how the hyde amendment harms poor women

WHOSE

CHOICE?

HOW THE

HYDE

AMENDMENT

HARMS

POOR WOMEN

WHOSE

CHOICE?

HOW THE

HYDE

AMENDMENT

HARMS

POOR WOMEN

Foreword 4

Acknowledgments 7

Glossary 8

Executive Summary 10

Introduction 14

How Hyde and Medicaid Work 18

Hyde’s Impact 22

Non-Discrimination States 36

Human Rights Framework 42

Conclusion 45

Recommendations 46

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

During last year’s healthcare reform debate, politi-

cians of varying stripes made many claims about the

Hyde Amendment. This is the 1976 measure that

took away federal Medicaid coverage of abortion from

women enrolled in the program. Congressional talk

about the Hyde Amendment did little to shed light,

however. Instead, the debate took place entirely in the

abstract with no mention of Hyde’s impact on the life

of a woman and her family. In the end, Congress and

the Obama Administration moved not only to continue

the Hyde Amendment, but also to extend its reach to

millions of additional women.

How does Hyde affect a woman, the family she is

working to take care of, and her community? This

is the story that this new report from the Center for

Reproductive Rights tells, documenting just how

damaging this policy has been and promises to be.

Because of the Hyde Amendment, more than a million

women have been denied the ability to make their own

decisions about bringing a child into the world in the

context of their own circumstances and those of their

families. And many more women and families have

been pushed into greater poverty as they struggle to

ﬁnd the money for an abortion.

At the center of this report are interviews with 15

women who describe exactly what this struggle means

in their lives, for their families, and for the opportunity

to build a future. One woman tells us she has had to

go without food for herself, her two sisters, and her

two daughters in order to pay for an abortion. Another

woman and her husband pawn virtually everything

they own and still fall short of the amount they need.

Another woman is forced to ask for money from

someone she knows will judge her; because she

requires help, she is denied the privacy afforded to

women with greater resources. One woman describes

her mounting panic as time passes and she can’t raise

enough money; she worries she will be compelled to

have a child she can’t care for. One woman barely

sleeps, braiding hair around the clock to earn more

money. Many women ﬁnd that their hopes to continue

school or move ahead at work are threatened.

But these stories are not only about the terrible costs

to women and families—they are also testimony to

women’s survival and bravery. They remind us that a

woman will do everything she can to ﬁnd a way—

because the decision about whether and when to

be a mother is so fundamental. In the face of postur-

ing politicians and decades of efforts to shame, these

women still believe in the inherent value of their lives

and their families.

Thirty-four years after the Hyde Amendment passed,

this is what it still boils down to—whether a woman

in difﬁcult ﬁnancial circumstances can have a say in

the shape of her own life and that of the family she’s

FOREWORD

“Because of the Hyde Amendment, more than a million women have

been denied the ability to make their own decisions about bringing

a child into the world in the context of their own circumstances and

those of their families.”

– Stephanie Poggi, Executive Director of the National Network of Abortion Funds

caring for. Do we accept the idea that a woman who

lacks a high income simply loses her ability to decide if

it’s a good time to bring a child into the world? Do we

accept a policy that denies this ability disproportion-

ately to a woman of color? Because of racial inequities

in the United States, women of color continue to be

burdened by the Hyde Amendment in high numbers,

making the policy also an issue of racial justice.

When Hyde was ﬁrst implemented, many of us feared

that deaths from illegal and self-induced abortions

would skyrocket. While some women did die, the

worst did not happen on a large scale, in part because

women sacriﬁced other basic necessities in order to

obtain an abortion, and in part because people across

the country began organizing to support women and

girls in their neighborhoods and communities. These

activists joined together in 1993 to create the National

Network of Abortion Funds. Today, the Network contin-

ues to honor the lives and hard-won futures of women

and their families by directly helping them to pay for

abortion care. Every year, we raise approximately $3

million dollars and assist more than 21,000 women

who would not otherwise be able to make their own

best decision.

Our 102 member abortion Funds cannot, however,

meet the enormous need created by the denial of fed-

eral Medicaid. In 2006, the Network joined with allies,

including the Center for Reproductive Rights, to launch

the Hyde: 30 Years Is Enough campaign, a national

effort to educate policymakers and allies and begin to

move toward repeal of the Hyde Amendment.

Now, in 2010, as the economic downturn increases the

need for abortion funding, as we prepare to face severe

new restrictions on abortion access through healthcare

reform, and as we face the reality of how little even pro-

choice policymakers understand about the meaning of

abortion in women’s lives, the Network welcomes the

Center’s powerful new contribution to the movement

for change. This report provides moving testimony and

critical policy recommendations for all of us who be-

lieve in basic fairness. U.S. policy should not target and

punish a woman and her family already struggling to

survive. Instead, everyone should have the opportunity

to build a life, be healthy, take care of our family, and

contribute to the community we live in.

For too many in Washington, access to abortion

continues to be an abstraction. But we know there

is nothing abstract about the devastation caused by

Hyde. Human dignity, like healthcare, is meant to be—

must be—for every one of us.

Stephanie Poggi

Executive Director of the

National Network of Abortion Funds

This report is a publication of the Center for Reproduc-

tive Rights. Jinna Halperin, consultant, conducted the

interviews and research and drafted the report. Cynthia

Soohoo, director of the U.S. Legal Program, con-

ceptualized the project and supervised the research

and drafting. Karen Leiter, human rights researcher,

designed the investigation, contributed to supervising

the project, and edited the report. Jennifer Mondino,

staff attorney, contributed research and drafting and

assisted with interviews. Janet Crepps, deputy director

of the U.S. Legal Program, assisted with conceptualiza-

tion, planning, and background interviews.

The Center partnered with the National Network of

Abortion Funds to conceptualize and design the fact-

ﬁnding, recruit women and staff from the Network’s

member Funds to be interviewed, conduct the inter-

views, and complete the report. The Center is indebted

to Stephanie Poggi, executive director of the Network,

for helping to conceptualize the report and for her

invaluable contributions to all stages of the project.

Special thanks also to other Network staff who assisted

the fact-ﬁnding, including D. Lynn Jackson, national

case manager; Kim Nguyen, administrative director/

summit coordinator; and Clara Hendricks, program

associate, for recruitment and assistance in the con-

duct of interviews. In addition, thanks to staff members

at the following Network member abortion Funds for

recruiting women to interview: the Women’s Medical

Fund in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the Texas Equal

Access Fund in Dallas, Texas; the Lilith Fund in Austin,

Texas; the Chicago Abortion Fund; and the Atlanta

Pro-Choice Action Committee.

The fact-ﬁnding beneﬁted greatly from the participa-

tion and support of Elizabeth Barnes of the Philadelphia

Women’s Center, Nancy Boothe of the Feminist Women’s

Health Center, Renee Chelian of Northland Family Plan-

ning Centers, Amy Hagstrom Miller and Terry Sallas

Merritt of Whole Woman’s Health, and Robin Rothrock of

Hope Medical Group for Women. We very kindly thank

all of the staff at each of these clinics who assisted

with recruiting women for interviews and otherwise

gave their time and advice to the research, in particu-

lar Andrea Ferrigno, Robin Gelberg, Mary Gulbernat,

Stephanie Herold, Erin Keyes, Joanna Koch, Kathaleen

Pittman, and Marva Sadler. Special thanks as well

to Cristina Page; Destiny Lopez, formerly of ACCESS/

Women’s Health Rights Coalition; and Peg Johnston of

The Abortion Care Network for sharing their expertise

in background interviews and to Susan Berke Fogel of

the National Health Law Program for her expertise and

review of sections of the report.

At the Center, special thanks to: President Nancy

Northup, Director of Government Relations and

Communications Laura MacCleery, and Legislative

Policy Counsel Sarah Lipton-Lubet for reviewing the

report; Michelle Movahed, staff attorney, and Christina

Zampas, senior regional manager and legal adviser

for Europe, for contributing to research; Meredith

Parrish Zingraff, program associate, for contributing to

research and fact-checking; Genevieve Scott, pro bono

attorney, for contributing to research and assisting with

citations; Jean Bae, volunteer attorney, for assisting

with citations; and Alice Chen, legal assistant, for

assisting with research logistics.

Carveth Martin, graphic designer and production

manager, designed the cover and layout. Bojana

Stoparic, staff writer, proofread and copyedited

the report.

Finally, the Center for Reproductive rights is grateful

to the women seeking funding for abortion, clinic

counselors, abortion Fund staff members, and

providers who very generously shared their time

and experiences by participating in the interviews

at the heart of this report.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

GLOSSARY

Abortion Fund: Abortion Funds, run in most cases

by volunteers, provide ﬁnancial assistance to low-

income women who would otherwise be unable to

obtain an abortion. Funds raise money from private

individuals and foundations to help women cover the

cost of abortions, and in many cases also provide other

services, including travel and lodging assistance. The

National Network of Abortion Funds includes 102

member groups in 40 states and several countries.

Abortion Funds also conduct advocacy for public

funding for abortion and comprehensive reproductive

healthcare for all women.

Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action:

The international consensus document adopted by

nations participating in the 1995 United Nations Fourth

World Conference on Women. The Platform for Action

reafﬁrms the principle that women’s rights are human

rights and sets out the commitments of governments

to the actions necessary to eliminate discrimination

against women and promote women’s human rights,

including reproductive rights.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

(adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979): A

comprehensive international treaty often described

as an international bill of rights for women. It deﬁnes

what constitutes discrimination against women and

sets forth a national action plan for ensuring women’s

equality—a framework for government policy to com-

bat gender inequality. State parties’ compliance with

CEDAW is monitored by the Committee on the Elimina-

tion of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Com-

mittee). The United States has signed, but not ratiﬁed,

CEDAW.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

(adopted by

the UN General Assembly in 1965): The international

treaty that protects all individuals from discrimination

based on race, color, descent, and national or ethnic

origin. Both policies and practices that are by intent

discriminatory and those with a discriminatory impact

are prohibited. State parties’ compliance with CERD

is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee). The United

States has ratiﬁed CERD.

Harris v. McRae (1980): The U.S. Supreme

Court case that upheld the Hyde Amendment, pro-

hibiting federal Medicaid funding for medically neces-

sary abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or life

endangerment. The Court also held that states are not

required to fund abortions under their state Medicaid

programs for which federal funds are unavailable.

Hyde Amendment: First enacted in 1976, this

amendment currently prohibits federal funding for

abortion under the Medicaid program, except in cases

of rape, incest, or life endangerment. If states wish to

fund abortion beyond these narrow exceptions, they

must pay the entire cost with state funds.

Hyde State: A state in which coverage for abortion un-

der the state’s program of medical care and health-related

services for poor and low-income individuals is available

only in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment, in

line with the restrictions imposed on federal funds by the

Hyde Amendment. There are 26 Hyde states.

Hyde-Plus State: A state that has slightly expanded

coverage of medical care and health-related services

for poor and low-income individuals, including abor-

tions in cases of fetal abnormality or endangerment

of a pregnant woman’s physical health. There are six

Hyde-plus states: Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, South

Caroline, Utah, and Wisconsin.

International Covenant on Civil and Politi-

cal Rights (ICCPR)

(adopted by the UN General

Assembly in 1966): An international treaty protecting

individuals’ civil and political human rights, such as

the right to vote and the right to freedom of expression.

State parties’ compliance with the ICCPR is monitored

by the Human Rights Committee. The United States

has ratiﬁed the ICCPR.

Medicaid: Under the federal Medicaid program,

federal and state governments jointly pay for healthcare

services for eligible poor and low-income individuals.

Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical

and health-related services for low-income and indi-

gent people in the United States, though not all poor

people qualify for Medicaid. Some states have state

programs that provide healthcare coverage for poor

and low-income individuals using state funds that are

more generous than federal Medicaid in terms of cov-

ered services or populations (referred to in this report

as “state Medicaid”).

Medication Abortion: In medication, or medical,

abortions, a drug or a combination of drugs is used to

induce abortion. Medication abortions may be obtained

during the ﬁrst seven to nine weeks of pregnancy.

Non-Discrimination State: A state that has

elected to use its own funds to pay for abortions in its

program of medical care and health-related services for

poor and low-income individuals beyond the restric-

tions of the Hyde Amendment, treating abortion the

same way as any other healthcare service. There are

17 non-discrimination states. Four of these voluntarily

fund abortion. In the thirteen others, state courts have

refused to follow Harris v. McRae, ﬁnding instead

that restrictions on public funding for abortion violate

women’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by state

laws and constitutions.

Presumptive Eligibility: States may create pre-

sumptive eligibility programs under Medicaid for preg-

nant women wherein the application and enrollment

process is streamlined and expedited so that women

are able to immediately receive temporary healthcare

coverage.

Reproductive Rights: Reproductive rights em-

brace the rights to health, life, equality, information,

education, privacy, freedom from discrimination, free-

dom from violence, and self-determination, including

the decision regarding when and whether to bear chil-

dren. These fundamental rights are found in national

laws as well as human rights treaties and consensus

documents.

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abortion is a constitutional right. Existing federal and

state laws, however, dramatically restrict women’s

access to abortion. These laws, including mandatory

waiting periods and biased counseling requirements,

have negative consequences on a woman’s ability

to obtain an abortion, both by erecting hurdles to

accessing an abortion and by making it more difﬁcult

for doctors to continue to provide services. For poor

women, lack of public funding for abortion is one of

the most severe barriers to access. Low-income women

scramble to obtain funding, often delaying their proce-

dures by days or weeks, or carry their pregnancies to

term after failing to raise the needed funds. Beyond the

stigma and shame that women may face when decid-

ing to have an abortion, the ﬁnancial toll and medical

complexity of the procedure increase practically daily

as women make the necessary logistical arrangements

to locate a provider and procure funding. As each day

passes, the costs become increasingly unaffordable

and the procedure more unattainable. Women strug-

gling to put together the money for an abortion ﬁnd

that, in a matter of weeks, they are forced to undergo

a more involved, more expensive, and less widely

available second-trimester abortion.

This report exposes the harms perpetrated by the Hyde

Amendment—the law that prohibits federal Medi-

caid dollars from paying for abortion services except

in the most extreme circumstances. The interviews

with women, abortion clinic counselors, and abortion

Fund staff described in this report offer insight into

the struggles that low-income women endure to pay

for their abortions, often forgoing basic necessities for

themselves and their families and risking their health.

In making a case for repeal, this report also discusses

the successes and challenges of a few states that allow

state funds to cover abortion. The U.S. government has

a responsibility to respect and ensure each person’s

right to autonomy, particularly the right to make funda-

mental decisions about childbearing and family, and

to access medical services necessary to lead a healthy

life. The stories told in this report demonstrate that

the government is abdicating its responsibility to poor

women by failing to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

FEDERAL AND STATE MEDICAID PROGRAMS

AND THE HYDE AMENDMENT

Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical

and health-related services for low-income and indi-

gent people in the United States.

Medicaid plays a

particularly important role in providing women’s health

coverage, especially for women of reproductive age.

One in ten American women receives Medicaid, and

women comprise more than two-thirds of adult enroll-

ees.

The Hyde Amendment, named after a 1976 rider

to the Appropriations Act sponsored by Representa-

tive Henry Hyde (R-IL), eliminated federal funding for

abortion except where necessary to save a woman’s

life. The current version of the amendment prohibits

the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion except

“After 34 years, repealing the Hyde Amendment offers the United

States a critical opportunity to restore women’s equality by making

a genuine commitment to reproductive health for all women,

regardless of economic status.”

in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of

the pregnant woman.

Even for women who meet the

eligibility criteria imposed by Hyde, receiving Medicaid

coverage for abortion in practice is immensely chal-

lenging, if not impossible.

States may use their own funds to cover abortion

outside of Hyde’s restrictive limitations. As of 2010,

only 17 states have rejected Hyde, using state funds to

ensure women’s reproductive health and autonomy.

In states where state funding programs (“state

Medicaid”) pay for abortion to the same extent as

other medical care, referred to in this report as non-

discrimination states, the state plays a fundamental

role in ensuring that low-income women are able to

obtain abortion care. Many challenges remain, how-

ever. While some state programs work well and provide

sufﬁcient reimbursement to providers, in other states

providers often struggle to recoup the costs of treating

women enrolled in Medicaid due to low reimbursement

rates, long delays in receiving payment and, in some

states, a claim submission process that is unique to

abortion services. Other barriers to abortion care in

these states include the reality that many providers do

not accept Medicaid, making it difﬁcult for poor women

to ﬁnd a provider. In addition, narrow Medicaid eligibil-

ity rules that exclude many women in need, including

immigrants in most states, mean that many low-income

women in the non-discrimination states must still turn

to abortion Funds for assistance.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE HYDE AMENDMENT

Reproductive rights include a woman’s right to make

fundamental decisions about her life and family, to

access the reproductive health services necessary to

protect her health, and to decide whether and when

to have children. By restricting access to abortion, the

Hyde Amendment violates these fundamental human

rights for poor and low-income women in the United

States. The funding restrictions discriminate against

women by singling out and excluding from Medicaid

coverage, except in the most extreme circumstances,

a medical procedure that only women need. The Hyde

restrictions make it extremely difﬁcult for poor and low-

income women to ﬁnance abortion services and se-

verely limit their right to reproductive healthcare. Hyde

also discriminates against poor and low-income women

and women of color by disproportionately undermining

their reproductive health choices.

THE IMPACT OF FUNDING RESTRICTIONS

Medicaid funding restrictions for abortion force women

to continue unwanted pregnancies, cause them to de-

lay receiving abortions, and impose additional ﬁnancial

strains on low-income and indigent women. Financing

an abortion is the most reported obstacle to obtaining

one, often forcing women to delay their abortion until

well into the second trimester, at which point it is both

a more involved procedure and a signiﬁcantly more

costly one. Aside from causing delays, paying for an

abortion imposes ﬁnancial strain on Medicaid-eligible

women, who report forgoing basic necessities, borrow-

ing money, or selling or pawning personal and house-

hold items. Women who are unable to obtain funding

are forced to continue their unwanted pregnancies.

The economic downturn has also inﬂuenced the im-

pact that funding restrictions have on poor women by

increasing demand for abortion and the need for ﬁnan-

cial assistance to cover the procedure. In 2008, 42%

of women obtaining abortions lived below the federal

poverty level, an increase of almost 60% from 2000.

PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ABORTION

The accessibility of public funding for abortion varies

widely across states, not only because of the variation

in states’ policies regarding whether to fund abortion

in line with the Hyde Amendment or more expansively,

but also because of differences in how state Medicaid

programs operate and process applications for

Medicaid funds. These differences mean that it can

be far more difﬁcult for a woman in one state to secure

funding for abortion, and thus to exercise her right to

access a safe and legal abortion, than it might be for

a similarly situated woman in a neighboring state.

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

RESPECT FOR THE REPRODUCTIVE

HEALTH AND AUTONOMY OF ALL WOMEN

REGARDLESS OF ECONOMIC STATUS

As demonstrated by the ﬁndings in this report, poor

and low-income women are harmed, some grievously,

by the Hyde Amendment’s discriminatory restrictions

prohibiting Medicaid funding for abortion. By restrict-

ing these women’s access to abortion, the law violates

their fundamental human rights and denies them their

reproductive autonomy. Free from these restrictions,

women throughout the country would be empowered

to make their own decisions regarding what is best for

themselves and their families. After 34 years, repealing

the Hyde Amendment offers the United States a criti-

cal opportunity to restore women’s equality by making

a genuine commitment to reproductive health for all

women, regardless of economic status.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For nearly three and a half decades, poor and low-

income women in the United States have been the

victims of political discrimination waged against their

reproductive autonomy.

The U.S. government, state

governments, the United Nations, national organiza-

tions representing the medical community, reproduc-

tive healthcare providers, and advocacy organizations

need to take urgent action to repeal the Hyde Amend-

ment and permit the use of federal and state Medicaid

funds for abortion.

• The federal government should repeal the Hyde

Amendment and other restrictions that prohibit

federal funding of abortion.

• State governments should ensure that, where

restrictive state laws currently require that abortions

be covered by Medicaid in certain circumstances,

funding is available to the same extent that state

funds are available for other medical procedures.

• In states that recognize an obligation to fund

abortions beyond the limited instances provided for

under the Hyde Amendment, state governments

should take concrete steps to improve procedures

for processing Medicaid claims for abortion to

ensure that providers are able to obtain reimburse-

ment for covered procedures.

• The United Nations’ human rights bodies and

special rapporteurs should speak out against

restrictions on public funding for reproductive health

services as fundamental human rights violations.

• Reproductive healthcare providers should educate

patients about their right to access Medicaid-funded

healthcare, and, if possible, become approved

Medicaid providers and submit claims to state

Medicaid ofﬁces for reimbursement for all reproduc-

tive healthcare services covered in their state.

• National organizations representing the medical

community should adopt resolutions and guidelines

supporting the inclusion of reproductive healthcare,

including abortion, as an integral part of a compre-

hensive U.S. healthcare program.

• Advocacy organizations and members of the

public should advocate for the repeal of the Hyde

Amendment and federal and state laws that impose

restrictions on public funding for abortion and other

reproductive health services.

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Abortion is a constitutional right in the United States.

Existing federal and state laws, however, dramatically

restrict women’s access to abortion. These laws,

including mandatory waiting periods and biased

counseling requirements, have negative consequences

on women’s ability to obtain an abortion. One of the

laws that has had a profound impact on women’s

access is the Hyde Amendment, which since 1976

has barred federal Medicaid coverage of abortion,

except in the most extreme circumstances.

Although the incidence of abortion in the United States

has steadily declined since 2000,

abortion remains

one of the most common medical procedures. One in

three women has an abortion in her lifetime.

Unsafe

abortions are largely an issue of the past, and abortion

is considered one of the safest medical procedures.

Sixty-one percent of women having abortions are

mothers with one or more children.

In 2008, 69% of

women obtaining abortions were either poor or low-

income.

Despite the fact that abortion is a common

medical procedure, women’s access to this essential

healthcare service is relegated to the domain of poli-

tics, rather than being a personal decision. This is par-

ticularly pronounced in the abortion funding context.

While women with means face numerous obstacles

in obtaining abortions, they typically retain the right to

access an abortion in a safe and timely manner, either

by paying out of pocket or through private health insur-

ance. By contrast, because of the Hyde Amendment

and corresponding state bans on Medicaid funding

for abortion, poor and low-income women are forced

to scramble to obtain funding, often delaying their

abortions by days or weeks while they sort out ﬁnanc-

ing. In the worst cases, they are forced to carry their

pregnancies to term after failing to raise the neces-

sary funds. These women, because they are poor and

depend on the government for their healthcare, are

most easily targeted by a government policy that has as

its goal the prevention of all abortions. And the policy

has succeeded in undermining women’s reproductive

decision-making. According to studies looking at the

impact of the Hyde Amendment, 18–37 % of women

who would have obtained an abortion if Medicaid fund-

ing were available continue their pregnancies to term.

Even for low-income women who ultimately are able to

obtain abortions, forcing poor women to self-ﬁnance

an abortion poses a substantial challenge that has

short- and medium-term implications for their family’s

ﬁnancial health, as well as their capacity to meet daily

household needs.

Consider the story of ﬁnancial hardship told by W.S.,

a woman unable to receive Medicaid coverage for her

abortion, who was interviewed for this report. She and

her husband had to borrow money, pawn numerous

possessions, obtain help from an abortion Fund, and

take out a loan to cover the cost of her abortion. As

a result, she was left with debt and little money for

necessities. W.S. is a 29-year-old mother of six who

INTRODUCTION

“I would certainly like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having

an abortion, a rich woman, a middle class woman, or a poor woman.

Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the [Medicaid] bill.” ”

– Statement from Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) during a ﬂoor debate in 1976

reported receiving food stamps and being on public

assistance that provides free medical care at one local

clinic; her children are on Medicaid.

She discovered

that she was pregnant shortly after her husband was

laid off from his job. She was 15 weeks pregnant

when she decided to have an abortion. Neither part-

ner wanted to do so, but they knew they could not

afford another child. She had been preparing to tell

her family about the pregnancy when they made the

decision to terminate; they did not tell anyone, know-

ing that her family disapproved. She initially planned to

go to one clinic where she paid $80 for an ultrasound

before realizing she had to go elsewhere because the

ﬁrst clinic did not accept ﬁnancial assistance from an

outside source. The next clinic quoted her a price of

$1696. When she went, she was told that she would

be charged an extra $250 because her weight com-

plicated the procedure, plus $100 for another ultra-

sound, making the total cost over $2,000. She received

some funding assistance from the Network’s National

Reproductive Justice Fund, used $395 from her pay-

check, and borrowed money from her brother to have

an abortion at 17 weeks. “I needed $500-something

dollars and I had to lie to my brother … I told him I

was getting the clamp in my uterus that keeps me from

being pregnant removed.” On top of that, both she and

her husband took out a short-term loan for $50 each.

Still short, they were forced to pawn her wedding ring

and a number of personal items, including the vacuum

cleaner, the carpet cleaner, two drills, tools, and the

computer. She now pays approximately $70 per month

to have the pawn shop hold these items. Following her

abortion, she received a prescription, but she could not

afford to ﬁll it. “I couldn’t afford to buy the pills…. They

were $21, and I never bought them.”

In addition to the initial ﬁnancial burden imposed on

women, the ﬁnancial toll and medical complexity of

abortion increases practically daily as women struggle

to make the necessary logistical arrangements to locate

a provider and procure the needed funding. When it

comes to abortion, earlier is preferable. Abortions cost

less earlier in pregnancy.

In addition, more provid-

ers offer ﬁrst-trimester abortions,

and while abortion

is one of the safest medical procedures, ﬁrst-trimester

abortions, whether medical or surgical, are safer, short-

er, and easier.

Because of the Hyde Amendment,

however, low-income and indigent women are routinely

forced to delay their abortions. On average it takes

them two to three weeks longer than other women to

obtain one,

forcing them to endure more complicated

and lengthier later procedures and shoulder signiﬁcant

additional costs.

The Hyde Amendment undermines the goals of the

very the program that it restricts. Medicaid was cre-

ated in order to ensure the provision of necessary

healthcare to those too poor to afford it.

In providing

Medicaid to indigent and low-income individuals, the

government recognized that medical care is essential

for all persons, yet at the same time is often out of

reach of the poorest, whose health is often negatively

affected by poverty and lack of access to medical care.

Because of the Hyde Amendment, however, Medic-

aid can cover all medically necessary services except

one—abortion. This restriction is neither based in

medical evidence nor budgetary considerations; it is

merely, and egregiously, political. Because of the ideol-

ogy of some, poor women are unable to obtain other-

wise available federal funding for a single, commonly

needed, and often prohibitively expensive medically

necessary healthcare service.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION AND

METHODS

From October 2009 through February 2010,

researchers from the Center for Reproductive Rights

(the Center) and the National Network of Abortion Funds

(the Network) together conducted 27 interviews for

this report. In conducting this research, the Center

and the Network sought to collect a broad range of

stories highlighting how poor women are adversely

affected by the funding restrictions imposed by the

Hyde Amendment. These stories are meant to be

illustrative of Hyde’s impact.

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Among those interviewed were 15 women from various

regions of the United States whose lives have been

affected by the Hyde Amendment.

Criteria for

participation in the investigation included residence in

the District of Columbia or one of the 26 states that do

not provide state Medicaid funding for abortion beyond

the few exceptions permitted under the Hyde Amend-

ment,

being age 18 or over, being eligible for Medic-

aid (whether or not receiving it),

and having sought

ﬁnancial assistance to pay for an abortion within the

previous 12 months.

To recruit women, the Center collaborated with

independent abortion providers who operate clinics

in four locations in Texas; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

Detroit, Michigan; Atlanta, Georgia; and Shreveport,

Louisiana.

21,22

In addition, the Network recruited

women by issuing a call to its national case manager

and member Funds. Funds in Pennsylvania, Texas,

Illinois, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington offered refer-

rals, along with the Network’s national case manager.

The Center and the Network also interviewed one

staff member at each of the collaborating clinics who

counsels and supports women in obtaining abortions

and, when needed, helps them to secure ﬁnancial

assistance. In addition, we interviewed representatives

of three of the Network’s member Funds,

who offered

additional insight into the challenges that women face

ﬁnancing their abortions. (See Box: Abortion Funds:

Providing Critical Support to Women in Need.)

Finally, researchers interviewed three providers—from

Maryland, Washington, and West Virginia—to discuss

the reimbursement process for abortion services in

non-discrimination states, where state Medicaid cover-

age for abortion goes beyond the parameters of Hyde.

These interviews highlighted some of the challenges

and obstacles to providing abortions in states that

cover abortion with their own funds.

Researchers conducted semi-structured phone inter-

views, which lasted approximately 45 minutes.

All interviews were anonymous, unless participants

explicitly expressed a willingness to use their name.

Verbal informed consent was obtained from partici-

pants before the interviews.

In response to the lack of public funding for

abortion, the 100-plus member groups of the

National Network of Abortion Funds raise money

to help thousands of poor women cover the cost

of their abortions

and, in many cases, provide

supplemental services. Most abortion Funds are

run by volunteers and raise money from private

individuals and foundations to provide grants to

women needing ﬁnancial assistance.

Aside from

helping women cover the cost of abortion care,

many abortion Funds also help women pay for

emergency contraception, offer women additional

information, and provide support services such as

transportation to a clinic, housing for women

traveling long distances, meals, gas money, child-

care during the procedure, and assistance obtaining

medications. Some Funds also advocate on behalf

of women with individual clinics or, in states where

Medicaid pays for most abortions, help women to

enroll in Medicaid and provide information on how

to obtain social services.

Abortion Funds in the

Network also conduct advocacy for expanded public

funding of abortion.

In addition to the Network,

organizations such as Planned Parenthood and

the National Abortion Federation help low-income

women pay for abortion services.

ABORTION FUNDS:

PROVIDING CRITICAL SUPPORT

TO WOMEN IN NEED

“L.B. is a 30-year-old woman with a school-aged daughter. In Decem-

ber 2008, she was laid off from her job at a medical ofﬁce. Since then,

unable to ﬁnd another job, she enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program [food stamps] and is spending down her savings

account to pay her rent and other living expenses. L.B. had been using

a hormonal contraceptive, so she was surprised to ﬁnd herself preg-

nant. She borrowed from her uncle toward the cost of her abortion.

[The Women’s Medical Fund] provided $100 to ﬁll the remaining gap.”

–

An account shared by the executive director of the Women’s Medical Fund

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Under the federal Medicaid program,

federal and

state governments jointly pay for healthcare services

for eligible poor and low-income individuals and their

families.

Medicaid is the largest source of funding for

medical and health-related services for low-income and

indigent people in the United States.

It currently pro-

vides health and long-term care services to 60 million

individuals, including children and parents, persons

with disabilities, and seniors.

Medicaid plays a partic-

ularly important role for women, and especially women

of reproductive age. One in ten women in the United

States is covered by Medicaid, and women make up

more than two-thirds of adult Medicaid beneﬁciaries.

Thirty-seven percent of women of reproductive age in

families with incomes below the federal poverty level

rely on Medicaid for healthcare coverage.

According

to a 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation report, “Medicaid

pays for more than four in ten births nationwide, and in

several states, covers more than half of total births.”

States have the option of whether they want to partici-

pate in the federal Medicaid program, and if they do

so, they agree to abide by certain program rules. All

states have agreed to participate. Eligibility for a state

Medicaid program is based on a complicated set of

rules and varies tremendously across the country.

Coverage is limited to only the poorest households,

and yet not all people who are poor qualify for

Medicaid. (See Box: The Case of Immigrant Women.)

The recently enacted healthcare reform legislation

will expand Medicaid eligibility to all non-elderly

adults living at or below 133% of the federal poverty

level (FPL), thereby providing a safety net for millions

of Americans who would otherwise be priced out of

the insurance marketplace.

Federal law allows states to set more favorable eligibil-

ity requirements for pregnant women, and the major-

ity of states have done so. This enables some women

who would not normally qualify for Medicaid based on

their incomes to receive Medicaid once they become

pregnant. For pregnant women, state income eligibil-

ity requirements for Medicaid coverage range from

133% to 300% of the federal poverty level; most states

cover pregnant women between 133% and 185% of

FPL

—$24,352 to $33,874 for a family of three in

2009/2010.

Among 44 states responding to a state

survey on Medicaid coverage for perinatal services,

38 reported extending eligibility to pregnant women

beyond the minimum requirements.

Twenty-six

states reported offering pregnant women presumptive

eligibility, which allows providers “to grant immediate,

temporary Medicaid coverage to women who meet

certain criteria while formal eligibility determination is

HOW HYDE

AND MEDICAID WORK

“The Hyde Amendment’s denial of public funds for medically

necessary abortions plainly intrudes upon [women’s] constitutionally

protected decision, for both by design and effect it serves to coerce

indigent pregnant women to bear children that they would otherwise

elect not to have.”

– Justice Brennan, dissenting in Harris v. McRae, the Supreme Court decision ﬁnding the Hyde Amendment constitutional

being made.”

The vast majority of states surveyed

also reported using a variety of methods to streamline

the application process for eligible women in order to

facilitate their enrollment.

In 1976, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) sponsored

a rider to the annual Appropriations Act that prohibited

federal funding for abortion except where necessary

to save the pregnant woman’s life. Now known as the

Hyde Amendment, the rider, in various forms, has

been attached to every Appropriations Act since then.

Under the current version of the Hyde Amendment,

federal Medicaid funds may only be used for abortions

in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of

the pregnant woman.

States are required to provide

matching funding for cases that fall within these narrow

exceptions. If states choose to provide additional cover-

age for abortion, they must shoulder the entire cost.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Hyde

Amendment did not violate the federal constitution.

Recognizing that the Hyde Amendment undermines

poor women’s constitutional right to abortion, four jus-

tices dissented from the decision. “[T]he Hyde Amend-

ment,” wrote Justice William Brennan, “is nothing less

than an attempt by Congress to circumvent the dictates

of the Constitution and achieve indirectly what Roe

v. Wade said it could not do directly.”

The dissent-

ing justices would have found the Hyde Amendment

unlawful because women were being deprived of “a

government beneﬁt for which they are otherwise eli-

gible, solely because they have attempted to exercise a

constitutional right.” Also of concern to the justices was

the fact that Hyde speciﬁcally targets the constitutional

rights of poor women. The Hyde Amendment, wrote

Justice Thurgood Marshall, “is designed to deprive

poor and minority women of the constitutional right to

choose abortion.”

(See Box: International Perspectives

on Public Funding for Abortion.)

As of 2010, 26 states prohibit the use of their state

Medicaid funds for abortion except in the limited cases

permitted by Hyde.

South Dakota, in violation of

federal Medicaid law, pays for abortions only in cases

of life endangerment. Six states, referred to in this

report as Hyde-plus states, have slightly expanded on

the Hyde Amendment’s funding restrictions, with two

adding fetal abnormalities and four including endan-

Immigrant women are among those with restricted

access and limited eligibility for Medicaid. Before

1996, legal immigrants were subject to the same

eligibility guidelines as U.S. citizens.

The Per-

sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of

1996, otherwise known as welfare reform, required

that almost all new legal immigrants wait ﬁve years

before applying for Medicaid beneﬁts, limiting

coverage to only emergency situations (including

childbirth).

It also permitted states to perma-

nently deny Medicaid beneﬁts to non-citizens.

Such measures to restrict poor immigrant women’s

access to healthcare services, including abortion,

pose substantial threats to their reproductive health

and autonomy. Some states provide Medicaid and/

or State Children’s Health Insurance Program

(SCHIP) coverage for pregnant women during the

ﬁve-year waiting period.

Signiﬁcantly, recently

enacted healthcare reform legislation has failed

to remedy the denial of access to comprehensive

healthcare services for poor and low-income im-

migrant women.

THE CASE OF

IMMIGRANT WOMEN

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

germent of the pregnant woman’s physical health.

Seventeen non-discrimination states use their own

Medicaid funds to pay for all or most medically neces-

sary abortions; four states do so voluntarily, while the

remaining 13 do so pursuant to a court order.

Inter-

preting state constitutional law, courts in these states

have recognized that the fundamental privacy right

implicated in the decision of whether or not to have an

abortion requires government neutrality

The U.S. policy of denying public funds for abortion

is even more striking when compared to the

abortion policies of other developed nations.

Twenty-one of the twenty-seven members of the

European Union,

an additional ﬁve European

nations and Israel

provide funding for abortions

through public health insurance or in public health

facilities. In Canada, all provinces provide abortion

coverage at hospitals and many also cover costs

at private abortion clinics.

