The Hyde Amendment: Denying Women’s Civil Rights


As we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are reminded of his poignant words that a “right delayed is a right denied.” This is as true for reproductive rights as it is for other civil and human rights. And nowhere is it more true than with regard to a policy known as the Hyde Amendment, which delays and sometimes entirely denies poor women, especially women of color, access to abortion.

Abortion policy in this country does not treat all women equally. Even before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, affluent women were usually able to access abortion safely through a network of private doctors or by traveling to other states or countries where it was legal. Meanwhile, poor women risked their health, fertility, and often their lives to end a pregnancy. Unfortunately, because of the Hyde Amendment, similar inequalities exist today — nearly 40 years after the Supreme Court declared that all women have a constitutional right to abortion.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits Medicaid, the joint federal-state health care program for the indigent, from covering abortion care in almost all circumstances. Most people think of this as a “woman’s issue,” which of course it is. But the Hyde Amendment intentionally discriminates against poor women and has a disparate impact on women of color. In this way, the Hyde Amendment is a civil rights issue as well.

The Hyde Amendment is especially harmful to women of color. According to the most recent Census data, 25.8 percent of African Americans and 25.3 percent of Hispanics are poor, compared to 12.3 percent of whites and 12.5 percent of Asians. As a result, women of color are more likely to rely on government health programs. And due to socioeconomic factors, women of color disproportionately experience a range of reproductive and other health disparities, including higher rates of infant mortality, HIV/AIDS, STIs, unintended pregnancy, and abortion.

The upshot: women of color are more likely to be directly affected by the Hyde Amendment and other abortion funding restrictions.

We do not subject other fundamental constitutional freedoms — voting, free speech, freedom to worship, the right to a fair trial, the right to counsel — to poll taxes or income requirements. But a woman’s ability to act on her constitutionally protected decision to have an abortion is subject to the whims of a fickle legislature and what is (or is not) in her pocketbook.

It is poor women, disproportionately women of color, who have to scrape together money for an abortion — foregoing rent or utilities, pawning dear items, taking food out of their children’s mouths, or worse. It is these women who consider suicide or self-harm, risk inducing an abortion on their own, or continue a pregnancy against their will and better judgment because they cannot find the money or get to a clinic in time. And it is these women whom policymakers continually ignore but who must live with the consequences of political fights over which they have little control.

Ironically, abortion opponents have recently tried to claim the mantle as defenders of civil rights, launching a pernicious campaign aimed at driving a wedge in the African American community over abortion. Citing high rates of abortion among black women, they claim that “abortion is genocide” and argue that abortion providers intentionally target black women for discriminatory reasons.

This strategy cynically plays on an understandable distrust of the medical establishment among many people of color due to a history of eugenics in this country. But it completely ignores the structural racism and economic inequality that create health disparities for women of color across the board. It also treats women of color as pawns in the alleged self-destruction of themselves and their own community rather than as agents of their own self-determination.

Where is the outrage of abortion opponents that the infant mortality rate is twice as high for blacks as for whites? Where is their indignation that three-fourths of HIV cases in Washington, D.C. are among African Americans?

The reality about abortion and women of color is that our government has taken a group of women who have little access to health care generally, a heightened incidence of disease and injury, and an increased risk of unintended pregnancy, and then walled off abortion care. This leaves these women in the horrible position of not having the institutional supports necessary to plan wanted pregnancies, carry healthy pregnancies to term, and raise their children with dignity, yet unable to end pregnancies that they do not want or feel unprepared to handle.

As long as these unjust provisions remain a part of our laws, the rights of women in this country will continue to be treated according to two different standards: whether you can afford to pay for your rights or not. That is not equality.

The Hyde Amendment has been in place for almost 35 years. We have long since passed from delayed justice to outright denial. Repealing the Hyde Amendment will not, by itself, ensure full equality for women of color and low-income women, but it is a necessary precondition. Ending abortion funding restrictions will improve the lives of all women, but none more so than the women who have already shouldered much more than their fair share of injustice.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • saltyc

    Also, even though it’s supposed to provide exceptions for rape and health, in practice it does not. I have talked to women who were raped and who had Medicaid and who still could not get funding, women with severe medical reasons to not stay pregnant who could not get funding, so the rape and health exceptions are a lie.

    Hyde is a travesty, pure and simple. It is totally discriminatory and capricious, I can’t believe the courts uphold it, has there even been a serious challenge. 

