This paper provides a history of the Hyde Amendment and summarizes the substantial body of academic and policy research which shows that the Hyde Amendment lowers abortion rates. It uses this research to estimate the number of lives saved by the Hyde Amendment since it was first signed into law in 1976.
Our estimates indicate that as of May 31, 2023, the Hyde Amendment has saved approximately 2,566,968 lives.
Editor’s Note: (June 2023): This paper combines a re-print of the original On Point 12, “Hyde @ 40: Analyzing the Impact of the Hyde Amendment,” originally published in September 2016, with two addenda containing updated calculations, the most recent of which is from June 2023.
Addendum (June 2023)
The Charlotte Lozier Institute first calculated the number of lives saved by the Hyde Amendment in an On Point article that was published to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment in September 2016. These calculations of the number of lives saved were revised in a July 2020 addendum. This addendum updates these calculations as of May 31, 2023.
Since 2020, there have been numerous abortion policy changes that have impacted the number of lives saved by the Hyde Amendment. In May 2023, Rhode Island started covering elective abortions through its state Medicaid program. Additionally, a number of states have enacted gestational age limits since that time. In September 2021, the Texas Heartbeat Act took effect which protected preborn children after their heartbeats could be detected. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs decision made it possible for states to enact a variety of limits on abortion – including laws that would protect all preborn children.
This addendum explains the methodology used to calculate how these various abortion policy changes since 2020 have impacted the number of lives saved by the Hyde Amendment. The federal Hyde Amendment ceases to have an effect when states use their own tax dollars to cover abortion through their Medicaid program. That is because, in these states, the Hyde Amendment is no longer preventing taxpayer funding of abortion.
Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!
Similarly, abortion limits reduce the impact of the Hyde Amendment. These laws clearly decrease the number of abortions that take place within state boundaries. When an abortion is prevented, it is the abortion limit, not the Hyde Amendment, that has protected the preborn child. Also, if a woman circumvents an abortion limit by obtaining an abortion in another state where the laws are more permissive, the Hyde Amendment is not having an effect since state Medicaid programs generally do not pay for out-of-state procedures.
Medicaid Funding of Abortion
On May 18, 2023, Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee signed the “Equality in Abortion Coverage Act.” This act took effect immediately and required Rhode Island’s state Medicaid program to start covering elective abortions. Therefore, the Hyde Amendment is estimated to have saved 124 lives in Rhode Island before May 18th and no lives on or after May 18, 2023.
Heartbeat Acts
Since September 2021, four states, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Ohio, have had a Heartbeat Act in effect at various points in time. These laws protect preborn children after their heartbeats can be detected which is usually around six weeks’ gestation. My November 2022 Lozier Institute analysis of the Texas Heartbeat Act found that it reduced the number of in-state abortions in Texas by 45.6 percent. As such, in states with heartbeat acts, the Hyde Amendment is saving 45.6 percent fewer lives or is only operating at 54.4 percent power, since it is the heartbeat acts that would be preventing abortions in those states. Details about the enforcement dates of various heartbeat acts can be found in Appendix A.
Abortion Limits
Since the Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs decision, it is now possible for states to enact laws that protect all preborn children. Since June 2022, 16 states have had such abortion limits in effect at various points in time. In states that are protecting all preborn children, the Hyde Amendment is not saving any lives. That is because it is the abortion limit, and not the Hyde Amendment, that is preventing abortions in that state. Details about the enforcement dates of various abortion limits can be found in Appendix A.
Gestational Age Limits
Since the Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs decision, three state laws have taken effect protecting preborn children after a certain gestational age. Specifically, Arizona and Florida have had 15-week gestational age limits in effect. Also, Nebraska has a 12-week gestational age limit in effect. To calculate the impact of the Hyde Amendment, we only consider the fraction of in-state abortions that occur within the gestational age limit. Women seeking abortions after the gestational age limit would be prevented by the abortion limit, not the Hyde Amendment. Details about the enforcement dates of various gestational age limits can be found in Appendix A.
Summary
Since 2021, many state abortion limits have taken effect. At various points in time, 16 states have protected all preborn children, four states have enacted heartbeat acts, and three other states have had other gestational age limits in effect. These laws have reduced the impact of the Hyde Amendment because in these states, it is these laws and not the Hyde Amendment that is protecting preborn children. Overall, according to these calculations, the Hyde Amendment has been estimated to have saved 2,444,181 lives between 1976 and 2020; 60,588 lives in 2021; 47,069 lives in 2022, and 15,130 lives in 2023 (as of May 31). Overall, it is now estimated that the Hyde Amendment has saved a total of 2,566,968 lives since 1976. These figures do not, of course, include any lives saved in subsequent generations due to the impact of the Hyde Amendment on the first generation.
Appendix A: Enforcement Dates for Various State-Level Abortion Policy Changes After 2020-2021 Estimates
2021 Estimates
Texas started enforcing its Heartbeat Act on September 1, 2021.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 243 days (66.6% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 54.4% power for 122 days (33.4% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 84.8% power the whole year.
2022 Estimates
Other Gestational Age Limits
Arizona started enforcing a 15-week law on December 30, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 363 days (99.5% of the year).
- Prior to the law, 8.2% of Arizona abortions occurred after 15 weeks. Thus, after the law went into effect, the Hyde Amendment was at 91.8% power for 2 days (0.5% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power the whole year (rounding up from 99.96%).
Florida started enforcing a 15-week law on July 1, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 181 days (49.6% of the year).
