The American people do not want it, but the abortion industry does. So, the Democrat presidential candidates are all in on ending the Hyde Amendment and forcing taxpayers to pay for elective abortions.
Published this week, a New York Times survey of the Democrat presidential candidates found that every single one would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which limits taxpayer funding for abortions through Medicaid.
Historically, the Hyde Amendment has received strong bipartisan support. Lawmakers have passed the amendment every year since 1976, largely preventing federal Medicaid dollars from paying for abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the amendment in 1980.
Research from the Charlotte Lozier Institute indicates that the amendment has saved more than 2 million babies lives from abortion in the past 40 years.
However, the Hyde Amendment is now a target of abortion activists who have moved from pro-choice to pro-abortion — forcing Americans not only to accept unlimited abortions before birth but also to pay for them. The Democratic Party platform calls for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment as well.
“The Hyde Amendment has effectively served as an abortion ban for those who cannot afford abortion care and all the expenses associated with it,” Maria Elena Pérez, deputy director at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, told Fortune this week. “In our Latina/x community, we have seen women working in multiple low-paying jobs that do not provide health coverage.”
Democrat front-runner Elizabeth Warren said something similar on the campaign trail in June, re-framing the issue as a matter of equality for poor women who supposedly need to abort their unborn babies.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
“Understand this, women of means will still have access to abortions,” Warren said at an MSNBC town hall in June. “Who won’t will be poor women. It will be working women and women who can’t afford to take off three days from work, and very young women. It will be women who have been raped and women who have been molested by someone in their own family.”
Joe Biden, also a leading contender for the Democrat presidential nomination, flip-flopped on the issue over the summer and now supports taxpayer-funded abortions, too.
Poor women and their unborn babies are the target, but evidence suggests these women want better pregnancy and parenting support, not abortions.
According a 2016 Harvard University/Politico poll, just 36 percent of likely voters support then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s plan to direct federal tax dollars to cover abortions, while 58 percent oppose it.
Interestingly, the poll found that voters who make more than $75,000 were more supportive of forcing taxpayers to fund abortions (45 percent), while those who make $25,000 or less were strongly against it (24 percent). In other words, the people most likely to qualify for a taxpayer-funded abortion are the ones who oppose it the most.
Even the liberal New York Times noted that the Democratic candidates have embraced “far-reaching” abortion positions that are out of touch with most Americans.
According to the report:
The most striking change, beyond individual policies, is how unapologetic candidates’ tone on abortion rights has become.
Advocates have traditionally said they support the right to choose abortion, not abortion itself, and Democrats have said it should be “safe, legal and rare.” Public debate has commonly centered on procedures after 20 weeks’ gestation, which account for less than 1.5 percent of abortions. The discussion has often been on opponents’ terms.
Now, almost every candidate says the next president should actively reframe the debate. Their language focuses on health care, bodily autonomy and, at times, even the idea of abortion as a positive force enabling women to control their lives and increase their economic security.
Voters who think unborn babies deserve a right to life – and even those who believe abortions should be legal in some circumstances but rare – will have a clear choice in the upcoming presidential election.