    You are right, the right to not be pregnant is a fundamental right of privacy, because no one else can know better than the mentally competent woman whether she should be pregnant. What other fundamental right is denied this way? Hyde is a severe undue burden, forcing women to stay pregnant, lose their jobs, and ruin their lives.

  • stacey

    You are exactly right, SaltyC. Yes, abortion funds hear from sexual assault victims every single day.

    A report released by the National Network of Abortion Funds in 2005 shows that very few Medicaid claims filed under the approved “exceptions” are ever filled, and those findings were corroborated in a more recent report published just last summer by Ibis Reproductive Health in Guttmacher’s Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.

    Low-income women thus have no recourse, even under those narrow circumstances that the far-right has deemed them worthy of dignity and basic medical attention. They are instead left to pawn their belongings, skip on bills, and borrow all that they can all while coping with the trauma of sexual assault, simply to get an abortion they need.

     

     

     

     

  • nonsense-nonsense

    What a terribly written article. The Hyde Amendment doesn’t prevent any woman from obtaining an abortion. Said women can obtain as many abortions as she wants, provided she has the money to pay for it. Simply because a woman can’t pay for a service on her own, in this case abortion, doesn’t mean she’s being discriminated against. It means she’s getting what she pays for, which just so happens to be nothing. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and abortion is no exception. Rights are often constrained based on the ability to pay. I, for example, have a right to own property. However, I can’t walk into a store and take things for free, can I? That’s a rhetorical question because the answer is ‘no’. Unless I come up with the money to buy what I want to buy, or unless the store decides to give me the item I want for free, then I’m SOL. It’s the same deal with the Hyde Amendment. Women are still allowed to have abortions, but only if they come up with the funds to pay for it or if theyare given one for free.

  • prochoiceferret

    Simply because a woman can’t pay for a service on her own, in this case abortion, doesn’t mean she’s being discriminated against. It means she’s getting what she pays for, which just so happens to be nothing. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and abortion is no exception. Rights are often constrained based on the ability to pay.

     

    We’ll keep this in mind next time you’re broke and your trailer is on fire.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Did you see the story regarding some local firehouse letting a man’s house burn down because he didn’t pay the $50 or so fee for fire protection? To reiterate, you get what you pay for or, to be more exact, you don’t get what you don’t pay for unless someone else is feeling generous.

  • prochoiceferret

    Did you see the story regarding some local firehouse letting a man’s house burn down because he didn’t pay the $50 or so fee for fire protection?

     

    As a matter of fact, I did!

     

    To reiterate, you get what you pay for or, to be more exact, you don’t get what you don’t pay for unless someone else is feeling generous.

     

    Thanks, but we’d rather live in a world where basic public services are provided even if the recipient cannot pay. Unlike you, we consider allowing a person’s house to burn down to be a Bad Thing(tm).

  • beenthere72

    nonsense should be no-sense.   So a poor woman that seeks but can’t afford an abortion because she’s pregnant as a result of rape or incest got what she paid for?    Are you going to tell that to her face?  Sorry lady, you’re SOL?  

     

  • cc

    If Medicaid pays for health related services for poor women, they should pay for abortions. The “logic,” from the anti-choice side, is that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for something that they think is “immoral.” I thought that the Iraq War was immoral but I paid taxes for it. But I do have to wonder about the mindset of those who want women to remain in poverty. I’ve seen comments on anti-choice blogs about how large families are happier and beneficial to society. The fact that they’re living in poverty and that additional mouths to feed perpetuates that poverty is lost on these idiots who think that we still live in an Ozzie and Harriet 50′s world – which did ignore the “other America.” As the Cole Porter (I think) lyrics said, “the rich get rich and the poor get babies. Ain’t we got fun.

    And don’t ya love the true compassion from “nonsence is nonsence” – which is a very appropriate moniker here. Obviously the social contract and responsiblity to help one’s fellow citizens isn’t part of the “pro-life” world view. Wonder if “nonsense” is a Christian because last I heard there is this thing about “loving thy neighbor.” But here we have, presumably, a “pro-lifer” who wouldn’t have cared if post-born, non fetal persons had died in the fire. For the “pro-life” side, only the fetus and those in permanent vegetative states are important. For those in between, all bets are off.