- Prior to the law, 4.8% of Florida abortions occurred after 13 weeks postfertilization (approximately 15 weeks gestation). Thus, after the law went into effect, the Hyde Amendment was at 95.2% power for 184 days (50.4% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 97.6% power the whole year.
Heartbeat Acts
Georgia started enforcing a Heartbeat Act on July 20, 2022. It was blocked from November 16 – November 23, 2022. It took effect again on November 24, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 208 days (57.0% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 54.4% power for 157 days (43.0% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 80.3% power the whole year.
Ohio enforced a Heartbeat Act from June 24, 2022 to September 14, 2022 at which point it was enjoined.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 282 days (77.3% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 54.4% power for 83 days (22.7% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 89.6% power for the whole year.
South Carolina enforced a Heartbeat Act from June 27, 2022 to August 17, 2022 at which point it was blocked.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 313 days (85.8 percent of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 54.4% power for 52 days (14.2 percent of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 93.5% power for the whole year.
Abortion Limits
Alabama started enforcing an abortion limit on June 24, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 174 days (47.7% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 191 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 47.7% power the whole year.
Arkansas started enforcing an abortion limit on June 24, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 174 days (47.7% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 191 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 47.7% power the whole year.
Idaho started enforcing an abortion limit on August 25, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 236 days (64.7% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 129 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 64.7% power the whole year.
Indiana enforced an abortion limit between September 15, 2022 and September 22, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 357 days (97.8% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 8 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 97.8% power the whole year.
Kentucky started enforcing an abortion limit on June 24, 2022. It was blocked on June 30. It went back into effect on August 1, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 205 days (56.2% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 160 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 56.2% power the whole year.
Louisiana enforced an abortion limit from June 24, 2022 to June 27, 2022 (4 days), then from July 8, 2022 to July 12, 2022 (5 days), and then again from July 29, 2022 onwards (156 days).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 200 days (54.8% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 165 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 54.8% power the whole year.
Mississippi started enforcing an abortion limit on July 7, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 187 days (51.2% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 178 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 51.2% power the whole year.
Missouri started enforcing an abortion limit on June 24, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 174 days (47.7% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 191 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 47.7% power the whole year.
Oklahoma started enforcing a heartbeat law on May 3, 2022. However, abortion centers ceased performing abortions in response to the law, giving it the impact of a full limit. Oklahoma began enforcing a total limit on May 25, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 122 days (33.4% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 243 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 33.4% power the whole year.
South Dakota started enforcing an abortion limit on June 24, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 174 days (47.7% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 191 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 47.7% power the whole year.
Tennessee started enforcing an abortion limit on August 25, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 236 days (64.7% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 129 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 64.7% power the whole year.
Texas enforced an abortion limit from June 24, 2022 to June 28, 2022 (5 days), then again on July 1, 2022 and afterwards (184 days).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 54.4% power for 176 days (Heartbeat Act) (48.2% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 189 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 26.2% power the whole year.
West Virginia started enforcing a pre-Roe abortion limit from June 24, 2022 to July 18, 2022 at which point it was blocked. West Virginia then started enforcing a different abortion limit on September 16, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 233 days (63.8% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 132 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 63.8% power the whole year.
Wisconsin started enforcing an abortion limit on June 24, 2022.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 174 days (47.7% of the year).
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 191 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 47.7% power the whole year.
2023 Estimates (Until May 31, 2023)
As of May 31, there were 151 days in 2023. These calculations cover the Hyde Amendment’s impact for 41.4% (151/365 days) of the year.
Medicaid Funding of Elective Abortion
Rhode Island’s Medicaid program started funding elective abortions as of May 18, 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 137 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 14 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 90.7% total power from January 1 to May 31, 2023.
Other Gestational Limits
Arizona enforced a 15-week law throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was in force for 151 days.
- Prior to the law, 8.2% of Arizona abortions occurred after 15 weeks. Thus, after the law went into effect, the Hyde Amendment was at 91.8% power.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 91.8% power for 151 days.
Florida enforced a 15-week law throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was in force for 151 days.
- Prior to the law, 4.8% of Florida abortions occurred after 13 weeks postfertilization (approximately 15 weeks gestation). Thus, after the law went into effect, the Hyde Amendment was at 95.2% power.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 95.2% power for 151 days.
Nebraska started enforcing a 12-week law on May 22, 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 141 days (38.6% of the year).
- Prior to the law, 13.1% of Nebraska abortions occurred after 12 weeks. Thus, after the law went into effect, the Hyde Amendment was at 86.9% power for 10 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 99.1% total power for 151 days.
Heartbeat Acts
Georgia has enforced a Heartbeat Act throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 54.4% power for 151 days.
Abortion Limits
Alabama has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Arkansas has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Idaho has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Kentucky has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Louisiana has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Mississippi has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Missouri has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
North Dakota has enforced an abortion limit starting on April 24, 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 38 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 113 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 74.8% total power from January 1 to May 31, 2023.
Oklahoma has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
South Dakota has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Tennessee has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Texas has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
West Virginia has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Wisconsin has enforced an abortion limit throughout 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 0% power for 151 days.
Wyoming enforced an abortion limit from March 19 to March 22, 2023.
- The Hyde Amendment was 0% power for 4 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 100% power for 147 days.
- The Hyde Amendment was at 97.4% total power from January 1 to May 31, 2023.
Addendum (July 2020)
Since the Charlotte Lozier Institute’s analysis of the Hyde Amendment was published in November of 2016, three states have changed how their Medicaid programs cover elective abortions.