Given the fundamental

rights implicated by women’s access to abortion,

a Canadian court found that abortion funding

procedures that do not enable women to access

abortions in a timely way violate the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedom—Canada’s “Bill

of Rights.”

The court held that a provincial health

program limiting funding to public hospitals where

women were subject to long delays and that ex-

cluded services provided by abortion clinics violated

women’s right to liberty and security of the person,

freedom of conscience, and equality.

Outside of Europe, Canada, and Israel, several

other countries consider the provision of public

funding to be an inseparable element of the right

to abortion, including South Africa, Mexico City, and

Nepal. When Mexico City voted to legalize abortion

in April 2007,

a core element of the legislation

was making abortion both available and accessible

to women, including women who could not afford

to pay for the procedure.

The Supreme Court of

Nepal also recognized that ensuring that abortion is

ﬁnancially accessible is a necessary component of

the legal guarantee of safe and affordable abortion.

Following a successful lawsuit brought by the Cen-

ter to legalize abortion, the Supreme Court ordered

the government to establish an abortion fund to

ensure that abortions were accessible to poor and

rural women

.61

The Court’s ruling provides that the

abortion fund must include sufﬁcient resources to

fund abortions and to educate the public and health

service providers on the existing abortion law.

South Africa adopted a similar view when it legalized

abortion. The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy

Act, passed in 1997, both established women’s

right to abortion during the ﬁrst trimester and

ensured access by providing abortions free of

charge at designated public hospitals and clinics.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

ON PUBLIC FUNDING

FOR ABORTION

and that selectively denying beneﬁts to women exer-

cising a fundamental right violates equal protection.

(See Table: State Funding for Abortion under Medicaid.)

STATE FUNDING FOR ABORTION UNDER MEDICAID

BREAKDOWN OF STATE

FUNDING REGULATIONS

STATES TOTAL

Hyde States:

Life endangerment, rape, and

incest

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,

Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan,

Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming

Hyde-Plus States:

Life endangerment, rape, incest,

and fetal abnormality

Life endangerment, rape, incest,

and endangerment of physical

health

Iowa, Mississippi

Indiana, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin

Non-Discrimination States:*

Medical necessity

Pursuant to court order: Alaska, Arizona, California, Con-

necticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,

New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia

Voluntarily: Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Washington

Life Endangerment Only South Dakota

*As of August 1, 2010, the District of Columbia provides funding for all medically necessary abortions.

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

The Hyde Amendment’s restrictions affect low-income

women in three principal ways: by causing them to de-

lay procedures, by imposing additional ﬁnancial strain

on their already difﬁcult economic situations and by

forcing them to continue unwanted pregnancies. As of

2006, the average amount women paid for a ﬁrst-tri-

mester abortion was $413; at 20 weeks, the cost of an

abortion was roughly three times as much.

The costs

continue to rise and vary widely, inﬂuenced in part by

how far along the pregnancy is, as well as by location

and availability of providers. One woman interviewed

reported paying over $600 for her abortion performed

at 16 weeks, while another woman reported paying

over $2,000 for an abortion at 17 weeks, and another

was charged $1,510 for an abortion at 20 weeks.

Asked to describe some of the circumstances of the

women whom they assist with paying for abortions,

clinic counselors reported that many women have one

or more children and are single, in school, working

low-paying jobs or trying to enter the workforce, not

receiving help from their children’s father, and work-

ing to make ends meet.

One counselor reported that

75% or more of her clinic’s clients seeking funding

assistance are enrolled in Medicaid and their stories

include recent job loss, low-income jobs, and more

than one child at home with no support from part-

ners.

Another said that “the majority [of women] were

on birth control, but maintaining birth control was not

easily accessible for them—either their prescription ran

out or they couldn’t afford to get it renewed.”

Another

counselor reported speaking with women who say “‘I

need an abortion, because I can’t afford another baby.

I’m a single mom. I just got back to school, and I can’t

afford to drop out of school right now. I just got the

baby out of Pampers and to have another would cause

too many setbacks.’”

The Women’s Medical Fund Director stated that many

of the women the Fund serves are in precarious liv-

ing situations. “A lot of women we talk to are virtually

homeless. They’re not on the street and not in shelters,

but they live short-term with family, with friends, with

anybody who’s willing to take them and their kids in for

six months or three months or any amount of time.”

(See Box: Proﬁles of Women Interviewed for this

Report.)

HYDE’S IMPACT

“There is some sort of assumption out there that women who choose

abortion have not yet had a family, not yet gotten married, not yet

started their careers. The majority of women who show up for

abortion are already mothers, are between the ages of 20 and 24,

are already sexually active and have been using birth control...

These women are our sisters, our mothers, our rulers, our

leaders, our teachers, our principals, our rock stars, our political

people, they’re everywhere…”

–

Vice President of Whole Woman’s Health

Asked to discuss her thoughts on the typical barriers

that poor women face when seeking an abortion, the

Women’s Medical Fund Director reported that “money

is the main one.”

She went on to say that ﬁnancial

barriers to abortion are not limited to women who

receive Medicaid. “About a third of the women we

help aren’t enrolled in Medicaid. Most are ineligible

[for non-pregnancy related Medicaid]. So it’s partly the

Hyde Amendment, but also the general problem with

people being under-insured or uninsured. There are

people who aren’t poor enough for Medicaid. It’s all the

lack of a safety net for people, or an inadequate safety

net.”

DEMOGRAPHICS

• Eight of the women were Black/African-American,

two were White/Caucasian, two were Hispanic,

one was African-American and Caucasian, one

was Caucasian and Indian-American, and one was

African- and Cuban-American.

• Twelve had one or more children.

• Three reported being in an abusive relationship

leading to their unwanted pregnancy.

WORK AND SCHOOL

• Eight were in school full-time and either working

(4), looking for work (2), about to start a job (1), or

recently laid off (1).

• Four worked full-time and were in school full- or

part-time.

• Seven worked part-time, one of whom had several

part-time jobs.

• One was looking for work.

ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS OR SOURCES OF OTHER

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

• Eight received food stamps; another said that

it was not worth missing work to collect them

because they amounted to so little.

o Three of the eight enrolled in the food stamp

program following their abortions.

o A tenth sought her sister’s assistance to help

the family obtain sufﬁcient food.

• Four reported enrollment in public assistance.

• One was enrolled in disability insurance.

• Two obtained child support.

ABILITY TO OBTAIN MEDICAID

AND HEALTH INSURANCE

• Seven were enrolled in Medicaid at the time of the

abortion.

o Three of these only met income eligibility

standards for Medicaid coverage while

pregnant.

• One had student health insurance.

• Seven had no insurance at the time of the

abortion.

o One of these enrolled in Medicaid following

her abortion.

o Another had children enrolled in Medicaid.

o A third was enrolled in Medicaid during a

prior pregnancy.

PROFILES OF WOMEN

INTERVIEWED

FOR THIS REPORT

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Financing an abortion is among the most common

obstacles to obtaining the procedure, an obstacle

that some women are unable to overcome.

Without

Medicaid funding for abortion, many women resched-

ule their appointments while trying to save money or

waiting for their partner to fulﬁll promises to pay.

Several of the women interviewed unsuccessfully

sought ﬁnancial help from their partners, sometimes

further delaying their abortions. One mother of two

reported that “I asked him as soon as I found out and

made my decision, and every time he said he would

help. He said he would have half of it, and then all of it,

and he didn’t. I had to cancel three appointments.”

One clinic counselor reported that patients who do

not secure funding typically vanish.

They may ﬁnd

out that they are further along in their pregnancies

than they thought, or that the funding available from

abortion Funds or donations to clinics is not enough

to close the gap. Typically clinics are unable to track

these women, though clinic staff members are certain

that some never obtain an abortion for want of funding.

Of the 50 to 70 abortion patients that her clinic sees

weekly, the counselor stated that around ﬁve are un-

able to obtain the money to pay for the abortion.

occasion, the clinic allows women to give them IOUs,

knowing that it is unlikely that the women will ever be

able to repay the money.

When R.L., a 26-year-old single mother, was asked

how the availability of Medicaid would have affected

her, she reported that it “would have changed a lot of

things for me. If I could have easily been able to go to

somewhere local and say, ‘I’m not working anymore, I

just found out I’m pregnant, this is my situation, right

now I don’t feel comfortable keeping my child, can

you help?’ And they said, ‘We can help,’ it would have

changed a lot of things for me. I could have gotten

away from [my abusive partner] a lot sooner. There

was 10 weeks of me having to wait, panicking.”

Asked whether Medicaid should cover abortions for

poor women, she responded: “I think that the govern-

ment should deﬁnitely help with the cost of abortion.…

Medicaid should help…. [I]t should be an option that

low-income women should have. It could … change a

lot of women’s lives and give hope to young girls who

feel like they have no other alternatives.”

(See Box:

Punishing Survivors of Domestic Violence.)

Other women interviewed spoke of how Medicaid fund-

ing would have allowed them to have their abortions

earlier, not pay so much for the procedure, pay their

bills, and keep their procedures “more conﬁdential.”

H.S. reported that “it’s really, really hard out here. I

mean the economy is so messed up, and it’s really

hard to get a job and it’s hard to save, and there’s stuff

you need for you and your family. Whether it’s your

fault or a mistake, they should help.”

T.S. reported

that with the help of Medicaid, “it wouldn’t have taken

me so long to get [an abortion]. I wouldn’t have had to

miss so much work. It’s not something a woman should

run and do every day, but when things come up like

mine…. I crossed my Ts, dotted my Is. I was on birth

control, and I ran into a ﬁnancial slump. I wish I would

have been able to use my medical card to get the pro-

cedure.”

For one woman, ﬁnding out that Medicaid

only covered her if and when she needed prenatal and

post-partum care was “something that really upset me.

It didn’t make sense to me….just giving me assistance

for this pregnancy.”

FORCING WOMEN TO DELAY ABORTIONS

“If a woman could pay for her abortion right away, she

would get it done right away. She wouldn’t wait until

she was 18 weeks.... I don’t understand how people

think it’s just.… If [abortion is] their legal right but they

can’t access it [because they are poor], you’re taking

away their legal right.”

— Executive Director of the Chicago Abortion Fund

Poor women are routinely forced to delay their abor-

tions in order to raise enough money to pay for the

procedure

.93

On average, it takes them two to three

weeks longer than other women to obtain an abortion

because of the difﬁculties involved in procuring the

necessary funds.

Six in ten economically disadvan-

The Hyde Amendment provides no exception for women

experiencing domestic violence.

The director of the Women’s Medical Fund in

Philadelphia discussed one woman struggling to deal

with the consequences of an abusive relationship:

I.S. is a 22-year-old woman trying to rebuild her

life. She and her boyfriend had bought a home and

started a family. She had an infant and another on the

way when her boyfriend became abusive. She separat-

ed from him, enrolled in a welfare-to-work program,

and ﬁled for child support. Her aunt took her and her

baby in while she face[d] foreclosure on her home.

Although enrolled in Medicaid, she was prohibited

from using it for abortion care. I.S. pulled together

$125 toward the cost of her abortion and [the Fund]

closed the remaining gap with $145. In her words, “’I

don’t know what I would do if I couldn’t get this help.

I really didn’t have anyone else to turn to … it will

help me a great deal, not only for me but for my

family too.’”

In an interview, R.L., a 26-year-old single mother who

had been working as a personal care aide and attend-

ing school full-time to become a registered nurse,

shared her story about how domestic abuse led to an

unintended pregnancy and created ﬁnancial and other

barriers to obtaining an abortion.

“When I found out [that I was pregnant], I was

extremely upset. I have three children from a previous

… abusive relationship. [I thought] I found somebody

better for me and my kids and that turned out to be

not true. He was a lot worse.”

R.L.’s boyfriend seemed to be the perfect man, the

son of two pastors who came from a well-off fam-

ily, until they got engaged and he convinced her to

quit her job and move to his extremely rural Georgia

home. He promised to get health insurance for her

and her kids, but he never did. “Within 2 weeks,

the abuse began.… I was cut off from everything I

knew…. He didn’t want me to work, so I was in a situ-

ation where I had to depend on him. I had no contact

to my family…. He would always threaten to kill me, if

I tried to leave…. I was really depressed at the time. It

was horriﬁc.”

R.L. reported that her boyfriend was verbally, physical-

ly, and sexually abusive towards her both before and

after he learned that she was pregnant. “I thought

maybe I could think of something, get away, maybe

keep the baby, but it was so hard to get away from

him, once he found out all hell broke loose. It got

worse. The forcing himself on me got worse, the not

giving me food got worse, the taking it out on my kids

got worse…. It took me two months to ﬁgure out how I

was going to get the abortion.”

R.L. was fortunate to receive ﬁnancial and logistical

help from a neighbor whom she met one day at the

local grocery store, while her boyfriend sat in the car

outside. “I’m now being stalked by the same guy. I

just had to take a restraining order against him. I’m

pretty much starting over ... I’m still afraid of him….

I’ve had friends who have been murdered by ex-

boyfriends, who have been shot by their husbands.

I’ve seen that domestic violence up close….”

PUNISHING

SURVIVORS

OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

taged women who have had an abortion report that

they would have preferred to have had the abortion

earlier in the pregnancy.

Research shows that approximately 90% of abortions

take place in the ﬁrst trimester.

Among the women in-

terviewed, seven obtained ﬁrst-trimester abortions, while

eight obtained second-trimester abortions, two of whom

had not yet undergone the procedure at the time of the

interview. All but two

of the ﬁfteen women interviewed

reported delaying their procedures, due in part to their

inability to obtain funding or transportation. In several

cases, the delay not only increased the cost of the abor-

tion, but changed it from a brief procedure to a two-day

abortion. Five women reported having to cancel and

reschedule appointments, in some cases pushing them

past a clinic’s gestational limit or forcing them to un-

dergo a more complicated procedure, and two reported

having to forgo receiving anesthesia or pain medication

because they could not afford the additional costs.

Many women make the decision to have an abortion

immediately upon ﬁnding out that they are pregnant,

but poverty and the Hyde Amendment’s funding restric-

tions force them to delay their abortions into the second

trimester. According to one clinic counselor, low-income

women get caught in a vicious cycle when they call to

inquire about obtaining an abortion, ﬁnd out the price,

get overwhelmed, and put it off. Delay is a direct con-

sequence of the signiﬁcant ﬁnancial hardships experi-

enced by poor women. “They lose their jobs, they get

behind on their bills, they don’t pay their rent. [They]

get in a deep hole.”

(See Box: Delay Due to State

Failure to Fund).

The Women’s Medical Fund reported working with many

women seeking second-trimester abortions, with 41% of

women requesting ﬁnancial assistance being 13 weeks

or more pregnant.

“Our experience is typical of all the

abortion Funds, unless … [they] only fund ﬁrst-trimester

[abortions].”

100

The Fund director attributed the delay

to a number of factors, including women spending time

chasing funding, while the cost of their abortion contin-

ues to climb.

101

The director of the Chicago Abortion

Fund, which exclusively funds second-trimester abor-

tions, reported that the average pregnancy gestation

among women calling for abortion funding is 18.4

weeks, up from 17.4 weeks last year.

102

“No woman

Delay also occurs in states that, by law, go beyond

the Hyde exceptions, but in practice, fund few

abortions, leaving women in those states in a

similar position to women in Hyde states. A 21

year-old single mother on Medicaid whose son was

11 months old at the time of the interview, L.Y.

reported that he was born with a birth defect called

gastroschisis.

108

One week after her son was born,

she stopped working. He spent one and a half

months in the hospital and endured a number of

surgeries and procedures. She has been trying to

return to work for several months. Because Med-

icaid pays for very few abortions in her state, she

was forced to delay the procedure for two weeks

while she tried to get an appointment for the least

expensive abortion she could ﬁnd. She said that,

when she ﬁnally did so, “they ended up telling me

I was too far along to get it done [there].” Needing,

at that point, to raise $850 for the abortion from

several abortion Funds, which took another two

weeks, L.Y. was 17 weeks and 3 days pregnant

when she went for her two-day surgical procedure.

DELAY DUE TO

STATE FAILURE TO FUND

purposefully waits to have a second-trimester abortion.

They will keep calling us every week to try to get through

to access funding.”

103

(See Box: Other Barriers to Ac-

cess.)

PERSONAL ACCOUNTS OF WOMEN’S DELAYS

For C.M., a 26-year-old single mother and disabled Iraq

war veteran, obtaining an abortion was incredibly chal-

lenging.

106

C.M. had disability insurance and healthcare

coverage through Veterans Affairs, but also needed

to obtain food stamps to cover basic needs. She had

recently broken up with her six-year-old son’s father and

begun getting child support from him. She enrolled in

Medicaid early in her pregnancy while deciding whether

to have an abortion. As C.M. tried to raise the necessary

funds, she was forced to delay her abortion for over six

weeks and to cancel several appointments, all while

the cost of the procedure continued to increase. The

difﬁculties of ﬁnancing and scheduling her abortion rose

signiﬁcantly when the delay required that she undergo

a two-day procedure, which meant ﬁnding someone to

drive her to the clinic and bringing her son on an over-

night trip some 80 to 90 miles away. C.M. obtained her

abortion just after 20 weeks, which ended up costing

over $1,500 and forced her to borrow funds and forgo

paying bills and loan payments.

Like many of the women interviewed, C.M. was work-

ing, going to school, taking care of her child, and trying

to take care of herself when an unintended pregnancy

further complicated her life and burdened her ﬁnances:

“I found out I was pregnant a month or so after concep-

tion, and I felt really depressed [and] stressed out. There

were a number of issues going on already in my life. Be-

In addition to the Hyde Amendment, low-income

women are particularly affected by other legal re-

strictions on abortion provision and the shortage of

abortion providers. Restrictive laws and the lack of

providers compound the ﬁnancial obstacles women

face, driving up the costs and increasing the hard-

ships they must overcome to obtain an abortion.

104

State restrictions on abortion, such as 24-hour wait-

ing periods and parental consent provisions, restrict

the availability of abortion for all women by requiring

them to jump through legal hoops before accessing

services and by imposing costly and burdensome

requirements on women, as well as on providers.