  • stacey

    The Hyde Amendment certainly does prevent women from obtaining abortion, and its author spelled that out explicitly:

     

    I’d certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody from having an abortion: a rich woman, a middle class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the …Medicaid bill –U.S Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL), 1977

  • crowepps

    In that case, let’s ‘privatize’ unemployment insurance, disability insurance and retirement.  The Federal budget would certainly be in much better shape without the drain of any of those “lazy bums who don’t want to work”.  I’m sure for-profit insurance companies would be absolutely FAIR about providing benefits.  And the State and local governments aren’t obligated to provide luxuries when they reinstitute the Orphanage, Poor House and Old Folks Home.

    <sarcasm>

  • crowepps

    There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and abortion is no exception.

    This is a really interesting thought in this context, however antique, and raises the question, why is pregnancy an exception?  Why should the fetus be entitled to a “free lunch”?  Unless the fetus can come up with the money to support its mother during the pregnancy, it too should be SOL.

     

    Next clinic protest my counter-protest sign will say “TNSTAAFL”.

  • plume-assassine

    The fact that you think it’s a-okay for firefighters to let someone’s house burn down because they didn’t “pay” is testimony to your moral bankruptcy. Apparently, you think people with more money are more deserving of health or life or livelihood? That sure as hell is not pro-life and it certainly isn’t Christian — that is proof that money corrupts people’s moral reasoning. People shoud not have to “pay” to receive life-saving services. People should not have to “pay” in order to prevent a disaster from ruining their lives. And similarly, poor women who can not pay for their abortion, should not be forced into childbirth.

     

    Your comments remind me of how Mike Huckabee callously compared people with pre-existing medical conditions to “burnt-down houses.”

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Firefighters have to eat, too, which is the same reason that abortionists don’t go around performing abortions for free. If firefighters put out fires for people who didn’t pay for the service in some way, then no one would pay for the service. And if no one pays for the service, then firefighters wouldn’t get paid, either. And just how many people do you think would work as firefighters for free? Most assuredly not you (though you somehow expect it of others). 

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Instead of blaming the government for not giving the woman money so she can obtain an abortion, why not blame the people who refuse to provide the woman an abortion for free, as they’re the one’s telling said women they’re SOL. If, for example, I were to be raped and impregnated, do you think the local abortion clinic would give me an abortion for free? The fact is that they won’t. They’ll send me away until I can come up with the money to pay for the procedure. Yet you don’t have a problem with that. Why is that?

  • beenthere72

    Have you never heard of Volunteer Firefighters? 

     

    Have you never heard of doctors that perform vital operations out of the goodness of their own heart?   Doctors without Borders and the like?

     

    Do you live in a cave?

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Please notice I didn’t say that no one would work as a firefighter for free. I asked how many people would work as a firefighter for free, which was a rhetorical question because the answer is not nearly as many who are employed as firefighters right now. We both know this, so there’s no need to hinge on this point any more than we already have. On the second point, to provide something to think about, what percentage of abortions done because of rape or incest do you think are done for free? 5%? 10%? 15%? 50%? All of them? And why aren’t they all done for free since, as the rhetoric goes, it’s all about helping women and not telling them that they’re SOL? Or do abortionists get a free pass for refusing to provide abortions for free while the government doesn’t when it refuses to give people money to pay for their own abortions?

  • beenthere72

    I bet there are doctors out there that are willing to do the procedure for free if the situation is dire.   PP gets funding from private sources that allows them to subsidize these services as well.    I know they do everything in their power to help out every woman they can.  But 58 MILLION people are on Medicaid.    We’re not talking about a handfull of women here.

     

  • beenthere72

    Thanks for that link, la plume.   Excellent post there.

  • crowepps

    Actually they’re more likely to call around to see if they can find grant funds that will cover the procedure, and in some cases to dig into their pockets and chip in.  But then, that’s because they’re normal human beings who are sympathetic to the victim of a crime instead of selfish mopes who have only two reflexive responses on every issue: “This better not cost ME any money!” and “why should I care if somebody has problems, it’s probably their own fault.”

     

    Since society has a duty to provide the public with safety and prevent crimes like rape, I think during the procedures to gather evidence the victim should be offered free Plan B to prevent pregnancy, and if a pregnancy still occurs be able to choose to get an abortion paid for by society.  The removed fetus can be used as DNA evidence to identify, catch and convict the perp, and then society can get its money back from his assets.