Maine
At various points in the 1970s, Maine funded elective abortions though its Medicaid program. However, it quit funding elective abortions through Medicaid after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Harris v. McRae decision in 1980.[1] As of 2016, the federal Hyde Amendment was saving approximately 352 lives a year in Maine. However, in June of 2019, Maine Governor Janet Mills signed legislation that required that required the state to fund all elective abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. This piece of legislation took effect September 19, 2019.[2] Therefore, I estimate the Hyde Amendment saved approximately 282 lives in Maine in 2019 and no lives in 2020.
Illinois
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1980 Harris v. McRae decision, Illinois did not fund elective abortions through its state Medicaid program.[3] In 1994, the Circuit Court of Cook County held that the state’s abortion funding limits violated the state constitution. However, in practice, Illinois still did not fund elective abortions through its state Medicaid program.[4] As of 2016, the federal Hyde Amendment was saving approximately 3,918 lives per year in Illinois. In September of 2017, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner (R) signed HB 40, which mandated taxpayer funding of abortion for low-income women through Medicaid. This law took effect on January 1, 2018.[5] Because of this, the Hyde Amendment did not save any lives in Illinois in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
West Virginia
During the 1970s, West Virginia began funding elective abortions through its state Medicaid program; [6] the federal Hyde Amendment had no impact on the incidence of abortion in West Virginia. However, on November 6, 2018, West Virginia voters approved Amendment 1 to their state constitution. This amendment specifically prevents taxpayer funding of elective abortions through the state Medicaid program. Since Amendment 1 took effect immediately upon its approval,[7] I estimate that it has saved approximately 835 lives since 2018.[8]
Summary
Because of these public policy changes that have taken place since November of 2016, the Hyde Amendment is now protecting unborn children in West Virginia. However, it is no longer protecting them in Illinois and Maine. Since the number of women of childbearing age who reside in Illinois and Maine exceeds the number of women of childbearing age who reside in West Virginia, the overall impact of the Hyde Amendment has been slightly diminished. I estimate that the Hyde Amendment saved 63,549 lives in 2016; 63,549 lives in 2017; 59,707 lives in 2018; 60,067 lives in 2019; and 29,713 lives in 2020 (as of July 1). Overall, I now estimate that the Hyde Amendment has saved a total of 2,409,311 lives since 1976.
[1] Merz, Jackson, and Klerman. 1995. “A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality, Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994” Women’s Rights Law Reporter 17 (1) 1-61.
[2] https://bangordailynews.com/2019/10/30/news/maine-laws-expanding-abortion-access-unlikely-to-fill-federal-funding-gap-providers-say/
[3] Merz, Jackson, and Klerman. 1995.
[4] Merz, Jackson, and Klerman. 1995.
[5] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-illinois-abortion-timeline-htmlstory.html
[6] Merz, Jackson, and Klerman. 1995.
[7] https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2018/11/amendment-1-has-passed-what-now/
[8] Specifically, we predict it saved 77 lives in 2018, 507 lives in 2019, and 251 in 2020 (as of July 1).
Hyde @ 40: Analyzing the Impact of the Hyde Amendment
Originally published September 2016
Executive Summary
- Over 20 studies in a variety of peer-reviewed academic journals demonstrate the Hyde Amendment and other laws to limit public funding of abortion reduce abortion rates and protect unborn children.
- Multiple studies show that when the Hyde Amendment took effect, the birthrate among women on Medicaid increased by an average of about 13 percent. That means in U.S. states that do not fund abortion through Medicaid, one in every nine people born to a mother on Medicaid owes his or her life to the Hyde Amendment.
- Since 1976, the best research indicates that the Hyde Amendment has saved over two million unborn children.
*The author would like to thank Charlotte Lozier Institute intern Sally Fowler for her excellent work as a research assistant this summer.
Introduction
Congress enacted the first Hyde Amendment on September 30, 1976. It was named after its sponsor Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL) and was a rider to the annual HHS Labor appropriations bill. The Hyde Amendment has been passed every year since 1976 and has largely prevented federal Medicaid dollars from paying for abortions. The Hyde Amendment has played an important role in the history of the national debate on abortion. 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. As such, now is an apt time to look back on the amendment’s history and analyze its impact during the past 40 years.
History of the Hyde Amendment
As abortion became legal in several states in the late 1960s and early 1970s, policymakers started to grapple with questions about whether and to what extent abortions should be subsidized for low-income women. Evidence indicates that Medicaid reimbursed for eligible women who obtained abortion under those states’ laws. That is, Medicaid originally treated abortion the same as any other medical procedure (Merz, Jackson, and Klerman 1995).
In the late 1960s and early 1970s pro-life lobbying efforts focused on preventing additional states from legalizing abortion and repealing state laws that had legalized abortion. At first he question of public funding for abortion received relatively little attention from pro-life activists. However, after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, a number of states took steps to restrict payment eligibility under state Medicaid programs. This resulted in a variety of legal challenges, which culminated in the Beal v. Doe, Maher v. Roe, and Poelker v. Doe cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1977. These cases held that the government is not required to fund elective abortions either under terms of the federal statute or under the U.S. Constitution (Merz, Jackson, and Klerman 1995).
However, throughout the 1970s, the federal government was providing reimbursement for abortions through Medicaid. On September 30, 1976, Congress passed, over a presidential veto the first of a long line of budgetary acts – each subsequently referred to as the Hyde Amendment – restricting federal Medicaid funds for abortions. On the same day, several lawsuits were brought challenging the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment and a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued on October 1, barring enforcement of the Hyde Amendment. After a hearing, the district court in McRae v. Mathews entered a preliminary injunction on October 22, 1976. Under the injunction, the federal government continued to fund abortions through 1976 (Merz, Jackson, and Klerman 1995).
