Analyzing the Impact of the Hyde Amendment with July 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
On Point On Point Issue 61 | June 2021 Hyde @ 40: Analyzing the Impact of the Hyde Amendment with July 2020 Addendum Michael J. New, Ph.D. On Point Previous Reports: Susan E. Wills, J.D., L.L.M. 10 Legal Reasons to Reject Roe, On Point 60 Arina Grossu, Overview of U.S. Pro-Life Bills and Provisions Advanced and Laws Enacted from January to May 2021: Pro-Life Banner Year as States Continue to Reject the Radical Abortion Agenda, On Point Series 59 Mary E. Harned, Abortion Cases in the Higher Federal Courts: Clarification Needed After June Medical, On Point Series 58 David C. Reardon, Only a Minority of Abortions Are for Unwanted Pregnancies, New Study, On Point Series 57 Mary E. Harned, The Hyde Amendment is Constitutional and Remains Critically Important, On Point Series 56 Richard M. Doerflinger, M.A., “Assisted Suicide’s Slippery Slope in Action: Washington State May Drop “Safeguards” Against Abuse, On Point Series 55 Richard Doerflinger, M.A., “The Equality Act”: Threatening Life and Equality, On Point Series 54 Mary E. Harned, J.D., Abortion in the Higher Federal Courts, On Point Series 53 Jeanneane Maxon, J.D., Fact of Life: American Cars (and Their Drivers) Still Exhibit Decidedly More Pro-life than Pro-choice Views, On Point Series 52 Hannah Howard, M.S., Medical and Social Risks Associated with Unmitigated Distribution of Mifepristone: A Primer, On Point Series 51 Mary E. Harned, J.D., FDA’s Race to Defend Women from Dangerous Drugs, On Point Series 50 Ingrid Skop, M.D., The “No-Test Medication Abortion” Protocol: Experimenting with Women’s Health, On Point Series 49 Katey Price, J.D., Six States and Their Radical Approaches to Abortion Law, On Point Series 48 Thomas M. Messner, J.D., Will Ohio Down Syndrome Law Split the Circuit Courts, Provoke Supreme Court Review? On Point Series 47 James L. Sherley, M.D., Ph.D., David Prentice, Ph.D., An Ethics Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccine Programs, On Point Series 46. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., PhD., S.T.D., Hydroxychloroquine Use During Pregnancy, On Point Series 45 The full text of this publication can be found at: https://lozierinstitute.org/hyde-40-analyzing-the- impact-of-the-hyde-amendment-with-july-2020-addendum/ Comments and information requests can be directed to: Charlotte Lozier Institute 2800 Shirlington Rd, Suite 1200 Arlington, VA 22206 E-mail: [email protected] Ph. 202-223-8073/www.lozierinstitute.org The views expressed in this paper are attributable to the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Nothing in the content of this paper is intended to support or oppose the progress of any bill before the U.S. Congress. 1 www.LOZIERINSTITUTE.org June 2021 On Point Introduction This paper provides a history of the Hyde Amendment and summarizes the substantial body of academic and policy research which shows that the Hyde Amendment lowers abortion rates. It uses this research to estimate the number of lives saved by the Hyde Amendment since it was first signed into law in 1976. Our estimates indicate that as of July 2020, the Hyde Amendment has saved approximately 2,409,311 lives. Editor’s Note: This paper is a re-print of On Point 12, “Hyde @ 40: Analyzing the Hyde Amendment,” originally published in September 2016 combined with a re-print of the July 2020 addendum to that paper which includes updated calculations of the number of lives saved due to the Hyde Amendment. The original Hyde @ 40 paper begins on page 5. 2 www.LOZIERINSTITUTE.org June 2021 On Point Addendum to Hyde @ 40: Analyzing the Impact of the Hyde Amendment Originally published July 2020 Since the Charlotte Lozier Institute’s analysis of the Hyde Amendment was published in November of 2016, three states have changed how their Medicaid programs cover elective abortions. Maine At various points in the 1970s, Maine funded elective abortions though its Medicaid program. However, it quit funding elective abortions through Medicaid after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Harris v. McRae decision in 1980.[1] As of 2016, the federal Hyde Amendment was saving approximately 352 lives a year in Maine. However, in June of 2019, Maine Governor Janet Mills signed legislation that required that required the state to fund all elective abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. This piece of legislation took effect September 19, 2019.[2] Therefore, I estimate the Hyde Amendment saved approximately 282 lives in Maine in 2019 and no lives in 2020. Illinois After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1980 Harris v. McRae decision, Illinois did not fund elective abortions through its state Medicaid program.[3] In 1994, the Circuit Court of Cook County held that the state’s abortion funding limits violated the state constitution. However, in practice, Illinois still did not fund elective abortions through its state Medicaid program.