105

If a woman is delayed in having an abortion for ﬁ-

nancial or other reasons and passes the gestational

limit of the original clinic, an additional obstacle that

she may face is ﬁnding a new provider. Individual

clinics establish their own guidelines dictating how

late they will provide abortions, which must adhere

to state regulations on gestational limits and may

also be determined by provider availability, facility

capacity, and cost. In many states, there is a short-

age of abortion providers, especially providers who

do later abortions. If a woman is delayed by days or

weeks, as many low-income women are, this may

mean that, in addition to having to pay for a costlier

procedure, she will have to incur potentially sub-

stantial travel expenses to get to a provider who can

provide the abortion. If the provider is in a state that

requires a 24-hour waiting period after the provi-

sion of state-mandated information, travel expenses

could include two trips or an overnight hotel stay, as

well as childcare costs and lost wages.

OTHER

BARRIERS TO ACCESS

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

ing pregnant was not going to make any of those issues

better.... The child that I have, me and his father were

together—we moved to North Carolina where he lived to

try to give another shot at a relationship and family life

but that didn’t work out.… The father wasn’t around; I

had to pay all the bills, all the major responsibilities were

on me. I worked at night until 4 or 5 AM, then had a

two-hour class from 9 to 11 [in the morning], then also

class on certain nights till 9 or 10. Then I’d have to pick

my son up at 5 or so, or sometimes not till the next day.

It was really stressful. [The father] also took back a lot

of things from the relationship so I needed to ﬁnd a new

car, a new place to stay…. I’m also a disabled veteran.

I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom…. I was diagnosed

with [post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)], which I

deal with constantly.... I suffered a nervous breakdown

in 2006 from PTSD, which is why I was working so hard

to get my life back together, because I lost everything at

that time.”

107

In addition to the demands of making ends meet and

caring for their families, many women are delayed while

searching for an abortion provider they can afford to

pay out-of-pocket, and failing that, raising the money

that they need. R.D., a 27-year-old single mother of two

children who works part-time and attends school full-time

while enrolled in Medicaid and obtaining food stamps,

reported that she was forced to schedule and cancel

several appointments as she raised the necessary funds

and ended up enduring a two-day procedure.

109

The

worry that she would not be able to get the abortion at

all, when she knew she couldn’t raise another child,

caused her great distress. R.D. reported that “the waiting

was pretty awful. It was on my mind at all times. I lost 30

pounds not being able to eat, not being able to get it off

my mind. What if I couldn’t get the abortion, what was

I going to do? At work and school, I just put on a happy

face and did what I had to do. It’s harder [to do the

same] with [my] kids.”

M.C., a 19-year-old single mother from Texas with two

children under the age of two, was still working to secure

funding for her abortion at the time of the interview.

110

She reported working full-time at Burger King, while

also attending college full-time with the hope of becom-

ing a registered nurse. She had recently moved back

in with her parents, who themselves were struggling

ﬁnancially, and she was not receiving any child support.

M.C. reported being enrolled in Medicaid and recently

being added back onto her parents’ food stamps. She

went to the hospital in pain thinking that she had a

bladder infection, only to discover that her boyfriend

had given her a sexually transmitted infection and that

she was pregnant. She reported having to reschedule

her appointment several times: “When I get my pay-

check [I’ll reschedule again]…. It makes it hard for me

because I know what I’m gonna do, and … I want to act

like I’m not even pregnant; it’s always on my mind.” She

reported that she and her mother are very close and that

her mother was upset to learn of her pregnancy, “but

she knows I can’t afford it, so that’s why she under-

stands … [even though] it’s against my religion.” When

she ﬁrst called to schedule her abortion, she was told

that she would be able to have a medication abortion.

Due to her ﬁnancing delays, she was instead preparing

to have a surgical abortion and hoping that she would

be able to raise enough money to cover the $25 charge

for anesthesia.

IMPOSING ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL

HARDSHIP ON POOR WOMEN

Paying for an abortion imposes signiﬁcant ﬁnancial

strain on Medicaid-eligible women. In one study, nearly

60% of Medicaid-eligible women reported that paying

for an abortion created serious hardship.

111

Moreover,

studies have found that poor women are often forced

to divert money that they otherwise would have spent

on necessities such as rent, utility bills, food or clothing

for themselves or their children, and that some women

resort to extreme measures such as pawning household

goods, theft, or sex work in order to raise enough money

to pay for an abortion.

112

Among the women interviewed, all but one reported

difﬁculties obtaining the funds needed to pay for their

abortions, though the degree of difﬁculty varied dramati-

cally. Twelve women reported receiving private ﬁnancial

assistance to cover their procedures, two were still in the

process of sorting out funding at the time of the inter-

view, and one woman attempted to receive assistance

but reported difﬁculties with the process. The majority of

the women interviewed reported having to sell or pawn

possessions, borrow money, forgo paying bills, give up

their cars—if they were able to afford one in the ﬁrst

place—limit their food intake, or make other arrange-

ments in order to cover the balance of their abortions,

diverting money from other essential household expen-

ditures. (See Box: Financial Hardship and Financing the

Abortion.)

Poverty imposes a downward spiral on poor women,

who are often working to improve their lives and those

of their families. Two of the abortion Fund members

interviewed reported working with a large percentage of

women who are mothers and virtually homeless. These

women are desperate to terminate their pregnancies,

even at the risk of gravely harming themselves. The

director of the Women’s Medical Fund shared the story

of a woman whom they had recently helped: the young

woman said to the Fund’s phone counselor, “I’m think-

ing of ways I can fall or what I can do to end this preg-

nancy.”

114

Unable to attend a job training session due

to a public transportation strike in November, she had

lost her enrollment in the welfare program, and therefore

her income. While she worked with her caseworker to

re-enroll, she was evicted from her apartment for failure

to pay rent. She and her preschooler were taken in by

a friend with ﬁve children. Although she is enrolled in

Medicaid, she cannot use this to pay for her abortion.

She received $100 from her aunt toward the cost of her

procedure and the abortion Fund ﬁlled the remaining

gap with $113. While this woman was fortunate enough

to receive ﬁnancial assistance and obtain an abortion,

thousands more women are unable to obtain help and

abortion Funds cannot meet the growing need.

Nine women borrowed money to pay for their

abortions or received help from friends, fam-

ily or neighbors. Another reported that “my

family doesn’t have a lot of money. Everyone is

unemployed. They’re all laid off, so they can’t

help.”

113

All but one of the women obtained ﬁnancial

assistance from either an abortion Fund or

through private donations subsidizing care at

a clinic, and some women obtained help from

both sources and multiple Funds.

One braided hair for 18 hours over the course

of three days, while attending school full-time

and sleeping for only three hours.

One started working extra hours following

her abortion to cover the cost of diverting her

income from her usual expenses to pay for her

abortion.

One was overdrawn in her checking account

and had her phone cut off for several weeks

One cut back on diapers and clothes for her

child.

Four pawned or sold personal and household

items to cover the cost of their abortions, while

two reported not having anything worth selling.

Four reported being unable to pay bills follow-

ing their abortions or holding off from purchas-

ing basic necessities.

One family—including the woman interviewed,

her two sisters, and her two daughters—was

short on food for a week and a half following the

woman’s abortion.

FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

AND FINANCING THE ABORTION

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

While most women who obtain help from an abortion

Fund or through a clinic subsidy are able to raise part

of the cost of the procedure themselves, many women

are unable to do so. According to a clinic counselor,

even if “a funding agency gives them $50 or $200, it

still leaves a huge gap that they are not able to ﬁll.”

115

Some clinics work with women, who are often pushed

into desperate situations, to explore their options.

“When you’re in that place, it seems so hopeless.

Sometimes we can help them by looking at that a little

more clearly, stepping back, being more objective.”

116

This counselor reported on the dire circumstance of

women seeking to ﬁll the gap between the cost of the

abortion and the committed funds, saying that “we

have had women who are panhandling in the waiting

room to try and come up with their portion. We had

a [mother] who was selling everything in the diaper

bag—baby formula, diapers, anything she could

ﬁnd, trying to raise money for her co-pay. There was

a[nother] woman who worked full-time, and at night

she would sell tamales outside on the street … stay up

late making them, go to work, and spend the evening

and night selling tamales, trying to raise the money.

Desperate women do desperate things. We see the

immeasurable strength that women have and the com-

mitment to their families far above themselves.”

117

Women must come up with money not only for the cost

of the procedure, but also for the expenses of travel-

ing to a clinic if abortion is unavailable or too costly

where they live or they are delayed into needing a later

procedure. T.D., a full-time college student who works

part-time, collects food stamps, and is enrolled in her

university’s student health insurance plan, reported

contacting three clinics for her abortion.

118

The local

Planned Parenthood had stopped offering surgical

abortions the week before and only offered medication

abortions until four weeks gestation. The other local

clinic refused to accept the abortion Fund’s voucher.

In the end, two weeks after contacting the local clin-

ics, T.D. travelled two hours each way to a clinic that

charged her $425 for a surgical procedure at nine

weeks and accepted the Fund’s payment of $300. To

get to the clinic, she spent over $30 in gas and took

time off from school, while her mother took the day off

from work to accompany her. Her phone was cut off

for two to three weeks as T.D. was unable to pay the bill

due to paying $125 towards the abortion, which also

caused her to be overdrawn in her checking account.

For young women in school, unexpectedly having to

ﬁnd a way to pay several hundred dollars or more for

an abortion can be daunting. E.J., a 20-year-old single

mother of a two-year-old boy from Louisiana who is on

food stamps, reported that she is the ﬁrst member of her

family to attend college.

119

During the week, her son

lives with her grandmother “so I can go to school and

provide a better life for both myself and my son…. I

didn’t know that I was pregnant when school started.

When I was in high school, I got a dance scholarship

to dance at an [out-of-state] college, so I had to pass

up the opportunity to go off and dance because I didn’t

believe in abortion. I went through with that pregnancy.

Now I’m in school and dancing again and I couldn’t

afford to support a child.… I can’t go to my immediate

family … because of my religi[ous] background, that’s

not acceptable. I’m Baptist. It’s more of a ‘you made

your bed now lay in it.’” She reported trying “to do

work study on campus, but they denied me.” She also

reported trying to get a job off campus, but not having

a car made it impossible. In order to cover her portion

of the $475 cost of her abortion, not including the $50

fee to see the doctor, she used $160 that she received

from her school loan, $30 that she received from re-

turning a class textbook, and $95 that she earned from

spending 18 hours braiding hair for two people. (See

Box: Low-Income Women Advocating for a Solution.)

EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN STRUGGLING

TO SURVIVE THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND

OBTAIN AN ABORTION

The full impact of the current economic downturn is

still unknown, but reports from women, clinic staff, and

abortion Fund activists suggest an increase in both

the demand for abortion and for ﬁnancial assistance,

particularly from recently unemployed women. One

counselor reported that “there are a great many more

women who are seeking abortions and in need of help.

It’s because of the economy, and unemployment has

been growing for quite some time.”

122

(See Box: The

Challenges of Assisting Women.) In addition, three of

the women interviewed reported that they were plan-

ning to continue their pregnancies until their household

ﬁnances were affected by their or their spouses’ layoffs.

Even in instances where families are entitled to some

ﬁnancial assistance, they may have to wait long periods

of time before they can access beneﬁts. One woman

reported that it would take six to eight weeks to initiate

her husband’s unemployment coverage.

123

In a September 2009 report by the Guttmacher

Institute examining how the recession was affecting

women’s family planning and pregnancy decisions,

researchers found that 44% of the women surveyed

wanted to reduce or delay their childbearing.

128

At the

same time, 23% of surveyed women reported having a

harder time paying for birth control, a ﬁgure that rose

to one in three when considering only the ﬁnancially

“worse-off” women.

129

This data suggests that the

recession is also likely to have an impact on the de-

mand for abortion, as women struggle to reconcile their

desires for reduced or delayed childbearing with their

inability to access affordable family planning methods.

Indeed, between 2000 and 2008, the proportion of

women obtaining abortions who were poor increased

by 60%.

130

In 2008 poor women’s abortion rate was

ﬁve times that of women who were not poor or low-

income.

131

In 2007, the Chicago Abortion Fund (CAF)

launched a leadership group, My Voice,

My Choice, composed of former Fund clients,

based on the belief that the women it serves

need to be part of the solution. The leader-

ship group, currently 14 members, is made

up primarily of young women of color. Group

members participate in trainings on leadership

development, reproductive justice, and advoca-

cy and research and train fellow group mem-

bers on relevant topics of interest. CAF provides

support services to the women in the group,

including information and referrals to daycare,

housing, and job opportunities. After training,

the women join CAF’s reproductive justice

team and engage in organizing, community

education in marginalized communities, and

advocacy with elected ofﬁcials. Many of the

participants have told their abortion and life

stories in advocacy and community education

settings. My Voice, My Choice also produces

a monthly talk show on abortion access. With

support from the Network, the group contin-

ues to grow and mobilize locally and nationally

for greater access to abortion for low-income

women and women of color. By empowering and

supporting the leadership of the women most

affected by barriers to access, CAF is helping

to build a stronger movement for change. The

executive director reported on the remarkable

women who participate in the leadership group,

saying that one of the women “is the mother of

three young girls. She works a minimum wage

job full-time. She just barely covers the rent….

She still ﬁnds time to come in and be a part of

the group.”

121

LOW-INCOME WOMEN

ADVOCATING FOR A SOLUTION

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

H.T., a mother of three who lost her job while pregnant,

stated that she knew she “couldn’t afford a baby” given

her ﬁnancial circumstances but had “mixed feelings”

about getting an abortion.

132

She reported that she

was not able to get unemployment beneﬁts “because

the system is out of money, so they are trying not to

enroll [new] people…. I applied four times and got

turned down. Some people have to go to two [court]

hearings to get unemployment,” in addition to going

to the unemployment ofﬁce every day, which would

have required getting a babysitter for her four-year-old

daughter. At the time of her interview, she had enrolled

in food stamps and Medicaid. Shortly after discover-

ing that she was pregnant, while still employed, she

went to see her doctor, knowing that her insurance was

set to expire two days later. She thought that she was

having a miscarriage, having had one in the past, and

a blood test at her doctor’s ofﬁce indicated that this

was likely the case. She was unable to schedule an

ultrasound to conﬁrm, however. Four weeks later, when

she realized that she had not miscarried, she had lost

her job and insurance and she needed to raise the

money for an abortion. At 17 weeks and 6 days, she

had an abortion. In addition to borrowing money from

her sisters and receiving assistance from a Fund, H.T.

had to delay paying some of her bills in order to pay for

her abortion. She still owes the clinic $185. She owns

a home, but does not “think [she’ll] be able to stay

there,” since she can no longer afford the mortgage.

She makes “arrangements on top of arrangements, but

it’s not enough.”

T.S., an unhappily married, 38-year-old mother of two

from Pennsylvania, reported working full-time for a

state-funded mental health association, being enrolled

in Medicaid, and taking the pill regularly at the time

of her unintended pregnancy.

133

When she found out

that she was pregnant, she was working on furlough

and not receiving any income because the state budget

had not been passed by the legislature. In addition

to receiving assistance from the clinic and a Fund,

and using some money set aside from what her sister

sends to help out, she borrowed money from two of

her colleagues in order to ﬁnance her abortion, telling

The economic downturn has had a dramatic impact on the need for

abortion funding, with Network abortion Funds reporting increases of

50–100% in requests for help from women over the past few years.

124

THE CHALLENGES

OF ASSISTING

WOMEN

While Funds raised approximately the same

amount in 2009 as in 2008, many more

women requested assistance and many

women needed larger sums of money to close

the gap between their own resources and the

cost of the abortion.

125

Some Funds also found

that their donors had lost signiﬁcant amounts

of savings and were unable to contribute as

much as in years past. Other Funds were able

to dramatically increase their fundraising to

meet the rising need.

126

In a recent survey of

its member Funds, the Network reported that

members received 87,000 calls requesting

assistance from women between July 2008

and July 2009.

127

them that she needed it for groceries. Her husband

is mostly unable to work due to a work-related injury

sustained four years ago and ﬁnancial issues have

strained the marriage. “I didn’t tell anyone at the time

[about the pregnancy and the abortion] … I honestly

think that I made the right decision for myself and my

household.... I was really, really sick during my preg-

nancy, dehydrated. [She reported being hospitalized

for dehydration and vomiting.] I had a lot of mixed

emotions.” T.S. went back and forth about the decision

to terminate the pregnancy, but in the end she and

her husband concluded that another child would put

too much strain on their ﬁnancial situation and cause

problems for the family. “[My husband] knows that a

baby would bring complications and problems on the

home, let alone expenses.”

For a 20-year-old mother from Pennsylvania, who at

the time of the interview had a six-month-old daughter,

the decision was incredibly difﬁcult.

134

H.S. found out

that she was pregnant when her daughter was just two

months old. At the time that she became pregnant,

she was on the NuvaRing (a hormonal contraceptive)

and in school full-time earning an associate’s degree

in computer technology. She had gone back to school

because she had not been able to ﬁnd another job as a

certiﬁed nursing assistant after her daughter was born;

she had quit her prior job when she was eight months

pregnant because she was too ill to work. “Nobody was

hiring.… I couldn’t get a job.” She wanted to continue

with the pregnancy, but she knew that she could not

support another child without any income besides

public assistance; her mother, with whom she lived

temporarily while getting on her feet, supported her de-

cision. She would like to have more children after she

gets her degree and is ﬁnancially stable. At the time of

the interview, she was getting ready to start a new job

part-time.

PRESSURING WOMEN TO CONTINUE

UNWANTED PREGNANCIES

Approximately one in four women on Medicaid who

wants to have an abortion is forced to continue her

pregnancy because she cannot afford to pay for the

procedure.

135

This estimate is based on a number of

studies published since the Hyde Amendment went

into effect 34 years ago, which found that between 18

and 37% of women who would have obtained an abor-

tion if Medicaid funding had been available instead

continued their pregnancies to term.

136

One of the most

respected studies analyzed the abortion and childbirth

rates in ﬁve instances in which an abortion fund cre-

ated by the North Carolina state legislature ran out of

money before the end of the ﬁscal year.

137

It concluded

that 37% of women who would have had an abortion

if money had been available through the abortion fund

instead carried their pregnancies to term.

138

When asked if they had any knowledge of what hap-

pens to women who are unable to obtain funding for

their abortion procedures, Fund members and clinic

counselors responded that there is little if any mecha-

nism to track these women, with one Fund member

saying “it makes sense to believe that if a woman can’t

get an abortion because she couldn’t pay for it, she

ends up having a baby.”