Extensive litigation over the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment continued throughout the 1970s. A trial court dissolved the TRO and starting August 4, 1977 the federal government only reimbursed for abortions performed to save the life of the woman. Starting in February 14, 1978 the Hyde standard was expanded to include abortions in cases of rape, incest, and long-term physical health damage to the woman.
Lower court rulings continued to be appealed and the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment in 1980. On February 19, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a stay of the injunction and the federal government resumed funding therapeutic abortions. On June 30, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment by a 5-4 vote in Harris v. McRae. Federal funding for therapeutic abortions was finally eliminated on September 19, 1980 after the U.S. Supreme Court declined a rehearing in the McRae case (Merz, Jackson, and Klerman 1995). From that time up until October 1, 1993, federal matching funds were available only for abortions performed to save the life of the woman. However, effective October 1, 1993, the federal Hyde standard was extended, providing reimbursement for abortion when pregnancy results from an act of rape or incest (Rovner 2009). Most states altered their state plans to match the federal standard, but many states did not because of state laws, regulations, or constitutional provisions limiting the use of states funds to pay for abortions performed only to save the life of the mother (Merz, Jackson, and Klerman 1995).
Since the Hyde Amendment took effect, the federal government has paid for abortions only under limited circumstances. However, states have always had the ability to pay for or subsidize abortions with their own Medicaid funds. Currently 15 states pay for abortions for low-income women through their state Medicaid program.[i] Interestingly, 11 of those 15 states are funding abortion through Medicaid because of a judicial ruling or a court order. Only four states have enacted legislation requiring the government to fund abortion using state-originated funds through Medicaid (Guttmacher Institute 2016).
Impact of the Hyde Amendment
There has been a considerable amount of research on the impact of Medicaid funding restrictions on the incidence of abortion. A 2009 Guttmacher Institute literature review identified 22 studies on this topic (Henshaw et al. 2009). These methodologically diverse studies used abortion data from a variety of sources. Overall, of the 22 studies they considered, 19 found statistically significant evidence that abortion rates fell after Medicaid funding was reduced.
This finding held for studies using time-series cross-sectional data to analyze overall abortion rates (Blank, George, and London 1996; Haas-Wilson 1993; 1997; Hansen 1980; Levine, Trainor, and Zimmerman 1996; Matthews, Ribar, and Wilhelm 1997; Medoff 2007; Meier et al. 1996; Meier and McFarlane 1994). It also held for studies using time-series cross-sectional data to analyze teen abortion rates specifically (Haas-Wilson 1996; Lundberg and Plotnick 1990; Medoff 1999; 2007). This held as well for studies that analyzed abortion rates in smaller groups of states (Korenbrot, Brindis, and Priddy 1990; Trussell et al. 1980) and for two studies that specifically analyzed the impact of public funding restrictions on pregnancy outcomes in Illinois (Sheier and Tell 1980), Texas (Chrissman 1980), and North Carolina (Cook et al. 1999; Morgan and Parnell 2002).
The studies that analyzed data from North Carolina were especially interesting. From 1980 to 1995, North Carolina publicly funded abortion for low-income women—not through Medicaid but through a state abortion fund that periodically ran out of money. Whenever funds were depleted, the researchers found there were statistically significant decreases in the abortion rate, and months later, statistically significant increases in the birthrate (Cook et al. 1999; Morgan and Parnell 2002). These findings were statistically stronger when the pregnancy outcomes for African-American women were considered. Overall, Cook et al. concluded that 37 percent of the women who would have otherwise had an abortion carried their child to term when public funding was not available. Overall, the authors of the Guttmacher literature review acknowledge that the best research indicates that Medicaid funding limits reduce the incidence of abortion. In the discussion that follows the literature review, they state that:
the best studies . . . used detailed data from individual states and compared the ratio of abortions to births both before and after the Medicaid restrictions took effect. These found that 18-37 percent of pregnancies that would have ended in Medicaid funded abortions were carried to term when funding was no longer available. (Henshaw et al. 2009, 27)
They state that the Cook et al. study analyzing data from North Carolina had the “best design.” They conclude by stating that “[c]onsidering the case studies collectively, a reasonable estimate is that a lack of funding influences a quarter of Medicaid-eligible women to continue unwanted pregnancies” (Henshaw et al. 2009, 27). Overall the research paints a clear picture. By limiting public funding for abortion, the Hyde Amendment reduced the incidence of abortion and saved lives.
Table 1: Analyses of How Medicaid Funding Restrictions Impacted Abortion Rates
Author Years Considered Dataset Used Impact on Abortion Rate
Blank, George, and London (1996) 1974-1988 GI -1.2 to -3.4
Levine, Trainor, and Zimmerman (1996) 1977-1978 GI -1.44 to -1.63
Matthews, Ribar, and Wilhelm (1997)* 1978-1988 GI -1.57
New (2011) 1985-2005 CDC -1.54
New (2011) 1985 -2005 GI -1.44
New (2014) 1985-2005 CDC -3.30 to -3.43
New (2014) 1985-2004 GI -2.12 to -2.27
Note: “GI” means state abortion rate data came from the Guttmacher Institute, “CDC” means state abortion rate data came from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
*Matthews, Ribar, and Wilhelm found that public funding restrictions reduce state abortion rates by approximately 5.6 percent. Since the average abortion rate for the years they studied was 28.12, I calculated that their model predicts a decline of 1.57 abortions per thousand women of childbearing age.