  • beenthere72

    I bet it’s the same percent of doctors that give away child birth services for free.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Actually they’re more likely to call around to see if they can find grant funds that will cover the procedure, and in some cases to dig into their pockets and chip in.  But then, that’s because they’re normal human beings who are sympathetic to the victim of a crime instead of selfish mopes who have only two reflexive responses on every issue: “This better not cost ME any money!” and “why should I care if somebody has problems, it’s probably their own fault.”

     

    I can’t stand to see people try to extrapolate one situation of which they are aware to be indicative of the entire country as a whole, because it most certainly isn’t. For your information, what you say is completely untrue. One of the major local abortion clinics here wants payments up front, regardless of the reason, and they won’t chip in a dime, nor do you don’t get referred elsewhere. This I know from experience. Of course, I’m sure you’ll have no problem explaining such a thing away.

  • crowepps

    I asked how many people would work as a firefighter for free, which was a rhetorical question because the answer is not nearly as many who are employed as firefighters right now. We both know this,

    And yet actually we both DON’T know this, because one of us is aware of the fact that:

    73 percent of firefighters in the United States are members of Volunteer Fire Fighters

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_fire_department

    The other one of us leapt to an incorrect conclusion based on a lack of knowledge and then used that false belief as an example to prove a point.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Not the same as the Hyde Amendment, which discriminates against poor women and denies them their civil rights!

    Gene Cranick and residents of Obion County, pay taxes to fund public services, i.e.  fire dept. Which would include the fire dept. putting a fire out. Fee for service increases are done as a way around raising taxes for whatever reason. Instituting a “fee for service” is just plain stupid. It’s “a la carte” government. Besides it seams like it would be a waste of administrative time to keep track of additional “fee for service” regulations. (BTW, it was a $75 fee, not $50.)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html

  • nonsense-nonsense

    With a large enough sample size, you can find a doctor willing to do anything. That doesn’t effect the truth of anything I typed out. Walk into an abortion clinic and try to get an abortion for free based on the fact that you were, for example, raped and you’ll most likely be turned away. If women were able to procure abortions for free via the <sarcasm>good-hearted abortionists</sarcasm>, then the entire issue regarding the Hyde Amendment would be moot. At the end of the day, you’re directing your anger at the wrong party. Blame the individuals who put a little thing such as money ahead of ‘helping women’ (the abortionists). That is what you would say about them, correct?

  • crowepps

    I suppose I could explain it away by saying you shouldn’t “extrapolate one situation of which [you] are aware to be indicative of the entire country as a whole”.

  • beenthere72

    Um, you just did the same thing.  You’re taking one situation and applying it to the whole. 

     

    You know a lot of animal shelters euthanize when they claim they’re in the business of saving animals.      They’re not all winners. 

     

    Look at the guy who just got busted in PA.  Not a winner when it comes to abortion.   And not the kind of practice we support.

  • crowepps

    He apparently is entitled to judge the morals of every single woman in the entire country and butt in to make her medical decisions.  How come Henry gets to impose his religious beliefs on all the rest of us?

  • rebellious-grrl

    We all need to earn a fair wage for our work. Duh. It amazes me how the tea party folks, libertarians, and the like, want government to stay out of their lives. But when it comes to reproductive health, that includes abortion, they want the government to be up their with a spy-cam on our uteruses.

  • beenthere72

    If everybody gave everything out for free to people in need of it, then we’d all be in need, wouldn’t we. 

  • crowepps

    anything I typed out

    I think he may be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack –

  • beenthere72

    With his logic, all transplant doctors should be working for free. 

  • nonsense-nonsense

    So knowing this, then explain to me why the Hyde Amendment should be repealed?

  • nonsense-nonsense

    It’s better for the doctor to provide his or her services for free than it is for the government to give money they don’t have to the woman so she can obtain an abortion she otherwise couldn’t afford. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Blame the individuals who put a little thing such as money ahead of ‘helping women’ (the abortionists). That is what you would say about them, correct?

     

    No, it isn’t. But then, what you’re proposing isn’t all that original either.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Women’s clinics (or any medical facility that provide health services) have bills, insurance, rent, employees to pay, in addition to costs of care. When you look at the cost of an unwanted pregnancy compared to the cost of an abortion, it’s much less expensive to have an abortion. No woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. The name of a poster here is “Forced birth is rape.”  She is so right.