139

Clinic counselors report

that a certain percentage of women who make appoint-

ments do not show up for them, with one saying that

her clinic has a no-show rate for the state-mandated

informed consent sessions that ranges from 32–43%

per month and a 20% no-show rate for abortion ap-

pointments.

140

If there is no further contact, then there

is no way to know what happened. One counselor said

that staff may eventually reach about 10% of women

who do not reschedule appointments, most of whom

report having ﬁnancial issues.

141

Some women keep

rescheduling until they raise the necessary funds, while

others give up trying, look for a clinic that performs

later abortions, or change their minds altogether. An-

other counselor reported that “very few women actually

tell us ‘Well, I changed my mind.’”

142

If they do, the

clinic tries to get them prenatal care. “Sometimes they

say they would rather have had an abortion but they

can’t raise the money.”

143

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Asked how the repeal of the Hyde Amendment would

affect poor women, another counselor reported that the

women would no longer have to forgo needed abor-

tions because they would have access to this essential

healthcare service: “Women who can’t afford to have

children, but are forced to go through with the preg-

nancy because [they] can’t come up with the money to

pay for the abortion, that would change dramatically….

I simply have never been able to understand why

abortion … is not included in a woman’s reproduc-

tive healthcare. It’s a fact of life. Abortion has always

existed. It’s always going to exist.”

144

(See Box: The

Financial Implications of Unwanted Pregnancies Carried

to Term.)

ACCESSING MEDICAID FUNDS UNDER THE

HYDE AMENDMENT EXCEPTIONS

Discussions with providers in a few Hyde states sug-

gest that, even for women who are victims of rape,

incest, or have life endangering situations, the chal-

lenges of obtaining Medicaid approval and the lengthy

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES

CARRIED TO TERM

“I don’t want to depend on the system to help raise my child.

What if the system isn’t there?”

— Pennsylvania woman interviewed for this report

145

Women should not be coerced into bearing

children because of abortion funding bans, nor

should they be prevented from having children

because of punitive or inadequate social and

economic supports for low-income women and

families. However, as state and federal govern-

ments debate how to contain Medicaid costs, it

is important to note that, although repeal of the

Hyde Amendment would require Medicaid to

fund additional abortion procedures, the over-

all budgetary effect of allowing poor women to

use Medicaid to pay for abortion would be a

decrease in federal and state spending. The

costs associated with unwanted pregnancies

carried to term are estimated to be four to ﬁve

times greater than those of paying for abortions

for women who seek them.

146

The available

data suggests that providing public funds for

women seeking abortion would result in signiﬁ-

cant cost savings for federal and state govern-

ments. The most widely cited study concluded

that using state and federal funds to pay for

abortions would have resulted in medical and

social welfare savings of $435 to $540 mil-

lion and a net savings to the nation of at least

$339.6 million over the two years following the

study.

147

The same study concluded that, for

every dollar spent to pay for abortion, nearly

ﬁve dollars are saved in public medical and

welfare expenditures related to babies born

to poor women, including Medicaid expendi-

tures for prenatal care, delivery, and postnatal

care for the mother, as well as newborn care,

neonatal intensive care, pediatric care, food

stamps, and public assistance for the child

during the ﬁrst two years of life.

148

The study

was replicated with similar results.

149

bureaucratic process often preclude most eligible

women from obtaining payment for their abortions. At

least two of the women interviewed reported having

been raped by their sexual partners, though neither of

them received Medicaid funding for their abortions.

150

Eleven of the women interviewed reported having some

previously diagnosed health condition or a pregnancy-

related health condition, which in a few cases involved

being hospitalized. While it is unclear how many of

these women might have fallen into the category of

life endangerment, not one of them received Medicaid

funding for her abortion.

Available data suggests that it is highly unlikely that any

of these women would have had their abortion paid

for with public funds if they had sought funding under

Medicaid. In ﬁscal year 2006, twenty-four of the 33

Hyde and Hyde-plus states did not spend any money

on abortions.

151

Public spending in the remaining nine

states totaled $457,000.

152

That year, the federal gov-

ernment paid for only 54 abortions in Hyde states and

31 in Hyde-plus states.

153

A study published in 2010

by Ibis Reproductive Health interviewed representa-

tives of 25 providers in six Hyde states. Researchers

found that, of 245 reported abortions that should have

qualiﬁed for reimbursement in the previous year, more

than half (143) were not reimbursed; of those that

were, 97% were in one state.

154

Barriers to reimburse-

ment included extensive administrative burdens,

nonexistent or poor relationships with state Medicaid

staff, low reimbursement rates, and difﬁculties identify-

ing and certifying rape cases and meeting excessively

strict or arbitrary requirements for establishing life

endangerment.

155

As a result, eight of the 25 providers

had stopped accepting Medicaid within the past ﬁve

years.

156

Twenty-three of the providers reported relying

on abortion Funds to help women pay for abortions.

157

For minors who are victims of rape or incest, one pro-

vider interviewed for the report explained that seeking

Medicaid funding is not feasible, because these young

women are emotionally traumatized and do not have

the luxury of time. They are unable to go through the

(re)traumatizing experience of reporting and certiﬁca-

tion necessary for receiving Medicaid funding under

the Hyde exceptions and to continue their pregnancies

for weeks while awaiting approval from Medicaid.

158

such cases, the provider reports that she does what

she can to secure funding, offers discounts, or waives

fees if absolutely necessary.

159

The provider related a

case where a minor was the victim of rape that oc-

curred when she went out of state to visit her mother,

hoping to reestablish their relationship, and returned

pregnant by the mother’s boyfriend. The local law en-

forcement was so moved by the girl’s situation that they

took up a collection to pay for her abortion.

A provider from Pennsylvania reported that when she

started working with the clinic as a receptionist and

counselor in 1994, the legal requirement that Medicaid

reimburse clinics for abortions performed in case of

rape, incest, or life endangerment was “meaningless,”

but that things have improved somewhat.

160

In the

1990s, the clinic did not get reimbursed and so it did

not work with Medicaid, as the provider believed was

the case with other providers in the area. She went on

to report that “years later, when I was in a position to

advocate directly for patients with the state with the

backing of my center, we were able to secure some ba-

sic payment for these patients. This has always taken

a great deal of time and effort, and payment continues

to be unreliable, though much better than a decade

ago.”

161

(See Box on p. 39: Helping Women Access

Abortion in a Hyde State.)

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Seventeen states fund all medically necessary abor-

tions under Medicaid using state funds. In thirteen of

these states, state courts have found that the Hyde

restrictions violate state law. The importance of state

Medicaid expenditures in granting women access to

abortion cannot be overlooked. In ﬁscal year 2006,

non-discrimination states paid approximately $89 mil-

lion and covered nearly all of the more than 177,000

publicly funded abortions.

163

In 2008, 20% of all

women obtaining abortions in the United States used

Medicaid funds to pay for their procedure; almost all

of those women lived in non-discrimination states.

164

Among women with private insurance, only about a

third used their insurance to pay for their abortions,

while 92% of women receiving Medicaid in states that

use their own funds to cover abortion relied on the

state program for payment.

165

In non-discrimination states, state Medicaid programs

cover abortion just like any other healthcare service.

Moreover, some non-discrimination states, such as

New York, have policies designed to facilitate pregnant

women’s access to prenatal care (often called “pre-

sumptive Medicaid”), which can also be of advantage

to women seeking abortion, as a way to address the

time constraints pregnant women face and the result-

ing delay when women have to wait weeks for Medicaid

eligibility determinations.

166

For example, a Washington

State provider interviewed for this report commented

that her state “has a very ﬂexible policy to get [pre-

sumptive] Medicaid. Women can get [presumptive]

Medicaid for pregnancy, [and] can use [it] for prenatal

care or abortion. It is extraordinarily rare for a woman

who [is] pregnant to not get on [presumptive] Medic-

aid.”

167

While the Medicaid coverage for abortion in non-

discrimination states is signiﬁcant and laudable, states’

ability to enable women to actually access abor-

tion coverage varies. Barriers to enrollment, such as

cumbersome processes and misinformation, make it

difﬁcult for women to enroll in Medicaid even in states

where efforts have been made to simplify and expedite

the application process. Women also face obstacles

resulting in the denial of eligibility or improper cover-

age restrictions. In non-discrimination states, there

are barriers for providers seeking to accept Medicaid

that adversely affect women’s access to abortion. Low

reimbursement rates and lengthy or singular processes

for payment of claims for abortion services make it

difﬁcult, if not impossible, for some providers to receive

payment from the state; as a result, many providers will

not accept or stop accepting Medicaid patients. Given

the increases to Medicaid rolls and the further ﬁnancial

strain on low-income women posed by the economic

downturn, it is incumbent on states that have made

a commitment to abortion access for poor women to

improve Medicaid implementation in their states so

that it truly provides access to all healthcare services

for women, including abortion.

NON-DISCRIMINATION STATES

“In states where state Medicaid pays for all or most abortions,

the state plays a fundamental role in ensuring that low-income

women are able to obtain abortion care. Many challenges

remain, however.”

HELPING WOMEN

ACCESS ABORTION

IN A HYDE STATE

The Women’s Medical Fund and the Women’s

Law Project work together to combat Penn-

sylvania’s onerous reporting requirements for

accessing Medicaid funding for abortions un-

der the Hyde Amendment restrictions. In the

1990s, the two groups worked to ensure that

women would not have to report a rape

to the police in order to obtain Medicaid cover-

age for abortion. This requirement deters many

women from seeking funding because they

have been assaulted by partners, family mem-

bers, or others whom they know and are afraid

of retaliation or reluctant to involve the criminal

justice system; others want to put the experi-

ence of sexual assault behind them. In 2000,

they collaborated with the health education

organization CHOICE to work to minimize the

obstacles facing women and providers seeking

coverage for eligible abortions. Most recently,

in 2006, with support from the National Net-

work of Abortion Funds, the coalition worked

to improve education around the availability of

Medicaid funding for abortions under the Hyde

exceptions, while also working to revise and

advocate for improvements to the state’s abor-

tion certiﬁcation form.

STATE COURT DECISIONS ESTABLISHING

THE RIGHT TO FUNDING

Thirteen of the non-discrimination states fund abortion

under state Medicaid programs due to a court order.

The courts in these states have refused to follow the

Supreme Court’s reasoning in Harris v. McRae, ﬁnding

instead that, under their state constitutions and laws,

restrictions on public funding for abortion similar to the

Hyde Amendment violate women’s fundamental rights.

Those state courts’ decisions highlight several key legal

and ethical problems with the Hyde Amendment.

First, state courts found that it is unlawful for a poor

pregnant woman to “be coerced into choosing child-

birth over abortion by a legislative funding policy.”

168

Put another way, once a government chooses to

provide funds to assist a constitutionally protected

decision, such as the decision whether to continue

or terminate a pregnancy, “it must do so in a non-

discriminatory fashion, and it certainly cannot with-

draw beneﬁts for no reason other than that a woman

chooses to avail herself of a federally granted con-

stitutional right.”

169

Thus, as numerous state courts

have explained, by denying poor women the funds to

exercise their constitutionally protected right to choose

to have an abortion, the government both discriminates

against poor women and impermissibly coerces them

to choose to continue a pregnancy.

State courts have also criticized restrictions on public

funding for abortion as “antithetical” to the goals of a

state Medicaid program, which is to provide the poor

“with access to medical services comparable to that

enjoyed by more afﬂuent persons.”

170

By essentially

barring a poor woman from obtaining medically neces-

sary abortion care, restrictions on Medicaid funding

for abortion “subject[ ] the poor woman to signiﬁcant

health hazards and in some cases to death[,]”

171

and

thus clearly contravene the objectives of Medicaid.

162

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Lastly, state courts have based their decisions to

overturn restrictions on public funding for abortion on

a defense of women’s right to privacy, which includes

a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

172

Those courts interpreted their state constitutions as

offering greater protections for privacy rights than the

U.S. Constitution, at least as interpreted by the U.S.

Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae, and thus held that

denying public funding for abortion services imper-

missibly infringed upon women’s fundamental right

to privacy and self-determination.

173

The California

Supreme Court wrote that “the restrictions effectively

nullify the poor woman’s fundamental constitutional

right to retain personal control over her own body and

her own destiny.”

174

FACILITATING WOMEN’S ACCESS TO

MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR ABORTION

When women are considering terminating their preg-

nancies, the expediency of Medicaid enrollment and

the duration of time between enrollment and the start of

coverage are important issues in determining whether

they can obtain an abortion in a timely manner. Unless

state policies address these issues, delays in accessing

Medicaid beneﬁts can undermine women’s ability to get

an abortion or force them to suffer signiﬁcant delays in

obtaining the procedure. Some states, like New York,

have programs that facilitate low-income, pregnant

women receiving Medicaid beneﬁts and accessing re-

productive healthcare, including abortion. Through the

Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP), a pregnant

woman may receive healthcare beneﬁts immediately af-

ter applying for Medicaid beneﬁts, and for the following

45 days, without having to wait for an ofﬁcial determina-

tion that she is eligible for Medicaid beneﬁts.

175

In order

to take advantage of PCAP, a pregnant woman must

simply undergo a brief ﬁnancial assessment by a quali-

ﬁed provider—which may be a community health clinic,

a home health agency, or a public health nursing ser-

vice—to determine whether, based on guidelines issued

by the New York State Department of Health, she may

be considered “presumptively eligible” for Medicaid.

176

Other states also make presumptive Medicaid available

to pregnant women to address enrollment obstacles.

Another notable feature of New York’s Medicaid pro-

gram is that it covers transportation costs for patients

to and from medical appointments.

177

In addition, the

state Medicaid program offers a “facilitated enroll-

ment program” through which program staff provides

personal assistance to Medicaid applicants to help

them accurately complete paperwork and assist them

throughout the application process.

178

PERSISTENT BARRIERS TO MEDICAID

COVERAGE FOR PREGNANT WOMEN

Even in states that provide broader coverage for abor-

tion than the Hyde or Hyde-plus states and presumptive

eligibility, women can face substantial challenges in ac-

cessing beneﬁts. Abortion providers and abortion Funds

reported working with women to provide them critical

information about available resources and services, ex-

isting programs, and eligibility and enrollment require-

ments. Providers and Funds often work with women to

correct the misinformation that they receive from local

social service caseworkers who either intentionally or

unintentionally deny eligibility, discourage enrollment,

or restrict coverage. As one provider said, “[W]omen

need to know their state law.”

179

Abortion Funds in

non-discrimination states regularly assist women with

enrollment in Medicaid and also provide referrals for

other services that women often need, including hous-

ing assistance and help escaping domestic violence. A

provider in West Virginia reported that “a lot of people

in this state don’t even realize that Medicaid pays [for

abortion]. So we do a lot of educating [of] women who

call us and ask about assistance.”

180

Even in states with simpliﬁed enrollment and presump-

tive eligibility, women can still face difﬁculties when

trying to enroll and struggle to receive coverage in a

timely manner. In California, the process for enroll-

ing in the Restricted Pregnancy Medi-Cal program

is theoretically faster than that required for enrolling

in Full-Scope Medi-Cal, California’s state Medicaid

program. In practice, enrolling is more challenging than

the guidelines suggest. According to ACCESS/Women’s

Health Rights Coalition, an abortion Fund and repro-

ductive justice group in California, “[M]ost uninsured

women qualify for Medi-Cal but encounter cumbersome

eligibility application processes, rampant misinformation

about standard application requirements, frequent case

processing delays, and, more recently, onerous iden-

tity documentation adopted as a result of the Federal

Deﬁcit Reduction Act of 2005. Even for those women

deemed Medi-Cal eligible, it is increasingly difﬁcult to

ﬁnd local reproductive healthcare providers, particu-

larly abortion providers, who will accept Medi-Cal to

cover the cost of care.”

181

While abortions are legal in

California up to 24 weeks, only 53% of 148 publicly

advertised providers accept Medi-Cal during the ﬁrst

trimester and only 20% up to 20 weeks gestation, with

a signiﬁcant drop off to just 4% after 21 weeks.

182

The

varying determinations of acceptance of Medi-Cal for

abortion coverage leads women to believe that either

they are no longer eligible, or that other clinics will not

accept Medi-Cal past that point, or that they must raise

the funds and ﬁnd another clinic.

183

Although enrollment in Restricted Pregnancy Medi-Cal

should only take one week, according to ACCESS, the

process often takes much longer. The staff member

interviewed heard reports of caseworkers who inten-

tionally delayed the enrollment process, due to an

expressed dislike of women using their coverage to pay

for an abortion.

184

The ease of enrollment often de-

pends on the individual social services ofﬁce where the

woman applies. For some, enrollment could happen on

the same day; others might not be told about Restricted

Pregnancy Medi-Cal at all or an eligibility worker might

unintentionally attempt to enroll them in Full-Scope

Medi-Cal, which has stricter eligibility requirements and

an application process that can take 45 days or longer.

In these cases, women face unnecessary delays in

obtaining an abortion.

The staff member shared the following accounts of try-

ing to help two women enroll in Restricted Pregnancy

Medi-Cal:

185

I worked with a woman who went to apply for Medi-

Cal…. She was early on in her pregnancy, still in her

ﬁrst trimester…. She went to apply for Medi-Cal, but

was told by her eligibility worker that she should go

and get a job. The eligibility worker was really giving

her a hard time for applying for Medi-Cal even though

she qualiﬁed—that’s what the program is for; it’s for

women like her. She was being told that she should

get a job and was made to feel guilty for wanting to get

an abortion, for wanting to support the family that she

had…. So we tried to call the eligibility worker with her.

Of course, we had such a hard time getting in touch

with anyone. The woman we were working with kind of

didn’t want to deal with it anymore and asked us to not

go through with it, because she had been so embar-

rassed by the fact that she was told to get a job and felt

like she really shouldn’t be on Medi-Cal. We decided

that we would help her with some funding to pay…. We

had arranged everything, she had an appointment, and

she didn’t show up because she said she had decided

she was too far along and also because she didn’t think

that she could go through with it anymore. It was just

one woman who told her that she should get a job and

other things that didn’t make her feel good about her

decision. She ended up keeping the pregnancy. I don’t

think she ended up enrolling.

