From Hyde to Stupak, over 30 years of limiting access to abortion

I was having a conversation about access to abortion the other day with two friends who are both engaged and informed about feminist and reproductive health topics. When discussing the Stupak Amendment I learned neither of them was aware that access to abortion has been restricted at the federal level before.
This conversation got me thinking about this moment as an opportunity for broader education and action around the Hyde Amendment which has banned the use of federal funds to cover abortion since it was passed in 1976. Under Hyde women on Medicaid, military personnel and family members, women who receive health care through Indian Health Services, and those on disability insurance cannot have their abortions paid for using federal funds (most states ban the use of their Medicaid funds as well). Abortion is the only set of medical procedures that are explicitly excluded from Medicaid. Abortion has been specifically targeted and separated out from all other health care.
The Hyde Amendment severely limits access to abortion. And it has done so for the majority of time Roe v. Wade has been US law. So the Stupak Amendment is not something completely new, but rather the continuation of a pattern. There is a deliberate, concerted effort to make abortion harder and harder to access until “choice” is no longer an option.
Many reproductive rights organizations have taken the position that we should maintain the status quo regarding the use of federal funds for abortion in health care reform. I understand the pragmatism of this approach – passing health care reform is a massively difficult undertaking that has been derailed before. Trying to keep abortion out of the debate as much as possible without losing ground was an understandable goal. But let’s be clear: the status quo sucks.
Since Roe v. Wade there has been a steady chipping away at access to abortion, with those who are already the most vulnerable experiencing the brunt of these attacks. The fact that abortion is legal doesn’t do much good for women who can’t have the procedure because of financial and other barriers. Rather than focusing only on legality, we must emphasize access for everyone who seeks abortion. This is a big part of what the Reproductive Justice framework is all about: recognizing that existing social hierarchies impact a person’s ability to receive legal, safe, and affordable reproductive health care and building a politics that centers the needs of those who are traditionally the most marginalized.


The Stupak Amendment would limit access for even more women, since it would be practically impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to cover abortion.
The Stupak Amendment has put the issue of federal funding for abortion back in the spotlight and inspired many people to take action. However, much of the language used to combat the amendment has focused on the fact that women will be prevented from using their own money to pay for insurance that covers abortion in the new health system. This framing draws a line regarding whose ability to access abortions will be fought for during this health care reform process: those women who have enough money to afford an insurance plan other than Medicaid.
The Stupak Amendment is despicable, but I see in the passionate response an opportunity to put federal funding in the spotlight. It’s time to energize and expand the campaign to get rid of any bans on the use of federal funds for abortion using the anger over Stupak as a starting point. We need to frame the issue in a way that does not bury the links between Hyde and Stupak but rather draws the links between all bans on the use of federal funds for abortion and presents them as cruel, discriminatory, a violation of women’s rights, and an attack on their health and safety.
Focusing on the ban on federal funds will require scaling up education campaigns and making the repeal of Hyde a priority for legislators. Reproductive rights organizations, especially those with a large base and a presence on Capitol Hill, will have to put resources towards overturning Hyde in a way that they never have before. Because we need the hard work of everyone who cares about abortion rights to get rid of this horrible legislation that has been law for far too long.
Repeal of the Hyde Amendment is long overdue and this is an ideal moment to take up the issue. Let’s continue the momentum against the Stupak Amendment to increase access for groups of women for whom vital reproductive health care has been kept out of reach for too long.

Take action to stop the Stupak Amendment.

Take action to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

Boston, MA

Jos Truitt is Executive Director of Development at Feministing. She joined the team in July 2009, became an Editor in August 2011, and Executive Director in September 2013. She writes about a range of topics including transgender issues, abortion access, and media representation. Jos first got involved with organizing when she led a walk out against the Iraq war at her high school, the Boston Arts Academy. She was introduced to the reproductive justice movement while at Hampshire College, where she organized the Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program’s annual reproductive justice conference. She has worked on the National Abortion Federation’s hotline, was a Field Organizer at Choice USA, and has volunteered as a Pro-Choice Clinic Escort. Jos has written for publications including The Guardian, Bilerico, RH Reality Check, Metro Weekly, and the Columbia Journalism Review. She has spoken and trained at numerous national conferences and college campuses about trans issues, reproductive justice, blogging, feminism, and grassroots organizing. Jos completed her MFA in Printmaking at the San Francisco Art Institute in Spring 2013. In her "spare time" she likes to bake and work on projects about mermaids.

Jos Truitt is an Executive Director of Feministing in charge of Development.

Read more about Jos

Join the Conversation

WASHINGTON - JANUARY 22:  Pro-choice advocates participate in protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building January 22, 2010 in Washington, DC. Activists from across the nation gathered to commemorate the 37th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which decriminalized abortion in all fifty states.  (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

No Bernie, There’s No Economic Justice Without Abortion Access

On Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders flew to Nebraska to campaign for Health Mello, a Democrat running for Mayor of Omaha. The stop is part of Bernie’s “Unity Tour” with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez — the beginning of a national effort to rebuild and unite Democrats around a shared vision for the party’s future.

Here’s the catch: Heath Mello is a longtime opponent of abortion access who sponsored a 20-week abortion ban in 2010. It contained no exceptions for rape or incest. Mello has also co-sponsored legislation requiring doctors to perform medically-unnecessary ultrasounds, and he voted for a bill to

On Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders flew to Nebraska to campaign for Health Mello, a Democrat running for Mayor of Omaha. The stop is part of Bernie’s “Unity Tour” with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez ...

Humphrey2-640x380

Oklahoma Lawmaker Considers Pregnant People “Hosts” in Anti-Abortion Bill

In this week’s edition of cringy, oppressive legislation, Oklahoma lawmakers have introduced a bill which would require pregnant people to obtain written permission from the father of the fetus in order to receive an abortion.

The bill would also require pregnant people seeking abortions to submit their sexual partner’s name to their doctors in writing. The identified person could then challenge and demand a paternity test, which would delay the abortion procedure. The only exceptions to this law would be in the cases of incest or rape, threat to the pregnant person’s life, or should the father be deceased – in which case, the pregnant person would be required to sign a notarized affidavit confirming the death.

While this bill is certainly alarming, it ...

In this week’s edition of cringy, oppressive legislation, Oklahoma lawmakers have introduced a bill which would require pregnant people to obtain written permission from the father of the fetus in order to receive an abortion.

The bill would ...