    If men could get pregnant this would be an entirely different story.

    Abortion is a legal medical procedure, guaranteed by the constitution. For Medicaid not to pay for this needed medical service is wrong, unjust, and immoral.

  • beenthere72

    Money they don’t have?   You mean money you prefer not be taken from your taxes?    If you’re so worried about your taxes funding abortions, I’m sure there are much larger fish to fry in terms of which procedures most of that money is paying for.     Or you can worry about one more person to pay for after you’ve forced this woman to have her baby.   And if she had health issues – or drug addictions – that resulted in that baby needing serious medical care for the rest of his life, well now you’re paying for that too. 

     

    So really, when it comes down to it, which is the least pain in your wallet after all?    

  • beenthere72

    Nonsense, make sense please.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Same old, same old conversation. The government funds a lot of stuff I don’t like, i.e. war, military industrial complex, military, for starters. Here’s a news flash, the U.S. is going broke from the wars its waged and the over-funding of the military. But of course, it’s so much easier for conservatives to blame it on women.

  • nonsense-nonsense
    I meant exactly what I typed out when I said money we don’t have. Giving people money solely because they want something they otherwise couldn’t afford, when the money isn’t there to be given in the first place, doesn’t make all that much sense. If you want a service, in this case abortion, then you either pay for it or you beg for the individual providing the service to give it to you for free. Otherwise, you forego it.
  • crowepps

    The Hyde amendment should be repealed because it is legislation that segregates reproductive medical care into a ‘morals’ ghetto and imposes adherence to the religious views of a small minority on those who believe differently.

     

    In addition, the Hyde amendment raises the national debt, since providing birth control and abortions is much, MUCH cheaper than supporting the unwanted children that result when they are restricted, especially when you include the costs of  adjudicating the neglect, abuse, juvenile and adult criminal careers and prison sentences of those children during the rest of their lives.

     

    It also has the potential to result in the deaths of women who would not have otherwise died.

  • crowepps

    Certainly, just like we can no longer afford to support people who are disabled or people who are unemployed or people who are old, right?  Since just because they want something they can’t afford, like food, is no reason to give it to them.  And, hey, if we don’t provide food, they’ll GO AWAY and then they won’t be a drain on our tax dollar anymore!  Gotta love those compassionate conservatives.

  • beenthere72

    Grocery stores don’t give out free food.  But there are food banks that can help.   Do you know where your nearest food bank is?     You’re poor and can’t afford a car – and car dealerships don’t give out free cars – so you have to take public transportation to the nearest food bank.    Is that always convenient?  Wait, you got a few dollars for the bus or a cab?    Because they won’t let you on for free.    

     

    I’m pregnant, I’m poor, I don’t want to have a baby but I was raped.  Clinics are short on contributions and can’t afford to offer me a free procedure this month.   The Dr. working in a clinic that helps out the poorer communities is not a millionaire – frankly he doesn’t make a lot of money.   Everything costs money just to keep a business in operation (and you’ve already been told that).   Bill Gates can only donate so much money to PP (well he could donate more, but he’s already such a generous guy, shouldn’t bite the hand…) and there are 99% other services that benefit from that money as well besides abortion. 

     

    Next month an abortion is more expensive because I’ll be farther along.   This forces me to endure a pregnancy that if not kill me, will most likely cost 5x more than that simple abortion procedure would have cost.    And Medicaid has to cover this because baby daddy certainly isn’t around (oh wait – he RAPED me, almost forgot), and I’m poor and out of work.

     

    What do you expect me to do?  Just “forego” life?   Should I just kill myself? 

     

    F.U.  seriously.

     

    Wait, I wrote all that out and then realized:  How the fuck do you ‘forego’ a pregnancy? 

     

     

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    I guess you could start paying for your own roads, bridges, postal service, food safety inspections, etc. too. If you can’t afford it well no public services for you. It’s amazing that if something benefits you it’s ok, but it not, then damn it all to hell.

  • crowepps

    Back in the ‘good old days’ people were nickeled and dimed to death with excise taxes on goods and stamps to get documents processed and fees to travel on the road or stay at the inn and buying licenses to sell a basket of apples or put your hat out and play the violin.  I guess they want to go back to those ‘good old days’.  Of course, public works were rare, the poverty level was through the roof, deaths from starvation were common, getting any help requiring sucking up to some religious figure, and the crime rate was obscene.  But, hey, that’s why them as can afford it want gated communities!

