The Hyde Amendment of 1976 (2024)

In 1976, the US Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which banned the useof federal funding to pay for abortions through Medicaid. In 1976,Illinois Congressman Henry J. Hyde proposed the amendment to theDepartments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, AppropriationAct of 1977. In 1980, the US Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae (1980)upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment. Included annuallyin every Congressional appropriation act after the one passed in 1976,amended versions of the Hyde Amendment have restricted federal fundingof abortion services for women participating in Medicaid.

In the 1973case Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., legalizedabortions in the US and established limitations on the ability of astate to interfere with women's rights to obtain abortions. In a sevento two decision, the court ruled that women's rights to seek abortionsare protected by the US Constitution. Roe v. Wade fueled legalcontroversies about women's rights many years after the 1973 decision.After the Supreme Court legalized abortions, political powers opposed toabortions attempted to weaken the court's decision by limiting women'saccess to abortion services.

In 1976, Hyde, a Republican Congressmanfrom the state of Illinois, proposed an amendment to the yearlyappropriation act of US Congress. The amendment, outlined in Section 209of the Department of Labor and Health, Education, and WelfareAppropriation Act of 1977, came to be called the Hyde Amendment. TheHyde Amendment stated that no federal funds granted to states throughMedicaid could be used to pay for abortion services. Medicaid, a jointfederal and state funded program, provided qualifying low-incomeindividuals and families with healthcare benefits. The amendment alsoapplied to recipients of the Indian Health Service, a federal programthat provided health care coverage to American Indians. The HydeAmendment made an exception in coverage of abortions only for cases inwhich the pregnancy threatened the life of the pregnant woman. The HydeAmendment was added to the Congressional appropriation bill, and in 30September 1976 Congress passed the Appropriation Act of 1977, whichincluded Hyde's amendment banning the use of Medicaid to pay forabortion services.

On 30 September 1976, the day the Appropriation Actof 1977 became law, Cora McRae filed a lawsuit against David F. Matthews, the secretary ofthe US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,seeking to invalidate the Hyde Amendment. McRae, a pregnant New YorkMedicaid recipient, filed the lawsuit in the US District Court for theEastern District of New York, located in Brooklyn, New York. PlannedParenthood and a group of sixteen New York Hospitals, collectivelycalled New York City Health and Hospital Corp, joined McRae in the suit. On 22October 1976, the district court judge John F. Dooling Jr. issued apreliminary injunction that required the US Department of Health,Education, and Welfare in Washington, D.C., to halt implementation ofthe Hyde Amendment nationwide until all court challenges to it weredecided. The preliminary injunction restored conditions prior to theHyde Amendment, meaning that federal funding was once again availablefor abortion procedures performed for women who received Medicaid orIndian Health Services.

After Dooling's decision, the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare appealed the case to the US Supreme Courtin Washington, D.C., On 29 June 1977, in the case Califano v. McRae(1977), the US Supreme Court vacated, or canceled, Dooling's injunctionand sent the case back to his court for reevaluation. The Court citedtwo US Supreme Court decisions published earlier that month, Maher v. Roe(1977) and Beal v. Doe (1977), as the reasons the case was to bereevaluated. In Beal v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that states are notrequired to fund nontherapeutic abortions, or any other particularmedical procedure, that were nevertheless permissible by law. Instead, they argued that statesare only required to fund medically necessary abortions and can allocateremaining funds as they see fit. In Maher v. Roe, the Court upheld aConnecticut law that restricted funding of abortions within thefirst-trimester to those that are medically necessary.

After the USSupreme Court sent McRae v. Califano (1980) back to the district court,on 27 July 1977, Dooling issued a temporary restraining order thatprohibited enforcement of the Hyde Amendment. On 8 August 1977, hevacated the order. Over the next couple years he heard arguments fromboth McRae and those that she represented, and from Joseph A. Califano,Jr., the secretary of the US Department of Health, Education andWelfare. On 15 January 1980, Dooling ruled in favor of McRae. In hisopinion in McRae v. Califano, Dooling claimed that the Hyde Amendment,in spite of the decisions in Maher v. Roe and Beal v. Doe, wasunconstitutional, as it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to theUS Constitution. He agreed with McRae who had argued that the HydeAmendment violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to theUS Constitution by purposely discouraging low-income women from seekingtheir constitutional right to an abortion. McRae had also argued thatthe Hyde Amendment violated the Establishment Clause of the FirstAmendment to the US Constitution, which forbids government laws fromfavoring or disfavoring particular religious beliefs over others.Dooling ordered the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare tostop enforcing the Hyde Amendment.

After the decision in McRae v.Califano, Patricia Harris, the secretary of Health and Human Services(formerly the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare), appealed thecase to the US Supreme Court. On 21 April 1980, the US Supreme Courtheard arguments for the case Harris v. McRae. McRae's lawyers usedarguments similar to those used in McRae v. Califano. They argued thatthe Hyde Amendment violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the USConstitution.

On 30 June 1980, in a five to four decision, the USSupreme Court ruled that the Hyde Amendment did not violate the USConstitution by banning the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay forabortion services. The Supreme Court's ruling overturned the districtcourt's initial decision, and the enforcement of the Hyde Amendmentbegan in 1980.

According to Thurgood Marshall, a Supreme Court Justicewho ruled against the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment in Harrisv. McRae, the Hyde Amendment purposely restricted access to abortionservices for low-income women. The Hyde Amendment, according toMarshall, exemplified a direct attempt to weaken the Supreme Courtdecision in Roe v. Wade.

In 1980, the year of the Supreme Court'sruling, Congress passed a revised version of the Hyde Amendment whichincluded exceptions for women seeking abortion services for pregnanciesresulting from incest or rape. The following year, Congress againamended the Hyde Amendment to remove the exception for pregnanciescaused by incest or rape, and that exception was not added again untilthe amended version of the Hyde Amendment passed in 1993. Following theruling in Harris v. McRae, Congress passed similar amendments limitingfederal funding of abortion services for federal government employees,prisoners, and military personal.

As of 2017, Congress had includedrevised versions of the Hyde Amendment each year in the Congressionalappropriation bill. Organizations that advocate for women's reproductiverights, including Planned Parenthood headquartered in Washington, D.C.,and the American Civil Liberties Union in New York City, New York, haveargued that the Hyde Amendment has endangered and harmed low-incomewomen by banning funding needed to practice their constitutional rightsto seek abortions. Planned Parenthood estimated that in 2016, 12.5million women between the ages of nineteen and sixty-four relied onMedicaid coverage. Restriction of abortion access for those women,Planned Parenthood advocates argued, can lead low-income women to seekunsafe and illegal abortion services which pose a great threat to thelives and health of pregnant women.

Proponents of the Hyde Amendmentargued that the Amendment protects federal funding by banning abortionservices. Anti-abortion organizations such as Susan B. Anthony List,headquartered in Washington, D.C., have argued that federal funding,which originates from taxes collected from the public, should not beused to fund services that are unsupported by the entire population.According to Susan B. Anthony List, many consider abortion servicesimmoral. Accordingly, they have argued that funding abortions withfederal money will require some taxpayers to fund a procedure they maybe strongly opposed to.

On 24 January 2017, the US House ofRepresentatives passed a bill titled "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortionand Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017," which wouldeffectively codify the Hyde Amendment into permanent law if laterapproved by the both the US Senate and US President. The House had passed similar bills in years prior, but the US Senate had yet to pass companion bills, preventing the bill from becoming a permanent law. In a White Housepress release issued on 24 January, US President Donald Trump'sadministration stated that it supported the legislation and that thePresident would approve it.