[4] As of 2016, the federal Hyde Amendment was saving approximately 3,918 lives per year in Illinois. In September of 2017, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner (R) signed HB 40, which mandated taxpayer funding of abortion for low-income women through Medicaid. This law took effect on January 1, 2018.[5] Because of this, the Hyde Amendment did not save any lives in Illinois in 2018, 2019, and 2020. West Virginia During the 1970s, West Virginia began funding elective abortions through its state Medicaid program; [6] the federal Hyde Amendment had no impact on the incidence of abortion in West Virginia. However, on November 6, 2018, West Virginia voters approved Amendment 1 to their state constitution. This amendment specifically prevents taxpayer funding of elective abortions through the state Medicaid program. Since Amendment 1 took effect immediately upon its approval,[7] I estimate that it has saved approximately 835 lives since 2018.[8] 3 www.LOZIERINSTITUTE.org June 2021 On Point Summary Because of these public policy changes that have taken place since November of 2016, the Hyde Amendment is now protecting unborn children in West Virginia. However, it is no longer protecting them in Illinois and Maine. Since the number of women of childbearing age who reside in Illinois and Maine exceeds the number of women of childbearing age who reside in West Virginia, the overall impact of the Hyde Amendment has been slightly diminished. I estimate that the Hyde Amendment saved 63,549 lives in 2016; 63,549 lives in 2017; 59,707 lives in 2018; 60,067 lives in 2019; and 29,713 lives in 2020 (as of July 1). Overall, I now estimate that the Hyde Amendment has saved a total of 2,409,311 lives since 1976. [1] Merz, Jackson, and Klerman. 1995. “A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality, Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994” Women’s Rights Law Reporter 17 (1) 1-61. [2] https://bangordailynews.com/2019/10/30/news/maine-laws-expanding-abortion-access-unlikely-to-fill-federal- funding-gap-providers-say/ [3] Merz, Jackson, and Klerman. 1995. [4] Merz, Jackson, and Klerman. 1995. [5] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-illinois-abortion-timeline-htmlstory.html [6] Merz, Jackson, and Klerman. 1995. [7] https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2018/11/amendment-1-has-passed-what-now/ [8] Specifically, we predict it saved 77 lives in 2018, 507 lives in 2019, and 251 in 2020 (as of July 1). 4 www.LOZIERINSTITUTE.org June 2021 On Point Hyde @ 40: Analyzing the Impact of the Hyde Amendment Originally published September 2016 Executive Summary • Over 20 studies in a variety of peer-reviewed academic journals demonstrate the Hyde Amendment and other laws to limit public funding of abortion reduce abortion rates and protect unborn children. • Multiple studies show that when the Hyde Amendment took effect, the birthrate among women on Medicaid increased by an average of about 13 percent. That means in U.S. states that do not fund abortion through Medicaid, one in every nine people born to a mother on Medicaid owes his or her life to the Hyde Amendment. • Since 1976, the best research indicates that the Hyde Amendment has saved over two million unborn children. *The author would like to thank Charlotte Lozier Institute intern Sally Fowler for her excellent work as a research assistant this summer. 5 www.LOZIERINSTITUTE.org June 2021 On Point Introduction Congress enacted the first Hyde Amendment on September 30, 1976. It was named after its sponsor Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL) and was a rider to the annual HHS Labor appropriations bill. The Hyde Amendment has been passed every year since 1976 and has largely prevented federal Medicaid dollars from paying for abortions. The Hyde Amendment has played an important role in the history of the national debate on abortion. Its passage was one of the pro- life movement’s first major legislative victories. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s Harris v. McRae decision in 1980, which upheld the Hyde Amendment, was one of the pro-life movement’s first judicial victories Scholars and analysts from a range of ideological perspectives agree that the Hyde Amendment has had a significant impact on the incidence of abortion in the United States. As such, now is an apt time to look back on the amendment’s history and analyze its impact during the past 40 years. History of the Hyde Amendment As abortion became legal in several states in the late 1960s and early 1970s, policymakers started to grapple with questions about whether and to what extent abortions should be subsidized for low-income women. Evidence indicates that Medicaid reimbursed for eligible women who obtained abortion under those states’ laws. That is, Medicaid originally treated abortion the same as any other medical procedure (Merz, Jackson, and Klerman 1995).