NRL News

The importance of continuing to focus on life-saving Hyde Amendment and Clinton’s pledge to eliminate it

by | Oct 3, 2016

By Dave Andrusko

hydeamendgraphic3reThere is always a temptation to pass less attention to even the most important events once a significant anniversary comes and goes. But that will not be the case with NRL News Today’s extensive coverage of the 40th anniversary of the life-saving Hyde Amendment which took place September 30.

Our continued emphasis will be ongoing for any number of reasons. Here are three.

#1. There are numerous fault lines that separate pro-life Donald Trump and pro-abortion Hillary Clinton on the issue of abortion. Those include nominees to the Supreme Court; the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act; defunding Planned Parenthood, so long as they perform abortion; and, of course, the Hyde Amendment.

Trump is on the right side of all them, Clinton the wrong side. But with respect to the Hyde Amendment in particular, Clinton has vowed to initiate an all-out offensive to terminate, so to speak, this provision which is attached to the annual appropriations bill that covers many federal health programs (including Medicaid), while Trump has pledge to “make the Hyde Amendment permanent law to protect taxpayers from having to pay for abortions.”

The Hyde Amendment is a bulwark against you and I once again paying for at least 300,000 abortions each year. If your goal is to maximize the number of dead babies–which is Clinton’s objective–it is imperative that the Hyde Amendment be eliminated.

#2. Near the top of the agenda of the Abortion Industry and its legion of media supporters and Democrat politicians is, odd as it sounds, the elimination of choice. That is, your choice, my choice, not to have our pockets picked to underwrite the mass slaughter of unborn children. (This also applies to obliterating the right of conscience for medical personnel, but that is another topic.)

Imagine how it must grate them: two million people alive today who otherwise would have been aborted, if only the Hyde Amendment not been in effect. In his extremely helpful paper, “Hyde@40: Analyzing the Impact of the Hyde Amendment,” Prof. Michael New offers this comparison:

This is roughly equal to the entire population of Houston, the fourth largest city in America. It is also roughly equal to the population of the entire state of New Mexico, and to the combined populations of the states of Rhode Island and Delaware.

#3. In the executive summary of that same paper, we learn

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.

Pro-abortionists fought passage of the Hyde Amendment tooth and nail. Once it did pass, they litigated and litigated and litigated again. They lost the battle at the Supreme Court June 30, 1980 (Harris v. McRae), but it was not final, final until September 19, 1980, when the Supreme Court declined to rehear Harris v. McRae.


My point is simple. By a single vote the Supreme Court agreed Congress could distinguish between abortion and “other medical procedures” because “no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.”

Under either a President Clinton or a President Trump the composition of the Supreme Court will likely change dramatically. With one to three more Clinton appointments to the Supreme Court, the Hyde Amendment could be in serious jeopardy.

Categories: Abortion Funding