Contact Us Donate Site Guide
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington
Print
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington

Take Action

Speak Out for Patient Access at the Pharmacy Counter

Help Keep Clinics Safe!

Have you been denied Plan B?

» more action alerts

Choice Headlines

6/17/2010
Where Rossi Stands on Abortion Rights

1/26/2010
CBS urged to scrap Super Bowl ad with Tebow, mom

1/26/2010
Rise in teen pregnancy sends off alarms

» more choice headlines

Press Releases

9/2/2010
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington Responds to Jaime Herrera’s Anti-Choice Comments

8/13/2010
Dino Rossi Even More Extreme In His Anti-Choice Views

4/9/2010
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington response to Justice John Paul Stevens’ Retirement

» more press releases

Abortion Funding

Modified: 01/18/2007

Abortion funding bans burden some of the most disadvantaged people in our society - those who rely on the government for healthcare. In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, banning federal Medicaid funding for abortion. No other medical procedure was singled out for exclusion. Further limiting reproductive rights, the Bush administration recently passed the Weldon Amendment(1) that will give publicly funded institutions the ability to refuse to provide all abortion related services and referrals. These two laws most seriously harm poor women, young women, rural women and women of color.(2)

  • Some six million women between 15-44 depend on Medicaid for their health care.(3)
  • Because of the Hyde Amendment and state bans on Medicaid funding, the majority of these women are denied coverage for abortion. In 33 states and the District of Columbia, women have no access to Medicaid funded abortions. Congress also denies coverage to many other women on federal health plans: women in the US military and the Peace Corps, federal employees, prisoners and women covered by the Indian Health Services.

  • Congress under-funds such vital public programs as Title X, which provides contraceptive care to low-income women and young women. In real terms, funding today is 57% lower than in 1980.(4)
  • In 2000, an estimated 11.5 million poor and low-income women remained in need of contraceptive services in 2000, as well as 4.9 million women under the age of 20.(5)
  • While the overall national abortion rate fell by 11% between 1994 and 2000, abortion rates rose among economically disadvantaged women.(6)



    Footnotes:

    (1) also known as the Women’s Health Care Denial Law

    (2) NNAF's policy report, Abortion Funding: A Matter of Justice, 2005. Online at: http://www.nnaf.org/policy_report.html ( last visited on April 19, 2005)

    (3) Heather Boonstra and Adam Sonfield, “Rights without Access: Revisiting Public Funding of Abortion for Poor Women,” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, April 2000: 8-11; p. 10.

    (4) Felicia Stewart, Wayne Shields, and Ann Hwang, “Title X: A Sure Fire Investment with at Least a 300 Percent Return”
    (editorial), Contraception, 2003, 68(1): 1.

    (5) Adam Sonfield, “Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: The Need and the Means,” The Guttmacher Report on Public
    Policy, December 2003: 7-10; p. 8.

    (6) Rachel Jones, Jacqueline Darroch, and Stanley Henshaw, “Patterns in the Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women
    Obtaining Abortions in 2000-2001,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5): 226-34; pp. 229, 231.

  • Home | Get Involved | For Students | Issues | Political Updates | News | Events | Support Us | About Us
    Pregnant? Need Help? | Contact Us | Get E-mail Alerts | Privacy Policy

    ©NARAL Pro-Choice Washington

    ©NARAL Pro-Choice Washington