, he believes that the Court, in its treatment of both arguments, either ignored or improperly distinguished earlier cases that supported the plaintiffs.

Abortion, Legal↗
PubMed1994

Intolerant tolerance.

The Hyde Amendment and Roman Catholic attempts to put restrictions on Title X funding have been criticized for being intolerant. However, such criticism fails to appreciate that there are two competing notions of tolerance, one focusing on the limits of state force and accepting pluralism as unavoidable, and the other focusing on the limits of knowledge and advancing pluralism as a good. These two types of tolerance, illustrated in the writings of John Locke and J.S. Mill, each involve an intolerance. In a pluralistic context where the free exercise of religion is respected, John Locke's account of tolerance is preferable. However, it (in a reconstructed form) leads to a minimal state. Positive entitlements to benefits like artificial contraception or nontherapeutic abortions can legitimately be resisted, because an intolerance has already been shown with respect to those that consider the benefit immoral, since their resources have been coopted by taxation to advance an end that is contrary to their own. There is a sliding scale from tolerance (viewed as forbearance) to the affirmation of communal integrity, and this scale maps on to the continuum from negative to positive rights.

Attitude↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Trends in rates of live births and abortions following state restrictions on public funding of abortion.

Abortion rates rose following the expanded legalization of abortion by the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. As a result, the impact of the restriction on Federal funding of abortions under the Hyde Amendment in 1977 was not clear. However, abortion rates had plateaued by 1985, when State funding of Medicaid abortions was restricted in Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Analysis of statewide data from the three States indicated that following restrictions on State funding of abortions, the proportion of reported pregnancies resulting in births, rather than in abortions, increased in all three States. In 1985, the first year of State restrictions on the use of public funds for abortion, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania recorded 1.9 to 2.4 percent increases in the proportion of reported pregnancies resulting in live births, after years of declining rates. With adjustments for underreporting of abortion, there was an overall 1.2 percent rise in the proportion of pregnancies resulting in live births in those States. Nationally the proportion rose only 0.4 percent. By 1987, the three States had experienced increases above 1984 levels of 1.6 to 5.9 percent in the proportion of reported pregnancies resulting in live births. The experiences of the three States can be used in projecting an expected increase in the proportions of reported pregnancies resulting in live births, rather than in abortions, for similar States. A projection for California, for example, showed that an increase could be expected in the first year of restrictions on the use of public funds for abortion of at least 4,000 births, which could be expected largely to affect women of low income.

Abortion, Legal↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Abortion in the United States, 1977-1978.

There were 1.32 million legal abortions in the United States in 1977 and a projected 1.37 million in 1978, an increase of four percent between 1977 and 1978 compared with one of 12 percent between 1976 and 1977. In 1978, 29 percent of pregnant women chose to terminate their pregnancies by abortion. Almost three percent of U.S. women of reproductive age obtained an abortion in 1978. From 1967 through 1978, approximately six million women obtained almost eight million legal abortions; about one in eight U.S. women of reproductive age has had a legal abortion. The number of hospitals reporting that they provided abortion services dropped slightly from 1,695 in 1976 to 1,661 in 1977, but the number of nonhospital abortion clinics increased from 448 to 522, and the number of physicians who reported performing abortions in their offices grew from 424 to 533. Between 1976 and 1977, the average number of abortions per hospital facility decreased from 246 to 237, while the average number per nonhospital provider increased from 875 to 879. The percentage of abortions performed in hospitals declined from 35 in 1976 to 30 in 1977, while the percentage reported by free-standing clinics increased from 61 to 66; the percentage performed in physicians' offices remained at four. Ninety-five percent of abortions in 1977 occurred in metropolitan areas, where 75 percent of the women in need of abortion services live. In 1977, there were identified abortion providers in only 23 percent of U.S. counties. Nine percent (more than 118,000) of the women who obtained abortions in 1977 had to travel to another state for services, and many traveled to other, often distant, counties in their home states. One in three abortions in 1977 were obtained by teenagers, and three in four were obtained by unmarried women. Twenty-eight percent of the women estimated to be in need of abortion services in 1977, and 26 percent in 1978, were unable to obtain them. In FY 1977, before Hyde amendment restrictions on government financing of abortions for poor women, 133,000 of the estimated 427,000 Medicaid-eligible women in need of publicly funded abortion services were unable to obtain them.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Abortion, Legal↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The Medicaid cutoff and abortion services for the poor.

Since 1977, the Hyde Amendment's restrictions on federal funding of abortions have prevented poor women from obtaining abortions through the federal Medicaid program. This article describes research undertaken to determine the impact of these restrictions on low-income women. Patients who had Medicaid-funded abortions at a clinic in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1977 (when Medicaid funding of abortions was available) were compared with Medicaid-eligible patients who had abortions at the same clinic in 1982 (when public funding of abortions was allowed only if the woman's life would be endangered by continuation of the pregnancy). Their experiences were also compared with those of higher income women attending the same clinic in both years. Finally, some of the 1982 patients were interviewed in 1983 to determine how they went about raising the money that they needed to pay for their abortions. In 1977, Medicaid-eligible patients experienced no delay in obtaining abortions compared with other women, even when demographic differences are considered. However, in 1982, they were significantly delayed; on average, the Medicaid-eligible women who were delayed had abortions 2-3 weeks later than the others. Fifty percent of patients eligible for Medicaid in 1982 had abortions at 10 weeks of gestation or later, compared with 37 percent in 1977. Medicaid-eligible women who were interviewed in depth had abortions about a week later than the other women. Increased delays occurred both between their first suspicion of pregnancy and their pregnancy test and between their decision to have an abortion and the procedure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The impact of restricting Medicaid financing for abortion.

If all states observed the Hyde Amendment restrictions, many thousands of Medicaid-eligible women who would have obtained abortions under the 1977 funding policy would not receive them--in addition to the 133,000 who could not get Medicaid-funded abortions in the year preceding the restrictions.

Abortion Applicants↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Public benefits and costs of government funding for abortion.

In state referenda to end public funding of abortions for poor women, one of the most successful tactics of abortion foes has been to charge that abortion funding increases the burden on taxpayers. A state-by-state analysis by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) shows that the opposite is the case. For every tax dollar spent to pay for abortions for poor women, about four dollars is saved in public medical and welfare expenditures. The savings are in public expenditures that otherwise would have to be incurred because of the babies that poor women would have borne. On the basis of earlier research, it was assumed that 20 percent of Medicaid-eligible women who could not obtain abortions would give birth. Public costs examined in the AGI analysis include Medicaid expenditures for prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care for the mother, and for newborn care, neonatal intensive care and pediatric care for the child for the first two years of life; as well as expenditures for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps and the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) during those first two years. The benefit-to-cost ratio varies from about 9:1 in Massachusetts to 2:1 in Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The net savings for the nation as a whole over a two-year period if abortions were publicly funded in every state would total at least $339.6 million.

Abortion, Legal↗
PubMed1986

Access to health care and equal protection of the law: the need for a new heightened scrutiny.

Proposals to reduce national expenditures for health care under Medicare and other programs raise questions about the limits on legislative power to distribute health care benefits. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection has been a weak source of protection for the sick, largely because they fail to qualify for special scrutiny under traditional equal protection analysis. Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court suggest that the Justices seek a newer, more flexible approach to reviewing claims of unequal protection. This Article examines the application of the equal protection guarantee to health-related claims. It argues that traditional equal protection analysis is too rigid and newer rationality review too imprecise to provide just eligibility determinations. The Article concludes that courts should subject claims of unequal protection in the health care context to heightened scrutiny, as health care plays a special role in assuring equality of opportunity.

Federal Government↗