H.R.719 - No Abortion Coverage for Medicaid Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.719, the "No Abortion Coverage for Medicaid Act," seeks to amend Title XI of the Social Security Act to restrict demonstration projects related to abortion under Medicaid and CHIP. The bill aims to prevent federal financial assistance for abortion services, including travel and lodging expenses, except in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening physical conditions. It reinforces the principles of the Hyde Amendment by ensuring that taxpayer funds are not used for elective abortions.
The bill specifically targets Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, which allows for experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects. The proposed amendment would prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from approving projects that provide federal funding for abortions. This limitation is intended to ensure that federal dollars are not used to expand access to abortion services through Medicaid and CHIP.
The bill cites the Hyde Amendment as a foundational principle, emphasizing that it has historically prevented taxpayer funds from being used for abortions. It also references a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services inviting states to use Medicaid funding to expand access to elective abortions, which this bill seeks to counteract.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of H.R.719 would be to limit access to abortion services for low-income individuals who rely on Medicaid and CHIP. States would be restricted from using federal funds for demonstration projects that include abortion coverage, potentially reducing the availability of abortion services in certain states.
This could lead to increased financial burdens on individuals seeking abortions, as they may need to cover the full cost of the procedure and related expenses. It may also result in more women carrying unwanted pregnancies to term, with potential implications for their health, economic well-being, and overall life outcomes.
Furthermore, the bill could impact the relationship between the federal government and the states regarding healthcare funding and policy. It could create tension between states that support abortion access and the federal government's efforts to restrict funding for such services.
Potential Benefits
- Reinforces the Hyde Amendment's principle of preventing taxpayer funding for elective abortions.
- Potentially reduces the number of abortions performed, aligning with the views of those who oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds.
- May lead to increased funding for other healthcare services for low-income individuals, as resources are not allocated to abortion services.
- Could encourage greater personal responsibility and decision-making regarding reproductive health.
- May foster a more consistent application of federal funding restrictions across different states and programs.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Restricts access to abortion services for low-income individuals, particularly those relying on Medicaid and CHIP.
- May disproportionately affect women of color and other marginalized communities who already face barriers to healthcare access.
- Could lead to increased unintended pregnancies and births, with potential negative consequences for maternal and child health.
- May limit states' flexibility in designing healthcare programs that meet the specific needs of their populations.
- Could create legal challenges and uncertainty regarding the scope of federal funding restrictions on abortion services.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex and subject to differing interpretations. Supporters argue it aligns with the principle that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the authority to regulate abortion to the states.
Opponents argue that the bill may infringe upon individual liberties and equal protection under the law, potentially violating the Fifth Amendment's due process clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. They contend that restricting access to abortion disproportionately affects low-income individuals and women of color, creating an unequal burden.
Furthermore, the bill's impact on states' rights to manage their healthcare programs raises federalism concerns, potentially conflicting with the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).