     

    Personally, I blame this on the fact that our schools no longer make kids read Dickens so they can see what things are REALLY like without ‘big government’.   They don’t seem to get that those idyllic 50′s fantasies on TV that they’re yearning for are, 1, fiction, and 2, representative of a time when the economy was great BECAUSE OF the establishment of big government programs.

  • plume-assassine

    The Hyde amendment should be repealed because it is legislation that segregates reproductive medical care into a ‘morals’ ghetto and imposes adherence to the religious views of a small minority on those who believe differently.

     

    In addition, the Hyde amendment raises the national debt…

     

    This is brilliant and exactly right. Essentially, what the Hyde Amendment comes down to is this: Poor and Black and stuck with an unwanted pregnancy? That’s too bad, because you should know that only middle-class – affluent (white) women are allowed to benefit from Roe v. Wade. You are not granted the luxury of deciding when and whether to have children.

    So long as there is a constitutional right to something (in this case safe, legal abortion), then it should be available to everyone, regardless of class or race. It doesn’t matter whether anti-choicers are against that right to begin with (legal abortion) – it’s morally wrong to discriminate who “deserves” and benefits from that right and who does not. And the Hyde Amendment is obviously racist and classist.

  • nonsense-nonsense
    Perhaps all of you pro-choicers should have donated more funds to your local clinic so they could have afforded to perform more free abortions that month? Unfortunately, that suggestion will probably be met with jeers and snide remarks.
    Wait, I wrote all that out and then realized:  How the fuck do you ‘forego’ a pregnancy? 
    I don’t know. Who said anything of the sort?
  • nonsense-nonsense

    We can afford to support the old who have paid into the system and disabled provided they generally cannot work; not so much the unemployed. I’d much rather not end up like California which has 13% of the nation’s population and about half of the nation’s TANF recipients. There’s no point in being a compassionate liberal if your economy goes under because you’re giving money you don’t have to individuals.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    We already do.

  • arekushieru

    You noticed that, too, eh, crowepps?

  • crowepps

    It really does seem to me that some people are only worried about ‘morality’ when the behavior in question is sexual and only want to punish that behavior if it is that of females.  Certainly haven’t heard any outraged calls to lower the national debt by abolishing Medicare payments for treatment of sexually transmitted diseases caught by promiscuous men.

     

    I am in particular offended by the continuing insistence that no Federal funds are available for military wives who want to end pregnancies when the fetus is grossly malformed and nonviable.  There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for insisting those women continue their pregnancies because somebody ELSE’S religion believes the ‘natural’ continuation of what is already a very abnormal pregnancy and obtaining maximum growth of a fetal corpse is more important than the woman’s mental health and the known complications of delivery in anencephaly.

     

    People have an absolute religious freedom right to believe that pregnancy is a unique condition in women’s health care for which modern medical care is inappropriate even in the case of complications.  They have NO right whatsoever to impose that religious belief on other people, EVER.

  • arekushieru

    So, the one who lost his job due to a brain injury and now has reduced mobility and isn’t able to work, anymore, shouldn’t receive funds just because of something that isn’t his fault.  Wow, what compassion you anti-choice conservatives have (NOT).

  • arekushieru

    Really?  What fantasy world do you live in?

  • crowepps

    If the existence of the national debt is intolerable to you, then we can’t afford to provide ANYTHING to anybody who doesn’t earn it.  We just need to cut 44% of everything straight across and let the strong survive.

     

    I don’t see how we can use the debt as a reason not to provide a legal abortion for a rape victim and then turn around and borrow money to hand some guy who claims he has a bad back or is depressed or some lame excuse like that.  If he can spend all day on the computer cutting and pasting posts about he’s ProLife and how Intelligent Design is scientific and how Obamacare is Commie-socialist, he should be able to hold down a job and earn his money.  I mean, like you say –

    There’s no point in being a compassionate liberal if your economy goes under because you’re giving money you don’t have to individuals.

    (Sarcasm)

  • rebellious-grrl

    We already do.

    So you’re saying it’s ok if it’s something that benefits you, but it not if it doesn’t? Wow, that’s shallow.

  • arekushieru

    And not all of us are rich and able to afford to donate money, either. Why do you think we need abortion funds in the first place?  BeCAUSE one of those people may just be like one of us, except they’re pregnant and we’re not.  That’s IT, that’s ALL.   Not an easy solution, after all, eh?

