Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Hyde Amendment 1994”

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.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1995

Hern v. Beye.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1994

Orr v. Nelson.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1994

Federal court rules on Hyde Amendment in Michigan case.

In a ruling issued on July 18 (1994), the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan found that the state's near ban on abortion coverage under Medicaid violates federal law because it is more restrictive than the current version of the federal Hyde Amendment. Chief Judge Benjamin F. Gibson ordered Michigan to cover abortions in cases of rape and incest, even though a 1988 law adopted by a voter initiative and upheld in 1992 by the state Supreme Court prohibits public funding except in cases of life endangerment. Last October, Congress approved the fiscal year 1994 Medicaid budget and slightly expanded abortion coverage to include funding for abortions in cases of rape and incest, as well as life endangerment. Summit Medical Center v. Smith, a CRLP lawsuit that was consolidated with Planned Parenthood v. Engler, was the second case this year in which a federal court ruled on state obligations under current Medicaid law. In early May, in a similar CRLP case, US District Court Judge Edward Nottingham enjoined enforcement of an amendment to the Colorado Constitution on the same grounds (see RFN III/9). On June 1, a trial court judge ordered Montana to comply with the Hyde Amendment in an CRLP suit; a federal district court in Montana came to the same conclusion on June 20 in a case filed by Planned Parenthood. CRLP suits in federal court against states for non-compliance are still pending in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1994

Colorado rejects regulations to limit Medicaid coverage for abortion.

In a 3-3 vote on May 19, (1994) the Colorado Social Services Board rejected proposed emergency regulations that would have limited Medicaid coverage for abortions to circumstances in which federal matching funds are available. The regulations were proposed in response to U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham's May 5 ruling, which permanently enjoined a state constitutional amendment and state statutes that prohibit public funds for abortion except where the life of the woman is endangered. Judge Nottingham found that the state measures are invalid because they conflict with the current Hyde Amendment, which provides federal Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. In the absence of any restrictive provisions, Colorado is required to fund all medically necessary abortions. CRLP (Center for Reproductive Law and Policy), which represented plaintiffs in Hern v. Beye, provided testimony against the proposed emergency regulations during a hearing before the Board vote. Meanwhile, some other states are moving toward complying with federal Medicaid law. The Nebraska Department of Social Services is considering regulations that would extend state funding for abortion to include pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. A May 19 public hearing was held on the proposal, which is awaiting final approval. When the Louisiana legislature convenes for a special session on June 6, Governor Edwin Edwards is expected to introduce a bill to authorize Medicaid coverage for abortions in cases of rape and incest. Finally, Indiana and Ohio are reportedly moving toward compliance with the federal mandate. In contrast, however, Missouri Department of Social Services Director Gary Stangler filed suit in federal court on May 24 against Health and Human Services officials for issuing the federal directive requiring compliance with the Hyde Amendment. Pennsylvania officials filed a similar action in mid-March. Lawsuits filed by CRLP against Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania for non-compliance are still pending; similar challenges were also filed by Planned Parenthood in Michigan and Montana.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1994

Agency announces policy on use of U.S. dollars to fund abortions.

In an April 1994 statement, the USAID articulated its current policy on abortion. Reiterating the Clinton Administration's view that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare," the policy remains surprisingly close to the positions of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. According to the Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), AID monies cannot be used for the "performance of abortion as a method of family planning." Under the previous Administrations, AID ceased all abortion funding based on this restrictive language. The Clinton Administration policy notes that AID neither "advocate[s] the use of abortion as a method of family planning" nor "use[s] its policies or programs to restrict ... [the] right to choose" abortion. Yet it interprets the Helms Amendment to permit abortion funding only in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment--the same conditions placed on federal Medicaid funds by the Hyde Amendment. Funds can also be used for the treatment of complications caused by unsafe, incomplete, or septic abortions. Because the US is a major contributor to population and family planning programs, a change in AID policy can have a widespread impact on the reproductive health of women worldwide, especially in developing countries. Up to 167,000 women are estimated to die each year as a result of unsafe abortion and its complications.

Abortion, Induced↗