Hyde and Seek: Searching for Solutions to The Hyde Amendment’s Financial Barriers to Abortion

Lauren Hutnik, Ashley Zimmermann, Lauren Naliboff, K. Brandi
{"title":"Hyde and Seek: Searching for Solutions to The Hyde Amendment’s Financial Barriers to Abortion","authors":"Lauren Hutnik, Ashley Zimmermann, Lauren Naliboff, K. Brandi","doi":"10.38126/jspg210105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Hyde Amendment (Hyde) hinders abortion access to people who can become pregnant (we will refer to this cohort henceforth as “women” and recognize that not all people who can become pregnant identify as such) whose health insurance is funded by the federal government. In the forty-five years since its inception, the Hyde Amendment has disproportionately affected marginalized women. The conservative movement has augmented disparities in healthcare by passing incremental laws to restrict abortion access, including but not limited to, gestational age and specific procedure limitations, waiting periods, parental consent, and Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws. With Roe V. Wade overturned with the Dobbs V. Jackson ruling (Dobbs), access to abortion is more restricted than it has been in the past 50 years. Eight states have completely banned abortion and many other states offer very limited exceptions to the ban. Now, more than ever, it is essential that funding is not a barrier to care in the states that continue to protect abortion rights. Our first recommendation calls for states to be held accountable to the minimal federal requirements set forth by Hyde and create a confidential forum for women to report informal barriers to care. Furthermore, we endorse the passing of the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act (EACH Act), which would permanently end the renewal of Hyde. Our final recommendation calls on the government to create legislation that permanently institutes national mandatory guidelines for emergency obstetric care. These steps could counteract the increasingly restrictive encroachment on abortion rights.","PeriodicalId":222224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg210105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Hyde Amendment (Hyde) hinders abortion access to people who can become pregnant (we will refer to this cohort henceforth as “women” and recognize that not all people who can become pregnant identify as such) whose health insurance is funded by the federal government. In the forty-five years since its inception, the Hyde Amendment has disproportionately affected marginalized women. The conservative movement has augmented disparities in healthcare by passing incremental laws to restrict abortion access, including but not limited to, gestational age and specific procedure limitations, waiting periods, parental consent, and Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws. With Roe V. Wade overturned with the Dobbs V. Jackson ruling (Dobbs), access to abortion is more restricted than it has been in the past 50 years. Eight states have completely banned abortion and many other states offer very limited exceptions to the ban. Now, more than ever, it is essential that funding is not a barrier to care in the states that continue to protect abortion rights. Our first recommendation calls for states to be held accountable to the minimal federal requirements set forth by Hyde and create a confidential forum for women to report informal barriers to care. Furthermore, we endorse the passing of the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act (EACH Act), which would permanently end the renewal of Hyde. Our final recommendation calls on the government to create legislation that permanently institutes national mandatory guidelines for emergency obstetric care. These steps could counteract the increasingly restrictive encroachment on abortion rights.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
海德和寻求:寻找解决海德修正案对堕胎的财政障碍
《海德修正案》(Hyde Amendment)禁止那些健康保险由联邦政府资助的可以怀孕的人(我们今后将这一群体称为“妇女”,并认识到并非所有可以怀孕的人都认为自己是“妇女”)堕胎。自《海德修正案》生效以来的45年里,它对边缘化妇女的影响格外大。保守运动扩大了医疗保健方面的差距,通过了限制堕胎的渐进式法律,包括但不限于胎龄和特定程序限制、等待期、父母同意和堕胎提供者的针对性监管(TRAP)法律。随着罗伊诉韦德案和多布斯诉杰克逊案的裁决被推翻,堕胎比过去50年受到了更多的限制。八个州完全禁止堕胎,许多其他州对禁令提供非常有限的例外。现在比以往任何时候都更重要的是,资金不能成为各州继续保护堕胎权利的障碍。我们的第一个建议是要求各州对海德提出的最低限度的联邦要求负责,并创建一个保密论坛,让妇女报告获得护理的非正式障碍。此外,我们支持通过《健康保险法中堕胎平等权利法案》(EACH法案),该法案将永久终止“海德法案”的续期。我们最后的建议是要求政府制定立法,永久性地制定国家强制性产科急诊指导方针。这些措施可以抵消对堕胎权利日益严格的侵犯。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cover Memo: Volume 23, Issue 2, Special Issue on Civic Science for Transformative Policy Solutions to Societal Challenges Left out of the Room Where it Happens: Barriers to Serving in Senior Congressional Staff Roles May Limit “Representative” Science Policymaking Community-Driven Civic Science: Relationship Building to Prioritize Public Needs Rethinking Civic Science Funding to Better Support Community Engagement From Intent to Impact: Enabling Transdisciplinary Research for Responsible Scientific Stewardship
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1