There was another woman…. She had applied for

Medi-Cal a while back and had called us because …

they were having a really hard time processing her

case. There was an eligibility worker accusing her

of living with her ex-partner. She was in the process

of being divorced and was not living with him at the

time and shouldn’t have needed to include him in her

income. … [T]hey had sent an investigator from the

Medi-Cal ofﬁce to her house…. She was eventually told

that she would need to ﬁle a court hearing to dispute

her case. She didn’t have the time because this would

take months to do [and delay the abortion], so we had

pledged some amount towards her procedure and she

raised some funds, and she had the procedure done,

everything was ﬁne. She was really angry about the

situation and decided that even though she received

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

funding, she would still try to get this Medi-Cal thing

ﬁgured out so in the future women wouldn’t have to

go through it…. She ﬁled the court hearing, she went

to court, called us a few months after, and told us that

she was able to ﬁnally get Medi-Cal and the report deﬁ-

nitely showed that the investigator didn’t ﬁnd anything

and the eligibility worker was not wanting her to get the

Medi-Cal for whatever reason.

THE CHALLENGES OF PROVIDER

REIMBURSEMENT IN NON-

DISCRIMINATION STATES

In states where state Medicaid pays for all or most

abortions, the state plays a fundamental role in ensur-

ing that low-income women are able to obtain abortion

care. Many challenges remain, however. While some

Medicaid programs work well and provide sufﬁcient

reimbursement to providers, in other states provid-

ers often struggle to recoup the costs of caring for

women enrolled in Medicaid due to low reimburse-

ment rates, lengthy processes for receiving payment,

and, in some states, a claim submission process that

is unique to abortion services. Other challenges in

non-discrimination states include the reality that many

providers do not accept Medicaid, so it can be dif-

ﬁcult for poor women to ﬁnd care. In addition, narrow

Medicaid eligibility rules that exclude many women in

need, including immigrants in most states, means that

thousands of low-income women in non-discrimination

states must still turn to abortion Funds for assistance.

While low-income women in non-discrimination states

have easier and greater access to abortion, the chal-

lenges for providers in obtaining adequate and timely

reimbursement from state Medicaid programs have

signiﬁcant implications for the availability and cost of

reproductive healthcare services.

PROVIDER EXPERIENCES WITH MEDICAID

REIMBURSEMENT

Interviews with independent abortion providers in three

non-discrimination states—Maryland, Washington, and

West Virginia—provide examples of the range of state

approaches to administering and reimbursing abortion

claims under Medicaid and insight into the degree to

which states are abiding by their legal obligations to

fund abortion services.

State Medicaid coverage for abortion in the three states

varies both with respect to the process for submitting

reimbursement claims and the means by which states

determine what services to cover, how much to pay

for services, and for what type of facility. Maryland is

a state that makes it very difﬁcult for providers seek-

ing reimbursement for abortion services, and treats

those claims differently than billing for other medical

services. For example, abortion providers are required

to submit each abortion claim manually, though claims

for other services covered by Medicaid are submitted

electronically.

186

The attending physician is required

to sign each abortion claim; due to ambiguities in the

submission process, the provider interviewed reported

having to submit each claim approximately ﬁve times

and being forced to hand-deliver documents, since

even those sent by certiﬁed mail were reportedly not

received.

187

Surgical abortion claims reportedly took an

average of nine months to get paid.

188,189

Moreover, the

process for reimbursement can be arbitrary and highly

dependent on stafﬁng of the state Medicaid ofﬁce. At

one point, the Maryland provider wrote to her Con-

gressman and local leaders. In response, she received

a call and a check for $80,000 in back payment. For

a short time, the medical assistance ofﬁce even had a

designated person to handle abortion claims. Shortly

thereafter, the staff person was reassigned and reim-

bursements once again slowed practically to a halt,

before the clinic ceased accepting Medicaid patients.

By contrast, in West Virginia, the provider interviewed

reported that the process for submitting reimburse-

ment claims for abortion is no different from that used

for other healthcare services.

190

“The checks come in a

timely manner” and are direct deposited.

While providers in some states receive fairly reason-

able reimbursement rates, other providers ﬁnd that it

is difﬁcult, if not impossible, to recoup their costs for

providing abortions due to low reimbursement rates

and exclusions of abortion-related services from reim-

bursement. In West Virginia, the state pays a ﬂat rate of

$277.51 for all abortions but provides additional reim-

bursements for supplemental services.

191

In Maryland,

the state Medicaid program requires that abortions and

all accompanying services, such as ultrasounds and

lab work, be submitted with one reimbursement code,

meaning that the state pays the same rate for all abor-

tions, but regardless of any related services provided,

unlike West Virginia.

192

In the case of Washington,

considered one of the best states for reimbursements,

the provider reported that supplemental services were

reimbursed on an unreliable basis: “While checks

would come every Friday, sometimes they were for

gynecology and abortion services four to ﬁve weeks

prior, while billings from three to four months prior

still had not been paid.”

193

Due to low reimbursement rates and attenuated

reimbursement times, it may not be feasible for some

providers, even in states that reimburse most abortions

and related services under Medicaid, to serve a high

proportion of women enrolled in Medicaid. Seventy

percent of the Washington provider’s patients were

on Medicaid in 2005, up from 59% the previous year.

194

The Medicaid rate for ﬁrst-trimester abortions was

$275 in 2006, up from $127.95 in 1987. With two-

thirds of their patients coming for abortion services,

the low Medicaid reimbursement rate was increasingly

unsustainable. Over time, the clinic, which had always

been dedicated to serving “the underserved and mar-

ginalized” and known as “the poor women’s clinic,”

could no longer support its changing client base.

Indeed, prior to the clinic’s closing in January 2007, it

was giving away $1 million in abortion services annu-

ally, nearly the annual operating budget.

Taking a different approach, the Maryland provider

reported temporarily ceasing to accept Medicaid for

a year and a half because the slow reimbursement

process nearly forced them to close the clinic.

195

She had realized that the clinic was spending 50–60%

of its time trying to collect Medicaid reimbursements

and had lost several hundred thousand dollars in

services. In recent months, the provider has noted a

rise in women enrolled in Medicaid seeking care at

the clinic—now between 50–60% of all telephone

inquiries, up from 33%. She largely attributed this to

the economy and a reduction in the number of clinics

in the state accepting Medicaid. The provider is eager

to resume coverage for the underserved and growing

population of women enrolled in Medicaid, who face

numerous barriers accessing services, including the

scarcity of providers. In preparation to resume accept-

ing Medicaid payments, the clinic has had to establish

a process whereby it can withstand the ﬁnancial impli-

cations of a nine-month reimbursement delay.

The seventeen non-discrimination states play a criti-

cal role in providing access for tens of thousands of

poor women to timely and affordable abortion ser-

vices. However, in many of these states, like the three

discussed here, afﬁrmative reform is necessary to

ensure that barriers to Medicaid eligibility and enroll-

ment will not prevent women from being enrolled in

Medicaid and receiving covered services. State action

is also needed to ensure that reimbursement rates

and attenuated and discriminatory processes do not

deter abortion providers from being willing and able to

provide abortions for women enrolled in state Medicaid

programs. Otherwise, with access to Medicaid denied

to some eligible women and many abortion providers

unwilling to participate in Medicaid, non-discrimination

states fail to realize the mandate of their own laws

to safeguard and promote the reproductive rights of

poor women.

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

The Hyde Amendment violates the human rights of

poor and low-income women. The restrictions interfere

with a woman’s right to make fundamental decisions

about her body, to access health services necessary to

protect her health, and to decide whether and when to

have children. The ability to make these decisions with-

out government coercion is integral to women’s dignity

and equality. The government’s failure to respect and

ensure these rights violate a woman’s right to health,

life, equality, information, education, and privacy, as

well as freedom from discrimination.

197

(See Box: the

United States’ International Human Rights Obligations.)

RIGHT TO HEALTH AND LIFE

International human rights bodies have recognized that

governments have an obligation to ensure that indi-

viduals have meaningful access to fundamental rights.

Protection of women’s rights to health and life require

the U.S. government to ensure that safe and legal

abortion services are accessible to women. The UN

committees that oversee compliance with the Conven-

tion on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women (CEDAW) and the International Cove-

nant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) have consis-

tently criticized restrictive abortion laws as a violation of

the right to life.

205

In particular, the Committee on the

Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW

Committee) has expressed concern where women

do not have access to safe abortion services, despite

those services being legal, and has recommended that

governments provide safe abortion services or ensure

access where permitted by law,

206

including recom-

mending that a government provide social security

coverage for abortions

207

or include abortion coverage

in government health services.

208

The right to health includes “the right to attain the

highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.”

209

To fulﬁll this right, governments must provide access to

“a full range of high quality and affordable healthcare,

including sexual and reproductive services.”

210

This ob-

ligation includes a responsibility to make reproductive

health facilities, goods, and services economically ac-

cessible,

211

and in particular, to ensure that such health

services are accessible to marginalized or underserved

communities.

212

The funding restrictions imposed by the Hyde Amend-

ment force some poor women to delay abortion or

continue an unwanted pregnancy, even when their

health is endangered. By limiting or denying women’s

access to safe and legal abortion care, Medicaid fund-

HUMAN RIGHTS

FRAMEWORK

“If there was the reinstatement of Medicaid funding for abortion,

low-income women would be able to pursue their dreams, move

forward in their lives, and exercise the same right to choose that

middle-class women can. Women would be able to turn their lives

around. It would just make all the difference for women.”

–

Executive director of the Women’s Medical Fund

196

THE UNITED STATES’

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

OBLIGATIONS

The rights to life, privacy and personal

autonomy, and non-discrimination are set

forth in two human rights treaties ratiﬁed by

the United States: the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

198

and the

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Racial Discrimination (CERD).

199

Treaty ratiﬁca-

tion confers an international legal obligation on

the United States to respect, protect, and fulﬁll

the rights contained in the treaty

200

and to cre-

ate the conditions necessary to ensure that all

persons are able to enjoy rights in practice.

201

The United States is also a signatory to

key human rights treaties that guarantee

women’s right to reproductive healthcare

and equality—among them, the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights (ICESCR)

202

and the Convention on

the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women (CEDAW).

203

The United States

has an obligation not to take any action that

would defeat the object or purpose of the

treaties it has signed.

204

ing restrictions also deny women access to a basic

component of reproductive healthcare, thus hindering

enjoyment of the conditions that are necessary for good

health.

RIGHT TO EqUALITY AND

NON-DISCRIMINATION

Restricting access to abortion, a procedure that only

women need, discriminates against women and their

reproductive freedom. Denying Medicaid funds for

abortion services uniquely discriminates against low-in-

come women and prevents them from realizing the full

range of rights to the same extent as men or women of

greater means. As recognized in the Beijing Platform for

Action, “The ability of women to control their own fertil-

ity forms an important basis for the enjoyment of other

rights” and “neglect of women’s reproductive rights

severely limits their opportunities in public and private

life, including opportunities for education and economic

and political empowerment.”

213

In states where state

Medicaid covers abortion services without the restric-

tions of Hyde, this discrimination too often takes a

different form, as many women still struggle to access

coverage and receive beneﬁts in the face of misinforma-

tion, stigma, and bias among enrollment ofﬁcers.

The international human rights community recognizes

a governmental responsibility to ensure that all people,

without distinction as to race, national or ethnic origin,

or color, have the right to “public health [and] medical

care.”

214

The right to non-discrimination in health in-

cludes equal access to reproductive health services for

women of color.

215

Thus, the Committee on the Elimina-

tion of Racial Discrimination has called on governments

to report on measures taken to eradicate gender-related

racial discrimination in the area of reproductive and

sexual health,

216

and speciﬁcally urged the United

States to adopt special measures to address persistent

racial disparities in reproductive healthcare.

217

Because they more often live in poverty, women of

color have a greater reliance than white women on

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

government services for low-income individuals such

as Medicaid.

218

Thus, Medicaid funding restrictions on

abortion disproportionately affect women of color.

219

The removal of those restrictions constitutes one mea-

sure that would contribute to addressing the signiﬁcant

race disparities in reproductive healthcare by facilitat-

ing equal access to abortion.

RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE

SELF-DETERMINATION

Support for women’s right to reproductive self-de-

termination derives from provisions in a number of

human rights instruments, which ensure autonomy

in decision-making about intimate matters, including

protections of the long-recognized rights to physical

integrity,

220

to privacy,

221

and to freely and responsibly

decide the number and spacing of one’s children.

222

Self-determination in decision-making is also inherent

in the right to health. The Committee on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights has stated that reproduc-

tive health means “that women… have the freedom to

decide if and when to reproduce and the right to be

informed and to have access to safe, effective, afford-

able, and acceptable methods of family planning of

their choice as well as the right of access to appropri-

ate healthcare services.”

223

The CEDAW Committee has

stated that respect for women’s human rights requires

governments to “refrain from obstructing action taken

by women in pursuit of their health goals.”

224

By interfering with poor and low-income women’s deci-

sion-making on whether to continue a pregnancy, and

placing ﬁnancial obstacles in the path of women who

seek to protect their health and access an essential re-

productive health service, the government’s restriction

on federal Medicaid funding for abortion contravenes

women’s right to reproductive self-determination.

CONCLUSION

The investigation conducted by the Center for

Reproductive Rights documents the ways in which

poor women are affected by the Hyde Amendment’s

discriminatory restrictions prohibiting Medicaid

funding for abortion. The ﬁndings in this report suggest

that if low-income women truly were able to exercise

their reproductive rights, including the right to access

healthcare services, women would secure an abortion

as soon as they could after making their decision. By

restricting access to abortion, the Hyde Amendment

violates their fundamental human rights and denies

their reproductive autonomy. Moreover, even within the

limited parameters permitted by Hyde’s restrictions,

eligible abortion claims are denied or rejected by

states. The women interviewed for this report, and

the clinic counselors, providers, and abortion Fund

members who told their stories, offer insight into the

struggles that poor women face in obtaining abortions,

which they often seek in an effort to preserve and

protect the health and well-being of their families.

In non-discrimination states where state funds cover

abortion without the Hyde restrictions, individual state

procedures for submitting and reviewing abortion

claims often treat abortion differently than other

medical procedures. Moreover, low Medicaid reim-

bursement rates and attenuated reimbursement times

are among the most common factors reportedly leading

abortion providers to limit acceptance of Medicaid

or refuse it altogether. As a model for state Medicaid

coverage in the wake of Hyde’s repeal, these states

need to reform and streamline their abortion payment

procedures so that they are in accordance with state

standards for submitting, reviewing, and processing

all other medical claims. They also need to increase

Medicaid reimbursement rates for abortion and related

services.

After 34 years of harmful—and, in some cases, devas-

tating—discrimination against poor women, repealing

the Hyde Amendment offers the United States a critical

opportunity to restore women’s equality and make

reproductive rights meaningful for all women irrespec-

tive of economic status. Free from the restrictions

of Hyde, women throughout the country would be

empowered to make decisions regarding what is best

for themselves and their families. The time for reform

is now. Poor women have waited too long to be treated

with dignity and justice.

“After 34 years of harmful—and, in some cases, devastating—

discrimination against poor women, repealing the Hyde Amendment

offers the United States a critical opportunity to restore women’s

equality and make reproductive rights meaningful for all women

irrespective of economic status.” ”

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

The Medicaid funding restrictions imposed by the Hyde

Amendment make it extremely difﬁcult for poor women

to access abortion services, often forcing them to delay

their abortions until the second trimester or, in thou-

sands of cases each year, to continue an unwanted

pregnancy. The cost of an abortion ranges from $413

in the ﬁrst trimester to roughly three times as much

at 20 weeks of pregnancy.

225

In most states, Medicaid

covers pregnant women with incomes between 133

and 185% of the federal poverty level—in other words,

annual incomes between $24,352 and $33,874 for

a family of three.

226

At this income level, the costs of

arranging for an abortion—which may include not only

the cost of the procedure, but also expenses such

as transportation, child care, and loss of wages—are

signiﬁcant. Indeed, at least one in four women on

Medicaid who wants to have an abortion is forced to

continue her pregnancy due to a lack of funds.

227

The

Hyde Amendment is, in large part, responsible for poor

women’s severely limited access to abortion care. The

Hyde Amendment undermines a woman’s fundamental

right to reproductive healthcare and threatens women’s

overall health and well-being. In addition, the Hyde

Amendment discriminates on the basis of gender, race

and ethnicity, and socio-economic status, and infringes

upon women’s rights to autonomy and health.

The Center believes that Medicaid coverage of abortion

is critical for women’s health and safety and for the

realization of their fundamental human rights, and

urges the U.S. government to take action as follows:

• Repeal the Hyde Amendment and other

restrictions that prohibit federal funding of

abortion.

• Guarantee all women, regardless of immigration

status, access to the full range of reproductive

healthcare services by expanding Medicaid

eligibility.

228

• Include abortion in all government health pro-

grams, including those that provide coverage to

Native American women using the Indian Health

Service, federal prisoners, women in the military,

Peace Corps volunteers, disabled women, and

federal employees.

229

• Ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

to demonstrate the United States’ commitment to

women’s equality and right to reproductive health-

care, and take steps to comply with its provisions.

TO STATE GOVERNMENTS

While the Hyde Amendment limits the use of federal

funds for abortion services, except in a narrow set of

circumstances, state governments have the option of

providing broader coverage under state funding pro-

grams (“state Medicaid”) using state funds. However,

only seventeen states (“non-discrimination states”)

currently use their own funds to provide coverage for

all or most medically necessary abortions.

230

In the vast

majority of states (“Hyde states”), Medicaid coverage

for abortion is available only in cases of rape, incest, or

life endangerment, in line with the restrictions imposed

by the Hyde Amendment.

231

Six states (“Hyde-plus

states”) have slightly expanded that coverage to in-

clude abortions in cases of fetal abnormality or endan-

germent of a pregnant woman’s physical health.

