While campaigning for president, Donald Trump made a series of commitments to pro-lifers in September that included "defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions. Planned Parenthood is barred by law from using federal funds-largely in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for services-to cover elective abortions.
However, pro-life critics of the organization claim that federal dollars still allow the abortion provider to free up other resources for abortions. Federal funding of Planned Parenthood affiliates increased from the fiscal year to the fiscal year, and has gone up overall since FY The Trump administration has the authority to strip some federal funding from abortion providers, Israel told CNA, and has already done so through changes to the Title X family planning program.
In , the Trump administration effectively boxed out Planned Parenthood from Title X funding by updating the requirements for recipients. Under the new rule, recipients of Title X grants must not be co-located with abortion clinics and cannot refer for abortions-requirements that Planned Parenthood clinics refused to abide by.
Rather than comply with the regulations, Planned Parenthood withdrew from the program in August of Since that act occurred after the end of the fiscal year, the forfeited revenue would not necessarily be reflected in the numbers in its latest annual report.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, for his part, has said he would reinstate the Obama administration's Title X policy, allowing clinics who refer for abortions to once again receive Title X grants. To limit federal funding of Planned Parenthood, the government can approve waivers for states to effectively block abortion providers from Medicaid funding, Israel said. The Trump administration has allowed states to refuse Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood, reversing a Obama administration rule that said states could not do so simply on the basis of a recipient being an abortion provider.
But Israel said that in her view, Congress also needs to use its authority to strip federal funding from abortions in other areas through a broad ban on abortion funding-something it has not done yet. Federal funding of elective abortions through Medicaid reimbursements is prohibited by the Hyde Amendment, a policy enacted into law regularly since as an attachment to annual appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services.
The amendment is not permanent law, and Democrats have signaled their intent to reverse the policy- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently promised to not include Hyde protections in spending bills next year. Some Congressmen have attempted to make Hyde protections more durable. Legislation authored by Rep. Chris Smith R-N. It would also forbid abortions at federal facilities, and block federally-subsidized health plans under the Affordable Care Act from covering abortions.
Members of Congress have also tried passing laws to fully defund Planned Parenthood. The House in barred Medicaid reimbursements at Planned Parenthood clinics in its major health care bill, but the legislation died in the Senate. The Senate in failed to pass an amendment by Sen.
Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services. Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs.
The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.
These women are eligible, however, to receive all other pregnancy-related services. See Hope v. Perales , N. See Alaska v. Planned Parenthood , 28 P. Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Rights v. Myers , P. Maher , A. Wright , No. Clinic for Women, Inc. Sec'y of Admin. Gomez , N. Ellery , No. BDV Mont. May 22, ; Right to Choose v.
Byrne , A. Johnson , P. Dep't of Human Resources , P. Celani , No. SCnC Vt. May 26, ; Women's Health Ctr. Panepinto , S. In seven of these states, the bans have been challenged, but the courts have refused to order nondiscriminatory funding for abortions.
See Renee B. Florida Agency for Health Care Admin. Kurtz , No. June 12, ; Doe v. Childers , No. Dep't of Soc. Dep't of Pub. Welfare , A. Low-Income Women of Texas, Inc. In Indiana, a court rejected the claim that the state was required to cover abortions on the same terms as other pregnancy-related care, but did require that the state cover abortions for Medicaid-eligible women "whose pregnancies create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
See A Choice for Women, Inc.
0コメント