Analyzing the Overall Impact of the Hyde Amendment
Even though consensus exists that the Hyde Amendment has stopped abortions and saved lives, there is little research on how many lives the Hyde Amendment has actually saved. In 2010, the Center for Reproductive Rights released a report entitled “Whose Choice? How the Hyde Amendment Harms Poor Women.” The report includes a quote by Stephanie Poggi, executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, which states that, “Because of the Hyde Amendment, more than a million women have been denied the ability to make their own decisions.” A number of journalists and commentators have used this one million figure in their reporting on the impact of the Hyde Amendment (Nance 2016; Faulkner 2016).
The 2010 Center for Reproductive Rights report cites some studies which show that the Hyde Amendment reduces the incidence of abortion and makes it more likely that a woman on Medicaid will carry her pregnancy to term. However, the report provides absolutely no information about the methodology behind the 1 million figure. Furthermore, when contacted this summer, the Center for Reproductive Rights was unable to provide any information about the methodology used in their 2010 report. They suggested that we contact Stephanie Poggi directly. However, Ms. Poggi no longer works for the National Network of Abortion Funds and could not be reached.
As the Hyde Amendment reaches its 40th anniversary this year, it is worthwhile to have more reliable figures on how many lives it has saved. Methodologically, the best way to analyze the impact of the Hyde Amendment is to look at the impact of Medicaid-funding restrictions on either the abortion rate of women on Medicaid or the birthrate of women on Medicaid. Indeed, three separate studies that analyzed Medicaid recipients in Illinois, Texas, and Ohio found that after the Hyde Amendment took effect, the birthrate among women on Medicaid increased by anywhere from 11 percent to 15 percent. The average increase in the Medicaid birthrate was almost 13 percent.
So if the number of Medicaid births in a given state increased from 1,000 to 1,130 after the Hyde Amendment took effect, 130 people or approximately 11 percent of those born to a mother on Medicaid would owe their lives to the Hyde Amendment. Alternatively, one of every nine people born to a mother on Medicaid in a state not funding abortions through Medicaid owes his or her life to the Hyde Amendment.
This nicely demonstrates the lifesaving impact of the Hyde Amendment. However, obtaining state-level data dating back to the 1970s on the number of women of childbearing age on Medicaid proved to be logistically difficult. A more feasible way to analyze the number of abortions prevented by the Hyde Amendment is to look at the impact of public funding restrictions on either the overall abortion rate (abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age) or the overall abortion ratio (abortions per 1,000 live births). The abortion rate tends to be a more reliable measure than the abortion ratio. That is because population numbers tend to be fairly stable from year to year, while the birthrate tends to fluctuate. Consequently, analyzing the effect of the Hyde Amendment on the abortion rate is a more reliable way to gauge its impact.
The 2009 Guttmacher Institute literature review on public funding of abortion identified seven peer- reviewed studies which analyzed the impact of public funding restrictions on state abortion rates (Hansen 1980; Haas-Wilson 1993,1997; Meier et al. 1996; Blank, George, and London 1996; Levine, Trainor, and Zimmerman 1996; Mathews, Ribar, and Wilhelm 1997). Two additional academic studies on the subject were published after 2009 (New 2011; New 2014). Unfortunately, some of these studies are limited in their ability to properly analyze the impact of the Hyde Amendment. Two studies only analyze one year of abortion data (Hansen 1980; Haas-Wilson 1993). Another study interacts the Medicaid funding restriction variable with the state poverty rate and hence does not provide a standalone estimate on the impact of Medicaid funding restrictions (Haas-Wilson 1997). Another study looked at the publicly funded abortion rate instead of the presence of public funding as an independent variable (Meier et al. 1996).
That said, the Guttmacher literature review includes three studies which analyzed the impact of public funding restrictions on state abortion rates for an extended period of time. My two State Politics and Policy Quarterly studies also analyzed state abortion data for a span of 20 years. Table 1 lists each of these five studies, the datasets they used, the years that were analyzed, and their findings on how public funding restrictions impacted abortion rates. The results indicate that Medicaid funding limits reduce state abortion rates anywhere from 1.4 to 3.4 abortions per thousand women of childbearing age. However, a closer look at datasets and methodologies used in each of the various studies might allow for a more precise estimate of the impact of Medicaid funding limits on state abortion rates.
For instance, the Blank, George, and London study (1996) predicts that public funding limits reduce abortion rates by as much as 3.4 abortions per thousand women of childbearing age. However, this study includes abortion data from the mid-1970s when abortion rates were lower and the data was perhaps less accurate. Hence, the findings appear to be outliers. In my 2014 State Politics and Policy Quarterly study, I ran a series of regressions using abortion data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). CDC data on the incidence of abortion tends to be less reliable than data from the Guttmacher Institute. Therefore, these findings can also be excluded as a statistical outlier.
Four of the five remaining analyses find that public finding restrictions reduce abortion rates from 1.44 to 1.63 abortions per thousand women of childbearing age. The findings from my 2014 State Politics and Policy Quarterly study using abortion rate data from the Guttmacher also appear to be something of a statistical outlier. Now, my 2014 study is a stronger study methodologically than my 2011 study. It includes a better dataset of state-level informed consent laws. It also correctly categorizes Illinois as a state that does not publicly fund abortion. That said, since it predicts a significantly larger abortion rate decline than the other four studies, it is probably best to exclude it as an outlier. The remaining studies are fairly consistent in their predictions of how Medicaid funding restrictions impact abortion rates. If we average the results of the four remaining studies, we can predict that Medicaid funding restrictions lower the abortion rate by 1.52 abortions per thousand women of childbearing age. This will allow us to calculate how many lives the Hyde Amendment has saved since 1976.