232

In addition, some states are failing to provide Medic-

aid funds for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or life

endangerment, in violation of federal law. In both Hyde

states and non-discrimination states it can be extreme-

ly burdensome, in practice, for reproductive healthcare

providers to obtain or rely upon Medicaid reimburse-

ment for abortion services. It is nearly impossible for

some providers to recover their costs for providing

abortion to Medicaid patients, both because Medicaid

reimbursements are too low and because Medicaid

RECOMMENDATIONS

payments arrive either too late or not at all. The difﬁcul-

ties in obtaining timely or adequate payments through

Medicaid have led many abortion providers to elect not

to participate in Medicaid, thus presenting yet another

factor contributing to the scarcity of abortion services

for poor women in the United States. Because it is criti-

cal for women’s health, safety, and ability to exercise

their fundamental human rights for states to expand

their Medicaid coverage of reproductive healthcare,

the Center urges state and local governments to take

action as follows:

FOR HYDE STATES AND HYDE-PLUS STATES:

• Restore state Medicaid funding for abortion,

ensuring that coverage of abortion is offered

to the same extent that Medicaid funding is

available for pregnancy, prenatal care, and

other medical services.

• In the meantime, ensure that state policies allow

reproductive healthcare providers to be reim-

bursed by state Medicaid programs for abortion

services to the extent required by law, including

in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment.

• Develop deﬁnitions of rape, incest, and life en-

dangerment that do not endanger patient safety

and privacy or signiﬁcantly delay abortions, and

make those deﬁnitions clear to reproductive

healthcare providers and staff administering the

state Medicaid program.

FOR ALL STATES:

• Take concrete steps to improve current

procedures for processing Medicaid claims

for abortion services to ensure that healthcare

providers are able to obtain reimbursement for

procedures covered under the state’s Medicaid

policy. For example, state governments can:

educate staff administering the state

Medicaid program about state policies

on reimbursement for abortion and

reproductive healthcare services;

establish reasonable documentation require-

ments and educate staff administering the

state Medicaid program about what docu-

mentation is needed to establish that an

abortion is covered by the state Medicaid

program;

designate a point person in the state Med-

icaid ofﬁce to help abortion providers when

they face obstacles to getting Medicaid

reimbursement; and

simplify the procedures for submitting

claims for reimbursement so that they are

in line with reimbursement procedures for

other medical services.

• Take concrete steps to ensure that it is ﬁnancially

viable for healthcare providers to treat women

enrolled in Medicaid. This must include ensuring

a reasonable reimbursement rate for abortion

and related medical services that is comparable

to reimbursement rates for other types of

healthcare and reﬂects the actual costs of

providing abortion services. It should also include

facilitating the certiﬁcation of abortion providers

as Medicaid providers.

• Establish presumptive eligibility for Medicaid in

order to ensure that pregnant women can obtain

abortions, as well as other critical healthcare, in

a timely manner or, for states that already provide

for presumptive eligibility, take steps to simplify

the current enrollment process.

• In states where Medicaid enrollment eligibility for

pregnant women is below 300% of the federal

poverty level, increase eligibility levels to expand

Medicaid coverage for pregnant women.

TO THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL

RAPPORTEURS AND HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES

The Hyde Amendment violates the fundamental

human rights of low-income women in the United

States by restricting their access to abortion, a medi-

cal procedure that is integral to women’s reproductive

health and autonomy. In addition, the funding restric-

tions discriminate against women by singling out and

excluding from Medicaid coverage, except in the most

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

extreme circumstances, a medical procedure that only

women need, and discriminate against poor women

and women of color by undermining their reproduc-

tive health choices.

233

Bearing that in mind, the Center

urges the United Nations to take action as follows:

• Speak out against restrictions on public funding

for reproductive healthcare services, including

abortion, as fundamental human rights violations.

• Urge the United States to ratify the Convention

on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women, one of the key international

human rights treaties that guarantees women’s

right to reproductive healthcare.

• Issue communications, observations, and

recommendations to the U.S. government high-

lighting the importance of including reproductive

healthcare in a comprehensive U.S. healthcare

program.

TO NATIONAL ORGANIzATIONS

REPRESENTING THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY

The Hyde Amendment restrictions on Medicaid fund-

ing for abortion pose substantial obstacles both to

women seeking reproductive healthcare services and

to healthcare providers working to make those services

available. The Center urges national organizations

representing the medical community to join in advocat-

ing for full public funding for reproductive healthcare

services by taking the following actions:

• Adopt resolutions and guidelines supporting

the inclusion of reproductive healthcare as

an integral part of a comprehensive U.S.

healthcare program.

• Follow the recommendations for supporting

reproductive justice, set forth below for advocacy

organizations and members of the public.

TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE

PROVIDERS

Even in cases where federal law requires state Medic-

aid programs to cover abortion services, poor women

are frequently denied payment. Moreover, because

of the low reimbursement rates offered for abortion

services, as well as the time and administrative ex-

penses involved in dealing with onerous, ambiguous,

and inefﬁcient state Medicaid billing and reimburse-

ment policies and procedures, abortion providers are

often reluctant to seek Medicaid reimbursement even

in cases where Medicaid payment should be available.

While sensitive to the many obstacles and challenges

faced by abortion providers, the Center believes it is

critical for reproductive healthcare providers to provide

access to their services through Medicaid. To that end,

the Center urges reproductive healthcare providers in

states that provide broad Medicaid coverage for abor-

tion to take action as follows:

• Join national and state efforts to repeal the

Hyde Amendment and advocate for the full

restoration of Medicaid funding for abortion.

• If possible, become approved Medicaid

providers.

• Ensure that staff is kept informed of current

state laws and policies regarding Medicaid

coverage for reproductive healthcare.

• Educate women about their right to access

Medicaid-funded reproductive healthcare in

the state.

• To the extent possible, submit claims for

reimbursement to state Medicaid ofﬁces for all

reproductive healthcare services that should

be covered by Medicaid in the state and seek

to establish relationships with staff to facilitate

the processing of claims.

• To the extent possible, if claims for reim-

bursement are wrongfully denied by the state

Medicaid ofﬁce, work with reproductive justice

advocates and attorneys to challenge the denial

and clarify state Medicaid policies.

• Seek to establish relationships with staff at the

state health department, and work with them

and other public ofﬁcials to remove barriers to

Medicaid funding for reproductive healthcare.

• Work with the leadership of state Medicaid

programs to assist them in establishing

reimbursement rates for abortion services

that adequately compensate providers.

TO ADVOCACY ORGANIzATIONS AND

REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE SUPPORTERS

Restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortion infringe

upon women’s fundamental right to access reproduc-

tive healthcare and, in practice, force poor women

to continue unwanted pregnancies, to delay abortion

procedures, and to suffer additional ﬁnancial strain.

Studies have found that poor women are often forced

to divert money that they otherwise would have spent

on other basic necessities such as rent, utility bills,

food, or clothing for themselves or their children, and

that some women resort to measures such as pawning

household goods, theft, or sex work in order to raise

enough money to pay for an abortion.

234

The Center urges advocacy organizations and the

public to join in advocating for full public funding for

reproductive healthcare services by taking action as

follows:

• Educate the public and policymakers on

access to reproductive healthcare as a

human right and abortion as an integral part

of women’s healthcare.

• Advocate for the repeal of the Hyde Amend-

ment and federal and state laws that impose

restrictions on public funding for abortion and

reproductive healthcare services.

• Advocate for the inclusion of reproductive

healthcare, including abortion, as an integral

part of a comprehensive national healthcare

program.

• Advocate for higher Medicaid reimbursement

rates for reproductive healthcare services, and

for more simple and expedient state Medicaid

reimbursement procedures.

• Advocate for more simple requirements and

more expedient procedures for obtaining

presumptive eligibility for state Medicaid.

• Advocate for expanded Medicaid coverage in

states where Medicaid does not cover pregnant

women up to an income level of 300% of the

federal poverty level.

• Advocate for the United States to ratify CEDAW.

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

1 Ctrs.forMedicareandMedicaid

Servs.,U.S.Dep’tofHealthand

Hum.Serv.,MedicaidProgram–

GeneralInformation, http://www.

cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/

(lastvisitedJul.22,2010)

[hereinafter“CMSOverview”].

2

Kaiser Fam. Found., HealtH

reForm: implications For Women’s

access to coverage and care2

(Oct.,2009),http://www.kff.org/

womenshealth/upload/7987.pdf.

3 SeeDep’tofLabor,Healthand

Hum.Serv.,andEduc.andRelated

AgenciesAppropriationsAct,

1998,Pub.L.No.105-78,§§509-

510,111Stat.1467(1997).

4 Anadditionaltwenty-seven

percentofwomenobtaining

abortionswerelow-income,

denedasreportingfamily

incomesofbelow200percentof

thefederalpovertylevel.

racHel

K. Jones, laWrence B. Finer &

susHeela singH, guttmacHer

inst., cHaracteristics oF u.s.

aBortion patients, 2008 8-9 (May

2010), http://www.guttmacher.

org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.

pdf.

5 SeeCtr.forDiseaseControl,

Effects of restricting federal funds

for abortion—Texas,

morBidity

and mortality WeeKly report,

Jun.6,1980,at253;James

Trusselletal.,The Impact of

Restricting Medicaid Financing

for Abortion,12Fam. plan.

persp. 120(1980);AidaTorreset

al.,Public Benets and Costs of

Government Funding for Abortion,

18Fam. plan. persp. 111,(1986);

RebeccaM.Blanketal.,State

Abortion Rates: The Impact of

Policies, Providers, Politics,

Demographics, and Economic

Environment,15J. HealtH econ.

513(1996);PhilipJ.Cooket

al.,The Effects of Short-Term

Variation in Abortion Funding

on Pregnancy Outcomes,18J.

HealtH econ. 241(1999);S.

PhilipMorgan&AllanM.Parnell,

Effects on pregnancy outcomes

of changes in the North Carolina

state abortion fund,21

population

res. and pol’y rev. 319(2002);

stanley K. HensHaW et al.,

guttmacHer inst., restrictions on

medicaid Funding For aBortions:

a literature revieW(Jun.,2009),

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/

MedicaidLitReview.pdf.

6



Nat’lNetworkofAbortionFunds,

StopStupak,http://www.nnaf.org/

stopstupak.html(lastvisitedJul.

22,2010).

7

guttmacHer inst., Facts on

induced aBortion in tHe united

states 1 (May2010),http://www.

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_

abortion.pdf.

8

guttmacHer inst., trends in

tHe cHaracteristics oF Women

oBtaining aBortions 1974-2004

15(Aug.,2008),http://www.

guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23/

TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.

pdf.

9 Jones,Finer,&Singh,supranote

4,at8.

10 Id. “Poor”isdenedasbelowthe

federalpovertylevel,and“low-

income”asbelow200percentof

poverty.

11 See Ctr.forDiseaseControl,

supranote5;Trusselletal.,supra

note5;Torresetal.,supranote5;

Blanketal.,supranote5;Cook

etal.,supranote5;Morgan&

Parnell,supranote5;Henshawet

al.supra note5.

12 InterviewwithW.S.(Nov.9,

2009).

13 RachelK.Jonesetal.,Abortion

in the United States: Incidence

and Access to Services,40

persp.

on sexual and reprod. HealtH

6,14(2008),available at http://

www.guttmacher.org/pubs/

journals/4000608.pdf.

14 GuttmacherInst.,supranote7,at

15 Id.

16 HeatherD.Boonstra,The

Heart of the Matter: Public

Funding for Abortion for Poor

Women in the United States,10

guttmacHer pol’y rev. 12, 14

(2007),available athttp://www.

guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/1/

gpr100112.pdf.

17 CMSOverview,supranote1.

18 Onewomaninterviewedwasfrom

aHydePlusstate.Researchers

received63referralsfrom

participatingclinicsandabortion

Funds.

19 ThestatesthatfollowHydeare:

Alabama,Arkansas,Colorado,

Delaware,Florida,Georgia,

Idaho,Kansas,Kentucky,

Louisiana,Maine,Michigan,

Missouri,Nebraska,Nevada,

NewHampshire,NorthCarolina,

NorthDakota,Ohio,Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania,RhodeIsland,

Tennessee,Texas,Virginia,

andWyoming.TheDistrictof

ColumbiaalsofollowedHyde

atthetimeparticipantswere

recruitedfortheinvestigation.

20 Eligibilitywasdeterminedtothe

bestofresearchers’ability,relying

oninformationfromthewoman

interviewedandtheclinicand/

orFundthatassistedher.Oneof

thewomeninterviewedmaynot

havemettheincome-eligibility

cut-offinherstate.Bothincome

levelandcitizenship/immigration

statuswereconsideredintermsof

Medicaideligibilityrequirements.

21 TheCenter’scollaborators

includedtheclinicsthatWhole

Woman’sHealthoperatesinTexas

(inAustin,Beaumont,FortWorth

andMcAllen);thePhiladelphia

Women’sCenterinPhiladelphia,

Pennsylvania;thethreeclinics

thatNorthlandFamilyPlanning

CentersoperatesintheDetroit,

Michiganarea;theFeminist

Women’sHealthCenterinAtlanta,

Georgia;andtheHopeMedical

GroupforWomeninShreveport,

Louisiana.

22 TheCentersoughtclinicsthat

werelocatedinoneoftheHyde

ENDNOTES

states;hadthecapacityand

willingnesstoparticipate;had

sufcientpatientvolumeto

generatetwotothreeinterviews

duringthedesignatedperiod;

gatheredrelevantinformation

aboutwomen,includingMedicaid

eligibilityorlikelyeligibility;

counseledandassistedwomen

inobtainingabortionfunding;

andoffereddomesticviolence

counselingorreferralsforwomen

reportingabuse.

23 Interviewswereconducted

withtheExecutiveDirectorsof

theChicagoAbortionFundin

Chicago,IllinoisandtheWomen’s

MedicalFundinPhiladelphia,

Pennsylvania,andwiththe

ProgramManagerforACCESS/

Women’sHealthRightsCoalition

inOakland,California.

24 TelephoneInterviewwithSusan

Schewel,ExecutiveDirector,

Women’sMedicalFund,in

Philadelphia,PA(Jan.26,2010).

25 In2008,thirteenpercentof

womenwhoobtainedabortions

receivednancialassistance

fromabortionFundsand/orfee

reductionsfromclinics.Jones,

Finer,&Singh,supranote4,at

11.

26 Jones,Finer,&Singh,supranote

4,at12-13;Nat’lNetworkof

AbortionFunds, About Abortion

Funds,http://www.nnaf.org/

aboutfunds.html (lastvisitedJul.

23,20010).

27 TelephoneInterviewwith

LisaBanh,ProgramManager,

ACCESS/Women’sHealthRights

Coalition,inOakland,CA(Jan.

27,2010).

28 TelephoneInterviewwith

StephaniePoggi,Executive

Director,NationalNetworkof

AbortionFunds,inBoston,MA

(May27,2010).

29 Jones,Finer,&Singh,supranote

4,at12.

30 Researchersinterviewedthree

providersinnon-discrimination

states,includingaproviderin

WestVirginia,theExecutive

DirectorofWholeWoman’s

HealthinBaltimore,Maryland,

andtheformerExecutiveDirector

ofAradiaWomen’sHealthCenter

inSeattle,Washington,which

closedin2007.

31 Womenusingacellphonewere

toldbeforehandthattheywould

receiveaone-hourphonecardto

reimbursethemfortheirminutes.

Aftertheinterview,women

learnedthattheywouldreceive

a$25giftcard.Providers,clinic

staffmembers,andabortionFund

representativesdidnotreceive

paymentfortheirparticipation.

32 Harris v. McRae,448U.S.

297,330(1981),Brennan,J.

dissenting.

33 ThefederalMedicaidprogram

wascreatedbyTitleXIXofthe

SocialSecurityActunderthe

Amendmentsof1965,42U.S.C.

§§1396-1396v(1994&Supp.II

1996).

34 CMSOverview,supranote1.

35 Id.

36

vernon K. smitH et al., Kaiser

commission on medicaid and

tHe uninsured,tHe cruncH

continues: medicaid spending,

coverage and policy in tHe

midst oF a recession5(2009),

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/

upload/7985.pdf.

37

KaiserFam. Found., HealtH

reForm: implications For

Women’s access to coverage

and care2(Oct.2009), http://

www.kff.org/womenshealth/

upload/7987.pdf.

38

Kaiser Fam. Found. &

guttmacHer inst., Women’s issue

BrieF: medicaid’s role in Family

planning1(Oct.2007),http://

www.kff.org/womenshealth/

upload/7064_03.pdf.

39

usHa ranJi & alina salganicoFF,

Kaiser Family Found., state

edicaid coverage oF perinatal

services: summary oF state

survey Findings 1 (Nov.,2009),

http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/

upload/8014.pdf.

40 42U.S.C.§1396(a)(10)(A)(i)&

(ii).Fordetailsonstateeligibility

levels,see

Kaiser Family Found.,

WHere are states today?

medicaid and state-Funded

coverage eligiBility levels For

loW-income adults(Dec.,2009),

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/

upload/7993.pdf.

41 PatientProtectionandAffordable

CareAct,Pub.L.No.111-

148,§2001(a)(1)(C),124Stat.

129(2010).Statescanbegin

Medicaidexpansionsnowand

allexpansionswillbeinplaceby

2014.

42

nat’l netWorK oF aBortion

Funds, aBortion Funding: a

matter oF Justice policy report

5 (2005),http://www.nnaf.

org/pdf/NNAF%20Policy%20

Report.pdf.Thispolicyreport

detailsthecircumstancesand

experiencesofwomenseeking

supportfromabortionFundsand

presentspolicyrecommendations

toensurethateverywoman

hastheopportunitytomake

herownbestdecisionandcare

forherselfandherfamily.See

PersonalResponsibilityandWork

OpportunityAct,Pub.L.No,

104-193,110Stat.2105(1996),

available at http://www.fns.usda.

gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/

PL_104-193.pdf.

43 PersonalResponsibilityandWork

OpportunityAct§2001(a)(1)(C),

supranote41.

44 Ninestatesdidso,asof

2003. RachelBensonGold,

Immigrants and Medicaid After

Welfare Reform,

6 guttmacHer

rep. on puB. pol’y 6, 6 (May

2003),available athttp://www.

guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/

gr060206.pdf.See alsoNat’l

NetworkofAbortionFunds,supra

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

note42,at5.

45

leigHton Ku, ctr. on Budget

& policy priorities, reducing

isparities in HealtH coverage

For legal immigrant cHildren

and pregnant Women2(Apr.,

2007),http://www.cbpp.org/

les/4-20-07health2.pdf.As

of2006,lessthanhalfof

statesprovidedMedicaidor

SCHIPcoverage.Id.The2009

reauthorizationofCHIPreinstated

theuseoffederalfundingfor

statesthatelectthisoption,

effectiveApril1,2009.nat’l

immigr. laW ctr., Facts aBout

neW state option to provide

HealtH coverage to immigrant

cHildren and pregnant Women

1 (Apr.,2009),http://www.nilc.

org/immspbs/cdev/ICHIA/ICHIA-

facts-2009-04-01.pdf.

