| 1. Title: Restricting federal funds for abortion: another look. Author: Sommers PM; Thomas LS Source: Social Science Quarterly. 1983 Jun;6(2):340-6. Abstract: Explores the future economic costs of the decrease in the number of Medicaid-funded abortions among indigent women. The 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision gave the right of choice to all women in the U.S. regardless of their economic well-being. Federal funds allowed poor women to exercise their right to an abortion. However, in 1976, Congressman Hyde observed that the federal government was paying for about 30,000 abortions a year at a cost of U.S. $45 million. As a result, the Hyde Amendment was proposed, which forbade expending federal funds for abortion except where life of the mother is endangered. Debate surrounding the controversial amendment continued until June 30, 1980, when the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Amendment. As a result, Federal funds were withdrawn for most abortions obtained by indigent women eligible for Medicaid. It would seem that the 99% reduction in the federal budget for Medicaid-funded abortions would show large savings to taxpayers. However, for indigent women who carry their pregnancies to term, Medicaid pays childbirth expenses and welfare pays childrearing expenses. Thus, the end to public funding of abortions for indigent women may cost taxpayers more money rather than saving them money. When the Hyde Amendment was put into effect, no attempt was made to measure the future public costs which would be incurred throughout the dependent years of the unwanted child. According to some studies, restriction on medicaid funding of abortions in 1978 probably compelled 14,000 to 30,000 women to have births they would otherwise have terminated by abortion. The children of these women will impose sizeable costs on society in the form of higher expenditures on health, education, and welfare. These added costs will eventually be passed on to taxpayers. Thus, no public funds are saved by forbidding abortions among indigent women. Language: English Keywords: MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, TITLE 19 | FINANCING, GOVERNMENT | ABORTION | ABORTION LAW | LEGISLATION | FUNDS | LOW INCOME POPULATION | POVERTY | COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS | WOMEN | PUBLIC ASSISTANCE | CHANGES | UNITED STATES | PREGNANCY, UNPLANNED | PREGNANCY, UNWANTED | FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS | CHILD CARE | PREGNANCY | UNWANTED BIRTHS | Financial Activities | Economic Factors | Fertility Control, Postconception | Family Planning | Social Class | Socioeconomic Status | Socioeconomic Factors | Quantitative Evaluation | Evaluation | Demographic Factors | Population | Social Change | North America | Americas | Developed Countries | Reproductive Behavior | Fertility | Population Dynamics | Programs | Organization and Administration | Child Rearing | Behavior | Reproduction | Fertility Measurements Document Number: 266710 Notification |
 |
||
 |
Information & Knowledge for Optimal Health (INFO) Project 111 Market Place Suite 310, Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410-659-6300 Fax: 410-659-6266 Security & Privacy Policy |  |