Methodology
Even though the Hyde Amendment was first passed in 1976, the federal government continued to fund abortions for much of the rest of the 1970s because of legal challenges to the Amendment. Furthermore, even after the Hyde Amendment was upheld in Harris v. McRae in 1980, many states continued to fund abortion through their own state Medicaid programs. Tables 3 and 4 provide detailed information about the years for which the federal government and states were funding abortion through their respective Medicaid programs.
Table 2:
Eras When the Federal Government Paid for Therapeutic Abortions via Medicaid, 1976-2015
| Pre-Passage and Implementation of the Hyde Amendment | January 1, 1976 – August 4, 1977 |
| McRae Injunction | February 19, 1980 – September 19, 1980 |
Table 3: States Where Medicaid Paid for Elective Abortions, 1976-2015
| State | Year | State | Year |
| Alaska | January 1, 1976 – 1998, 2000-2015 | Michigan | January 1, 1976 – December 12, 1988 |
| California | January 1, 1976 – 2015 | Minnesota | January 1, 1976 – March 24, 1978 |
| Colorado | January 1, 1976 – June 4, 1985 | July 17, 1979 – McRae Injunction | |
| Connecticut | July 17, 1979 – February 15, 1981 | June 16, 1994 – 2015 | |
| October 8, 1981 – 2015 | Montana | 1995-2015 | |
| D.C. | January 1, 1976 – October 1, 1988 | Nebraska | January 25, 1980 – McRae Injunction |
| October 29, 1993 – 1997 | New Jersey | July 7, 1978 – 2015 | |
| December 9, 2009 – April 13, 2011 | New Mexico | December 1, 1994 – 2015 | |
| Georgia | June 4, 1979 – March 15, 1981 | North Carolina | February 1, 1978 – 1995 |
| Hawaii | January 1, 1976 – 2015 | Ohio | September 12, 1979 – Nov. 12, 1980 |
| Idaho | January 1, 1976 – April 1, 1977 | Oklahoma | January 1, 1976 – June 2, 1978 |
| Illinois | January 1, 1976 – December 15, 1977 | Oregon | January 1, 1976 – 2015 |
| January 11, 1978 – May 1, 1978 | Pennsylvania | January 1, 1976 – February 15, 1985 | |
| May 15, 1978 – February 13, 1979 | Vermont | September 28, 1985 – 2015 | |
| April 29, 1979 – McRae Injunction | Virginia | April 21, 1978 – McRae Injunction | |
| Iowa | October 20, 1977 – July 1, 1978 | Washington | January 1, 1976 – 2015 |
| Louisiana | November 27, 1978 – McRae Injunction | West Virginia | January 1, 1976 – 2015 |
| Maryland | January 1, 1976 – 2015 | Wisconsin | January 1, 1976 – April 22, 1978 |
| Massachusetts | January 1, 1976 – 2015 | Sept. 13, 1979 – McRae Injunction |
Sources Merz, Jackson, Klerman (1995); NARAL Who Decides? (Various Years)
Notes:
-There is some evidence that some counties in Arizona were paying for abortions during the 1970s (Merz, Jackson, and Klerman 1995). However, I am still predicting the Hyde Amendment had an impact on the abortion rate in Arizona when it was in effect.
-Between 1978 and 1995 North Carolina funded abortion not through Medicaid, but through a state appropriation fund, which periodically ran out of funds. I included these intermittent funding cutoffs in my calculations about the impact of the Hyde Amendment on North Carolina.
-There is evidence that Kansas, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wyoming were not funding abortion through Medicaid during the McRae injunction in 1980. However, since the federal government was providing reimbursements through Medicaid during this time, I am predicting the Hyde Amendment had no impact on the abortion rate in these states during this period of time (Merz, Jackson, Klerman 1995).
In order to determine the overall impact of the Hyde Amendment we will consider data from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia for every year from 1976 to 2015. The methodology will be as follows:
1) If either the federal government or a state government was funding abortion for Medicaid recipients for the entire year, we predict that the Hyde Amendment would have no impact on the abortion rate.
2) If neither the federal government nor the state government was funding abortion for Medicaid recipients for the entire year, we predict the Hyde Amendment would lower the state abortion rate by 1.52 abortions per thousand women of childbearing age.
3) If neither the federal government nor the state government was funding abortion for Medicaid recipients for part of the year, we predict the Hyde Amendment would lower the state abortion rate by 1.52 abortions per thousand women of childbearing age multiplied by the percentage of the year where abortion was unfunded.
The following examples will further illustrate how the overall impact of the Hyde Amendment will be calculated.
Scenario 1: In 1976, the Hyde Amendment was not in effect due to legal challenges, there-fore it saved no lives in any state in 1976. Similarly, in California in 2015, the state was funding abortions through the state Medicaid program. Therefore, the Hyde Amendment saved no lives in California in 2015.
Scenario 2: In Texas in 2015, neither the state nor the federal government was fund-ing abortions through Medicaid. According to the U.S. Census, there were 5,748,631 women of childbearing age living in Texas in 2015. As such, we predict the Hyde Amendment saved (1.52/1000)*(5,748,631) = 8,738 lives in Texas in 2015.
