Henry Hyde


I spent a long time thinking about this blog – but I just couldn’t come up with a way to say something about Hyde who was truthfully a man I didn’t know much about. It’s not safe to have anti-choice individuals in our government. Our constitution gives us the right to choice – we shouldn’t have people trying to take that away.

Henry Hyde died yesterday. I’m not going to say I miss the man. Like I said, I couldn’t come up with anything to say. I knew who Henry Hyde was in a vague way; he was somebody in government, he was anti-choice, he really didn’t like Bill Clinton. But reading all of what I did today really let me see how detrimental to choice, and women in general, this man was.

Everyone has fans, and man, did Hyde have fans.

“The pro-family movement lost one of its most passionate defenders of human life,” said James Dobson, head of the activist group Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. “It is impossible to calculate how many millions of babies were spared because of his courageous work.”

He also happened to have a lot of opponents.

Hyde was one of the biggest opponents of late term abortions, but one has to wonder; how many late term abortions did he cause  with his “Hyde Amendment.”

But, overall, a lot of people just didn’t know who Hyde was and what he really stood for.  In talking to my friends today, I’d mention that Henry Hyde had died, and of the quarter that even knew who he was, none of them seemed to know what he’d stood for.  If you check out his wikipedia entry, there’s nearly no mention of what the ramifications of his ideas on abortion were.  For any of you out there, far more educated in this topic than I, please, edit judiciously.

And, required reading for all of you.  The Salon article on Hyde.

Below is an article from the Feminist Law Professors Blog, who are so much more eloquent than I ever can hope to be.

(Dis)honoring Henry Hyde

On November 5, President Bush will present the Presidential Medal of Freedom to, among others, Henry Hyde. (Hat tip to Prawfsblawg.) The official press release proclaims that Hyde “has served America with distinction” and has been a “powerful defender of life.”

In light of this award, I think it’s useful to recall the tremendous amount of harm Henry Hyde has inflicted on poor women over the past thirty years. In reproductive rights circles, Hyde’s name is synonymous with the provision of federal law that prohibits Medicaid from paying for abortions in all but the most extreme and rare circumstances. The provision has been in existence for thirty years now, which means for thirty years, Henry Hyde (and the rest of Congress that has gone along with him and/or taken up his cause since his retirement) has forced poor women to delay abortions, to use money for other necessities like food or shelter to pay for abortions, or to carry to term and have unwanted children.

The always useful Guttmacher Institute has a good article that reviews the history and impact of the Hyde Amendment. Some lowlights:

The current version of the Hyde Amendment, established in 1997, allows federal funding for abortion in cases of rape and incest, as well as life endangerment, but tightens the life exception to permit payment only when the woman’s life is threatened by “physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

At the state level, 17 states currently have a policy to use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions sought by Medicaid recipients.

[O]ver the years, Congress has enacted legislation essentially banning abortion funding for other large groups of Americans dependent on the federal government for their health care or health insurance, ranging from federal employees and military personnel to women in federal prisons and low-income residents of the District of Columbia.

Poor women take up to three weeks longer than other women to obtain an abortion. Little wonder that, according to a 2004 Guttmacher study published in Contraception, 67% of poor women having an abortion say they would have preferred to have had the abortion earlier [when abortions are safer and less costly].

[P]oor women who are able to raise the money needed for an abortion often do so at great sacrifice to themselves and their families. Studies indicate that many such women are forced to divert money meant for rent, utility bills, food or clothing for themselves and their children.

Studies published over the course of two decades looking at a number of states concluded that 18–35% of women who would have had an abortion continued their pregnancies after Medicaid funding was cut off.

In short, the amount of pain and misery Henry Hyde has inflicted on this nation’s women is immeasurably large.

- David S. Cohen




2 Responses to “Henry Hyde”

Leave a Reply

Comment guidelines: No spamming, no profanity, and no flaming. Inappropriate comments will be deleted outright.


- site5 - web7