    Uh, it was a rheTORical question. 

  • crowepps

    I think you’ll find there are exceptions, situations where he is willing to borrow the money, like for instance every situation he might be possibly ever be in himself personally – 

  • beenthere72

    You did.

    If you want a service, in this case pre/post-natal care then you either pay for it or you beg for the individual providing the service to give it to you for free. Otherwise, you forego it.

     

    Such a caring individual, you are.  Who do you donate to?

  • arekushieru

    Just like protecting the public from the ‘criminal element’ (via gated communities), wouldn’t be necessary if all the programs had continued to be put in place?

  • crowepps
  • arekushieru

    No, blame the individuals who insist on placing all responsibility on a biological function that someone didn’t choose.  They are the privileged ones who created the problem in the first place, after all.

  • crowepps

    I think he was responding to my post about taxes — not sure, one liners are confusing

  • crowepps

    Now that the pesky ACLU is insisting that the Constitution requires programs to be distributed fairly to EVERYBODY who qualifies, you know, ‘them’, instead of just working like they were supposed to and just benefiting us and ours, a different system is going to have to be instituted!  How about funneling the money through ‘faith based initiatives’ so we can make sure the recipients are ‘worthy’?  And Just Like Us?

    (Sarcasm)

  • nonsense-nonsense

    You do realize you only proved my point, correct? Perhaps you think that a 27% drop in the number of firefighters is ‘close enough’, but there are some of us who happen to think differently.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    There’s nothing shallow about paying for the services you use while simultaneously not wanting to pay for those you don’t. But since you believe otherwise, how about you pay for my phone and internet?

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Why did you ignore how I said we can afford to take care of the retired as they’ve paid into the system, or how I said we can support the disabled provided they truly cannot work, which would exclude someone suffering from depression or suffering from a bad back as they can find some sort of work? Unlike you, I don’t fancy giving people money just because. If you’re going to read what I write and try to mock things I didn’t say nor write out, don’t bother.

    To go back on-topic, this is still a poorly written article. Hyde merely restricts what funds can be directed towards abortion. Women are still free to obtain as many abortions as they please, but it has to be at their expense or at the expense of the one performing the abortion or even st the expense of a generous pro-choicer. Trying to turn this into some over-arching racist agenda is about as absurd as the ‘abortion is genocide on Blacks’ this article disparages.

  • beenthere72

    Why don’t you beg the internet and phone company give it to you for free?   

  • crowepps

    We’re talking about a RANGE of government services which people may need in their lives if they are unlucky and what you’re saying is that you want the RANGE narrowed down until it is limited only to those services you personally might need which would mean anybody whose life is different from yours is out of luck.  That is pretty shallow, because it’s pretty much All About Me and the heck with everybody else.

  • crowepps

    If you’re going to read what I write and try to mock things I didn’t say nor write out, don’t bother.

    Oh, hey, it’s occasionally amusing to read what you “type out” and “write out”, kind of like watching a dog go around and around in circles chasing his – logic.  It won’t be long until your outrage that nobody pays much attention to your theories causes you to get incoherent and abusive again and this ‘handle’ will be banned as well.

  • crowepps

    You said nobody would be a firefighter for free.

    27% of firefighters are professionals working for pay.

    The MAJORITY of firefighters, 73% of them, are volunteers, who do indeed work for free.

    Luckily most people don’t live by the motto “What’s in it for me?”

  • nonsense-nonsense

    I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about, but I can’t say I much of care. As I see you’re not going to respond to the substance of my post, then I can safely say we’re done here. However, I will say that you’re the only one being incoherent, which would explain your inability or even refusal to respond to what I’ve typed.

  • prochoiceferret

    I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about, but I can’t say I much of care.

     

    Yes, we understand if the whole women-have-rights thing isn’t easy for you to grasp.

     

    As I see you’re not going to respond to the substance of my post, then I can safely say we’re done here.

     

    I guess you’ll just have to “type out” your anti-choice dribble someplace else. Jill Stanek’s site might be more to your liking.

     

    However, I will say that you’re the only one being incoherent, which would explain your inability or even refusal to respond to what I’ve typed.

     

    No, it’s much better explained by the fact that your paltry anti-choice typings-out have been parried and debunked 8,547,351 times, and crowepps has better things to do than put in response #8,547,352.