Scenario 3: In Pennsylvania an injunction on a law limiting Medicaid funding for abortions was lifted on February 15, 1985. As such, Medicaid funding for abortions was limited for 87.4 per-cent of the year (319 days/365 days). According to the U.S. Census, there were 2,690,543 women of childbearing age living in Pennsylvania in 1985. As such, we predict the Hyde Amendment saved (1.52/1000)*(2,690,543)(.874) = 3,574 lives in Pennsylvania in 1985.
Using this methodology for every state for every year from 1976 to 2016 we predict that the Hyde Amendment routinely saves over 60,000 lives a year and thus cumulatively has saved 2.13 million lives since 1976. Table 4 lists how many lives the Hyde Amendment has saved in each state. Table 5 lists how many lives the Hyde Amendment has saved in each year since 1976.
Table 4: State Data on the Number of Lives Saved by the Hyde Amendment Since 1976
Alabama 54,565 Montana 4,634
Alaska 203 Nebraska 20,465
Arizona 56,736 Nevada 21,362
Arkansas 31,147 New Hampshire 14,913
California 0 New Jersey 2,159
Colorado 43,559 New Mexico 8,534
Connecticut 2,801 New York 0
Delaware 9,560 North Carolina 65,484
District of Columbia 4,872 North Dakota 8,100
Florida 171,514 Ohio 137,555
Georgia 99,350 Oklahoma 40,687
Hawaii 0 Oregon 0
Idaho 14,977 Pennsylvania 119,899
Illinois 144,721 Rhode Island 13,077
Indiana 74,668 South Carolina 49,438
Iowa 34,273 South Dakota 8,957
Kansas 32,001 Tennessee 68,954
Kentucky 50,629 Texas 258,265
Louisiana 54,979 Utah 27,568
Maine 15,160 Vermont 1,430
Maryland 0 Virginia 85,569
Massachusetts 0 Washington 0
Michigan 86,186 West Virginia 0
Minnesota 22,938 Wisconsin 62,597
Mississippi 34,772 Wyoming 6,110
Missouri 67,356
Total 2.13 million
Table 5: Annual Data on the Number of Lives Saved by the Hyde Amendment Since 1976
1976* 0 1996 59,050
1977** 15,834 1997 59,190
1978 37,484 1998 59,423
1979 33,479 1999 59,630
1980** 16,037 2000 60,984
1981 44,943 2001 61,126
1982 46,081 2002 61,184
1983 45,896 2003 61,208
1984 46,425 2004 61,321
1985 51,177 2005 61,499
1986 52,639 2006 61,666
1987 52,974 2007 61,883
1988 52,890 2008 61,931
1989 56,902 2009 61,682
1990 58,366 2010 61.938
1991 58,324 2011 62,242
1992 58,737 2012 62,635
1993 58,885 2013 62,932
1994 59,697 2014 62,262
1995 57,349 2015 63,549
Total 2.13 million
*Hyde Amendment not in effect for entire year due to legal challenges.
**Hyde Amendment not in effect for part of the year due to legal challenges.
Conclusion
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment in 1980, the abortion rate in the United States has fallen almost every year. The Hyde Amendment is not the only reason for this consistent decline in the abortion rate. Valid research shows that other pro-life laws, shifts in public opinion, and the fact that a higher percentage of unintended pregnancies are being carried to term in recent years are all playing roles in America’s abortion decline. That said, the substantial body of research which shows that public funding restrictions lead to reductions in the abortion rate demonstrates that the Hyde Amendment has certainly played an important role in the long-term reduction in America’s abortion rate.
The Hyde Amendment has been passed every year since 1976 as a rider to the federal Labor/Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill. It has typically enjoyed strong bipartisan support and has been signed into law by both Democratic and Republican U.S. presidents. Even Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who publicly supported legal abortion, signed the Hyde Amendment into law during their respective presidential administrations. In recent years, however, the Democratic Party has become increasingly supportive of legal abortion and hostile to the Hyde Amendment. In fact, this summer for the first time ever, the Democratic Party’s presidential platform explicitly calls for the Hyde Amendment’s repeal (Richardson 2016).
Numerous polls and surveys show that majorities of Americans continue to oppose having their tax dollars used to pay for abortion. A Marist/Knights of Columbus poll that was released this past January found that 69 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. Additionally, even 51 percent of people who identify as “pro-choice” oppose public funding of abortion (Knights of Columbus 2016). More importantly, this analysis shows that the Hyde Amendment is one of the most effective tools our nation has to protect the unborn. During the past 40 years, it has saved literally millions of lives. It merits continued support.
Michael J. New, Ph.D. is senior associate scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute.
[i] Some media reports indicate 17 states fund abortion through Medicaid. However, these reports include Arizona and Illinois. There are court orders requiring both states to pay for medically necessary abortions through their respective state Medicaid programs. However, in both states, very few abortions are paid for by the state Medicaid program (Guttmacher 2016).
Sources Cited
Beal v. Doe. 1977. 432. U.S. 438.
Blank, Rebecca, Christine George, and Rebecca London. 1996. “State Abortion Rates: The Impact of
Policies, Providers, Politics, Demographic, and Economic Environment.” Journal of Health Economics
15(5): 513–53.
Center for Reproductive Rights. 2010. Whose Choice? How the Hyde Amendment Harms Poor Women.
New York: Center for Reproductive Rights.
Chrissman M., R. Moore, L. Mondy, B. Weber, W.P. Peter, P.C. Price, C.R. Webb, J.R. Trussell, and J.
Menken. 1980. “Effects of Restricting Federal Funds For Abortion—Texas.” Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report 29(22):253–254.
Cook, Philip J., Allan Parnell, Michael Moore, and Deanna Pagnini. 1999. “The Effects of Short Term
Variation in Abortion Funding on Pregnancy Outcomes.” Journal of Health Economics 18(2): 241-57.
Faulkner, Luke. 2016. “Over 1 Million Americans Have Been Saved from Abortion Because of the Hyde
Amendment.” LiveActionNews.org. July 18.
Guttmacher Institute. 2016. “State Funding of Abortion Under Medicaid.”
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-funding-abortion-under-medicaid
(accessed September 23, 2016).
Haas-Wilson, Deborah. 1993. “The Economic Impact of State Policy Restrictions on Abortion: Parental
Consent and Notification Laws and Medicaid Funding Restrictions.” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 12:498–511.
Haas-Wilson, Deborah. 1996. “The Impact of State Abortion Restrictions on Minors’ Demand for
Abortions.” Journal of Human Resources 31:140–58.
Haas-Wilson, Deborah. 1997. “Women’s Reproductive Choices: The Impact of Medicaid Funding
Restrictions.” Family Planning Perspectives 29(5): 228–33.
Hansen, Susan D. 1980. “State Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions: Abortion Rates since Roe
- Wade.” Journal of Politics 42(2): 372–95.
Harris v. McRae. 1980. 448. U.S. 297.
Henshaw, Stanley K., Theodore J. Joyce, Amanda Dennis, Lawrence B. Finer, and Kelly Blanchard.
2009.
Restrictions on Medicaid Funding for Abortions: A Literature Review. New York: Guttmacher Institute.
Korenbrot, Carol, Claire Brindis, and Fran Priddy. 1990. “Trends in Rates of Live Births and Abortions
Following State Restrictions on Public Funding of Abortion.” Public Health Reports 105(6): 555–62.
Knights of Columbus. 2016. “New Marist Poll Shows Majority of Americans, Including Pro-choice
Supporters, Want Restrictions on Abortions.” http://www.kofc.org/en/news/polls/polls_going-
beyond-labels.html (accessed September 23, 2016).
Levine, Phillip, Amy Trainor, and David Zimmerman. 1996. “The Effect of Medicaid Abortion Funding
Restrictions on Abortions, Pregnancies and Births.” Journal of Health Economics 15(5): 555–78.
Lundberg, Shelly, and Robert D. Plotnick. 1990. “Effects of State Welfare, Abortion and Family
Planning Policies on Premarital Childbearing among White Adolescents.” Family Planning
Perspectives 22(6): 246–75.
Maher v. Roe. 1977. 432 U.S. 464.
Matthews, Stephen, David Ribar, and Mark Wilhelm. 1997. “The Effects of Economic Conditions and
Access to Reproductive Health Services on State Abortion Rates and Birthrates.” Family Planning
Perspectives 29(2): 52–60.
Medoff, Marshall. 1999. “An Estimate of Teenage Abortion Demand.” Journal of Socioeconomics 28(2):
175–84.
Medoff, Marshall. 2007. “Price Restriction and Abortion Demand.” Journal of Family and Economic
Issues 28(4): 583–99.
Meier, Kenneth J., Donald Haider-Markel, Anthony Stanislawski, and Deborah MacFarlane. 1996. “The
Impact of State-Level Restrictions on Abortion.” Demography 33:307–12.
Meier, Kenneth J., and Deborah McFarlane. 1994. “State Family Planning and Abortion Expenditures:
Their Effect on Public Health.” American Journal of Public Health 84(9): 1468–72.
Merz, Jon, Catherine Jackson, and Jacob Klerman. 1995. “A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality,
Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994.” Women’s Rights Law Reporter 17:12–57.
Morgan, S. Philip, and Allan M. Parnell. 2002. “Effects on Pregnancy Outcomes of Changes in the
North Carolina State Abortion Fund.” Population Research and Policy Review 21: 319-338.
Nance, Penny. 2016. “Defending the Hyde Amendment.” The Hill. August 16.
National Abortion Rights Action League. various years. Who Decides? Washington, D.C.:
NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation.
New Michael J. 2007. “Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among
Minors.” Heritage Foundation, Center for Data Analysis Report 07–01.
New, Michael J. 2011. “Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey
Era: State Politics and Policy Quarterly 11(1): 28-47.
New, Michael J. 2014. “Analyzing the Impact of U.S. Antiabortion Legislation in the Post-Casey Era: A
Reassessment” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 14(3): 228-268.
Poelker v. Doe. 1977. 432 U.S. 519.
Richardson, Bradford. 2016. “Democrats’ Platform at Convention Backs Abortion Funds.”
The Washington Times, July 11.
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410. U.S. 113.
Rovner, Julie. 2016. “Abortion Funding Ban Has Evolved Over the Years.” npr.org
December 14. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121402281
(accessed September 23, 2016).
Sheier, R and L.J. Tell. 1980. “Despite Obstacles, Most Poor Women Pay For Their Abortions.”
The Chicago Reporter 9(10):1–2 & 7.
Trussell, James, Jane Menken, Barbara Lindheim, and Barbara Vaughan. 1980. “The Impact of
Restricting Medicaid Financing for Abortion.” Family Planning Perspectives 12(3): 120–23 and 127–30.
LifeNews Note: Michael J. New is an assistant professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America and is an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New