46 KaiserFam.Found.,Income

EligibilityLevelsforPregnant

womenbyAnnualIncomeas

apercentofFederalPoverty

Level(FPL)asofDec.2009,

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/

comparetable.jsp?ind=206&cat=4

(lastvisitedJul.23,2010).

47 The2009povertyguidelinesare

ineffectuntilthe2010guidelines

arepublishedintheFederal

Plan.andEval.,Dep’tofHealth

andHum.Serv.,The2009HHS

PovertyGuidelines:OneVersion

oftheU.S.FederalPoverty

Measure, http://aspe.hhs.gov/

poverty/09poverty.shtml(last

visitedJul.23,2010).

48 Ranji&Salganicoff,supranote

39,at3.

49 Id. at4.

50 Ctr.forReprod.Rts.,Portrait

ofInjustice:AbortionCoverage

undertheMedicaidProgram(May

1,2004),http://reproductiverights.

org/en/document/portrait-of-

injustice-abortion-coverage-

under-the-medicaid-program(last

visitedJul.26,2010).

51 SeeDep’tofLabor,Health

andHum.Serv.,andEduc.and

RelatedAgenciesAppropriations

Act,1998,Pub.L.No.105-78,§§

509-510,111Stat1467(1997).

52 Harris,448U.S.at326-27.

53 Id.at331(Brennan,J.,

dissenting).

54 Id.at344(Marshall,J.,

dissenting).

55 See

int’l planned parentHood

Found., aBortion legislation

in europe (Jan.,2007),

http://www.ippfen.org/NR/

rdonlyres/2EB28750-BA71-

43F8-AE2A-8B55A275F86C/0/

Abortion_legislation_Europe_

Jan2007.pdf.See alsoTitAlbrecht

etal.,European Observatory on

Health Systems and Policies,11

slovn. HealtH sys. rev. 1,51

(2009),available athttp://www.

euro.who.int/document/e92607.

pdf.Belgium(reimbursementfor

abortionsperformedinclinics

thathaveanagreementwith

thenationalinstituteofsocial

security);Bulgaria(freeabortions

onmedicalgroundsandincertain

otherinstances);Cyprus(free

hospitalabortionsforpatients

eligibleforfreemedicalcare);

CzechRepublic(freeabortions

onmedicalgrounds);Denmark

(abortionsarepartofpublichealth

system);Finland(abortionfree

undernationalhealthinsurance);

France(fullreimbursementfor

poorwomenandwomenunder

18);Germany(fullcoverageon

medicalandothergroundsunder

statutoryhealthandcivilservice

healthinsurance);Greece(free

hospitalabortions);Hungary

(abortionsonmedicalgrounds

coveredunderHealthInsurance

Fund,additionalcoverageon

othergrounds);Italy(abortions

freeofchargeforallwomen);

Lithuania(abortionsformedical

indicationscoveredunder

CompulsoryHealthInsurance

Fund);Luxembourg(abortions

reimbursedbyNationalHealth

Insurance);Moldova(insurance

systemcoversabortionsfor

socialandmedicalindications);

Netherlands(reimbursement

forabortions);Poland(legal

abortionscoveredbyStateHealth

Caresystem);Romania(freeof

chargeforwomenindifcult

socio-economicconditions);

SlovakRepublic(freeofcharge

onmedicalgrounds);Spain

(abortionsfreeofcharge,covered

bypublichealthinsurance);

Sweden(costalmostfullycovered

byNationalHealthInsurance);

UnitedKingdom(inprinciple

freeofchargeonNational

HealthService);Slovenia

(reimbursementundernational

healthlawsystem).

56 Int’lPlannedParenthood

Found.,supranote55.Iceland

(abortionsfreeofchargeunder

NationalHealthInsurance);

Israel(abortionsfreeofcharge

onmedicalgroundsandfor

womenunder18);Macedonia

(obligatoryhealthinsurancewill

coverabortionsifproventoharm

thehealthofthewoman);Norway

(abortionsfreeofcharge);Russian

Federation(abortionsperformed

withincompulsoryhealth

insuranceprogramfreeofcharge);

Switzerland(healthinsurance

coverslawfulterminationunder

thesametermsasillness).

57 Nat’lAbortionFed’n.,Access

toAbortioninCanada,http://

www.prochoice.org/canada/

regional.html(lastvisitedJul.26,

2010).Allplanscoverabortion,

buttheaccessibilityofabortion

servicesaswellasthetermsof

coveragevaryfromprovince

toprovince.See JoannaN.

Erdmann,In the Back Alleys of

Health Care: Abortion Equality,

and Community in Canada,

56

emory l. J.1093,1094-95

(2007)(discussinghowprovincial

regulationslimitingcoverageto

abortionsperformedinpublic

hospitalscoupledwiththe

shortageofhospitalsproviding

abortionserviceshasresultedin

asignicantbarriertowomenin

needofabortionfunding).

58 Jane Doe I v. Manitoba,[2004]

248D.L.R.(4th)547(Man.

Q.B.);rev’d[2005]260D.L.R.

(4th)149(Man.C.A.);leaveto

appealtoS.C.C.refused,[2005]

S.C.C.A.No.513(Can.).The

courtgrantedsummaryjudgment

butwasoverturnedbytheCourt

ofAppealsonproceduralgrounds.

Beforethecasewasresolved,the

provincialgovernmentdecided

itwouldfundclinicservices.

Erdmann,supranote57,at1098.

Acasechallengingasimilar

regulationinNewBrunswickis

stillpending.Erdmann,supranote

57,at1097.

59 Abortion Legalized in Mexico,

BBc neWs,April25,2007,

available athttp://news.bbc.

co.uk/2/hi/americas/6586959.stm.

60 ElisabethMalkin,Mexico

City Struggles with Law on

Abortion,

n.y. times,Aug.24,

2008,available athttp://www.

nytimes.com/2008/08/25/world/

americas/25mexico.html.

61 PressRelease,Ctr.forReprod.

Rts.,CourtOrdersNepalto

ImproveAccesstoAbortion

(May20,2009)(onlewith

author),available at http://

reproductiverights.org/en/press-

room/court-orders-nepal-to-

improve-women%E2%80%99s-

access-to-abortion;LegalCode

(EleventhAmendment)Act,Sept.

262002(Nepal),available at

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/

population/abortion/NEPAL.abo.

htm.

62 Ctr.forReprod.Rts.,supranote

61.

63 ChoiceonTerminationof

PregnancyAct92of1996(S.

Afr.),available athttp://www.

info.gov.za/gazette/acts/1996/

a92-96.htm(lastvisitedJul.26,

2010);SouthAfricanDep’tof

Health,ChoiceonTermination

ofPregnancy(Jan.28,1997),

available athttp://www.doh.gov.

za/docs/pr/1997/pr0128a.html.

64 TheDistrictofColumbiapolicy

wasdeletedinthecurrentfederal

budget.Untilanewpolicy

cameintoeffect,theDistrict

onlyfundedabortionsthat

mettheHyderestrictions.See

guttmacHer inst., state policies

in BrieF as oF august 1, 2010:

state Funding For aBortion

under medicaid 2 (Aug. 1, 2010),

http://www.guttmacher.org/

statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf.

ThenewpolicytookeffectAugust

1,2010.

65 Id.

66 Women of Minn. v. Gomez,542

N.W.2d17,31(Minn.1995)

(stating“[i]tiscriticaltonote

thattherightofprivacyunderour

constitutionprotectsnotsimply

therighttoanabortion,butrather

itprotectsthewoman’sdecision

toabort;anylegislationinfringing

onthedecision-makingprocess,

then,violatesthisfundamental

right.”);Comm. to Defend Reprod.

Rts. v. Myers,625P.2d779,

798(Cal.1981)(“eachwoman

inthisstate–richorpoor–is

guaranteedtheconstitutionalright

tomake[theabortion]decision

asanindividual,uncoercedby

governmentalintrusion.”).

67 Simat Corp. v. Ariz. Health Care

Cost Containment Sys.,56P.3d

28,31-32(Ariz.2002);Dep’t of

Health & Soc. Servs. v. Planned

Parenthood of Alaska,28P.3d

904,910(Alaska2001);Right to

Choose v. Byrne, 450A.2d925,

936(N.J.1982). TheNewMexico

SupremeCourtheldthattheHyde

Amendment’sfundingrestrictions

violatethestate’sEqualRights

Amendment.New Mexico Right

to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson,975

P.2d841,859(N.M.1998).

68 GuttenmacherInst.,supranote

64,at2.

69 TelephoneinterviewwithTerry

SallasMerritt,VicePresident,

WholeWoman’sHealth,in

Austin,TX(Dec.7,2009).

70 Jonesetal.,supra note13,at24.

71 Interviewwithanonymousstaff

memberatNorthlandFam.Plan,

Ctrs.(Nov.11,2009);telephone

interviewwithKathaleenPittman,

PatientServicesManager,Hope

Med.GroupforWomen,in

Shreveport,LA(Nov.18,2009).

72 TelephoneinterviewwithRobin

Gelberg,DirectorofCounseling/

SpecialNeedsandFunding

Coordinator,FeministWomen’s

HealthCtr.,inAtlanta,GA(Dec.

15,2009).

73 InterviewwithPittman,supra

note71.

74 InterviewwithElizabethBarnes,

ExecutiveDirector,Philadelphia

Women’sCtr.,inPhiladelphia,PA

(Feb.8,2010).

75 InterviewwithSchewel,supra

note24.

76 Id.

77 Id.

78 Nat’lNetworkofAbortionFunds,

supranote42,at8.

79 Interviewwithanonymousstaff

member,supranote71.

80 InterviewwithR.D(Oct.5,2009).

81 Interviewwithanonymousstaff

member,supra note71.

82 Id.

83 InterviewwithR.L.(Nov.2,

2009).

84 Id.

85 InterviewwithSchewel,supra

note24.

86 InterviewwithR.L,supranote83.

87 Id.

88 InterviewwithC.M.(Oct.15,

2009).

89 InterviewwithH.S.(Oct.19,

2009).

90 InterviewwithT.S.(Oct.19,

2009).

91 InterviewwithS.H.(Oct.7,

2009).

92 TelephoneinterviewwithGaylon

Alcaraz,ExecutiveDirector,

ChicagoAbortionFund,in

Chicago,IL(Jan.26,2010).

93 Boonstra,supranote16,at14.

94 Id; LawrenceB.Fineretal.,

Timing of Steps and Reasons

for Delays in Obtaining

Abortions in the United States,

74

contraception 334, 343

(2006).See also A.Torresand

J.D.Forrest,Why do women have

abortions?,20Fam. plan. persp.

169,174(1988).

95 Fineretal., supra note94,at341.

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

96 guttmacHer inst., an overvieW

oF aBortion in tHe united states

16 (Oct.2009),http://www.

guttmacher.org/presentations/

abort_slides.pdf.

97 Onewomandidnotrespond.

98 InterviewwithGelberg,supra

note72.

99 InterviewwithSchewel,supra

note24.

100 Id.

101 Id.

102 InterviewwithAlcaraz,supra

note92.

103 Id.

104

ctr. For reprod. rts.,

deFending Human rigHts:

aBortion providers Facing

tHreats, restrictions, and

Harassment37(2009), http://

reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.

civicactions.net/les/documents/

DefendingHumanRights.pdf.

105 Id.at46.

106 InterviewwithC.M.,supranote

88.

107 Id.

108 InterviewwithL.Y.(Nov.16,

2009).

109 InterviewwithR.D.,supranote

80.

110 InterviewwithM.C.(Nov.3,

2009).

111 StanleyK.Henshaw&LynnS.

Wallisch,The Medicaid Cutoff

and Abortion Services for the

Poor,16

Fam. plan. persp.

170,171(1984).Ofthe59

percentofwomenwhoreported

experiencingadelayinobtaining

anabortion,26percentsaidthe

delaywascausedbyneedingto

raisemoneyfortheprocedure.

Torres&Forrest,supra note93,at

341(ndingthatthetimeneeded

toraisemoneyforanabortionis

animportantcauseofdelay).

112 HeatherBoonstra&Adam

Soneld,Rights Without Access:

Revisiting Public Funding of

Abortion for Poor Women,3

guttmacHer rep. on puBlic

pol’y8.10(2000),available at

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/

tgr/03/2/gr030208.pdf.

113 InterviewwithS.H.,supra note

91.

114 InterviewwithSchewel,supra

note24.

115 InterviewwithMerritt,supranote

69.

116 Id.

117 Id.

118 InterviewwithT.D.(Oct.28,

2009).T.D.wasfromWisconson.

119 InterviewwithE.J.(Nov.3,

2009).

120 InterviewwithAlcaraz,supra

note92.

121 Id.

122 InterviewwithMerritt,supranote

69.

123 InterviewwithW.S.,supranote

12.

124 InterviewwithPoggi,supranote

28.

125 Id.

126 Id.

127 Id.Thisgureislikelyquite

conservative,becausesome

Fundsonlyreportedthenumber

ofwomenhelpedwithfunding

ratherthanthenumberofcalls

received,andbecausesomeFunds

onlyopentheirphonelinesfora

limitedtimeeachweek.

128

guttmacHer inst., a real looK

at tHe impact oF tHe recession

on Women’s Family planning

and pregnancy decisions 3 (Sept.

2009),http://www.guttmacher.org/

pubs/RecessionFP.pdf.

129 Id.at5.

130 Thisincreasereecteda25

percentincreaseinpovertyamong

womenofreproductiveagein

thegeneralpopulationduring

thattimeperiod.Jones,Finer,&

Singh,supranote4,at25.

131 Low-incomewomenhad

abortionsatthreetimestherateof

better-offwomen.Id.at9.

132 InterviewwithH.T.(Nov.9,

2009).

133 InterviewwithT.S.,supra note

90.

134 InterviewwithH.S.,supranote

89.

135 Henshawetal.,supranote.5,at

27.

136 Id.See alsoHeatherBoonstra&

AdamSoneld,supra note112,at

10;Blanketal.,supranote5,at

536(usingdataonabortionrates

from1974-1988,concludingthat

19-25%ofabortionsamonglow-

incomewomenthatarepublicly

fundeddonottakeplaceafter

fundingiseliminated);Trussell

etal,supra note5,at127(18-

23%ofwomeninGeorgiaand

Ohiocontinuedtheirpregnancies

withoutpublicfunding);Ctr.for

DiseaseControl,supra note5,

at255(35%ofwomeninTexas

continuedtheirpregnanciesinthe

absenceofpublicfunding).

137 PhilipJ.Cooketal.,supranote5.

138 Id.at255.

139 InterviewwithAlcaraz,supra

note92.

140 InterviewwithPittman,supra

note71.

141 InterviewwithMerritt,supranote

69.

142 Id.

143 Id.

144 InterviewwithPittman,supra

note,71.

145 InterviewwithT.S.,supranote

90.

146 Torresetal.,supranote5,at116-

17.

147 Id.at117.

148 Id.

149 See

guttmacHer inst.,issues in

BrieF:tHe cost implications oF

including aBortion coverage

under medicaid(NewYork:AGI,

1993).

150 Athirdwomanreportedbeingin

along-termabusiverelationship

andmayhavebeenraped.

151

adam sonField, casey alricH

& racHel Benson gold, puBlic

Funding For Family planning,

sterilization and aBortion

services,FY1980–2006

(occasional report no. 38)27

(2008),http://www.guttmacher.

org/pubs/2008/01/28/or38.pdf

152 Id.

153 Outofatotalof191federally-

fundedabortions.Id.

154 DeborahKacaneketal.,

Medicaid Funding for Abortion:

Providers’ Experiences with

Cases Involving Rape Insect and

Life Endangerment,42

persp.

on sexual & reprod. HealtH

79,80(2010).Thesixstatesare

Idaho,Kansas,Kentucky,Florida,

Pennsylvania,andWyoming.It

isnotablethat,eveninthestate

where97%ofreimbursements

tookplace,twenty-seven

qualifyingabortions,outofa

totalof126abortions,were

notreimbursed.(Thestatewas

notidentiedinthestudyto

protecttheidentitiesofprovider

representatives.)Id.

155 Id.at81-83.

156 Id.at81.

157 Id.at83.

158 InterviewwithPittman,supra

note71.WaitingforMedicaid

approvalbeforehavingthe

abortionalsodelaysthetimely

presentationofphysicalevidence

ofrapeorincesttothepolice,for

victimswillingtoreporttolaw

enforcement.

159 Id.

160 InterviewwithBarnes,supranote

74.

161 Id.

162 See

nat’l netWorK oF

aBortion Funds, taKin’ it to

tHe states: a toolKit For

expanding aBortion access and

reproductive Justice in your

state (2008),http://www.nnaf.

org/documents/NationalNetwork--

StateAdvocacyToolkit.pdf.

163 Soneldetal.,supra,note151,at

164 Jones,Finer,&Singh,supranote

4,at11.

165 Id.

166 Telephoneinterviewwith

MargaretJohnston,President,

TheAbortionCareNetwork,in

WashingtonD.C.(Sept.18,2009).

167 Telephoneinterviewwith

MarcyBloom,formerExecutive

Director,AradiaWomen’sHealth

Center(nowclosed),inSeattle,

WA(Jan.15,2010).

168 Women of Minn.,542N.W.2d

at31(“Wesimplycannot

saythatanindigentwoman’s

decisionwhethertoterminate

herpregnancyisnotsignicantly

impactedbythestate’sofferof

comprehensivemedicalservicesif

thewomancarriesthepregnancy

toterm.Weconclude,therefore,

thatthesestatutesconstitutean

infringementonthefundamental

righttoprivacy.”).

169 Women’s Health Ctr. of W.Va. v.

Panepinto,446S.E.2d658,666

(W.Va.1993).See also Moe

v. Sec’y of Admin. & Fin.,417

N.E.2d388,402(Mass.1981)

(“[O]nce[thelegislature]chooses

toentertheconstitutionally

protectedareaofchoice,itmust

dosowithgenuineindifference.

Itmaynotweighttheoptions

opentothepregnantwomanby

itsallocationofpublicfunds;

inthisarea,governmentisnot

freeto‘achievewithcarrots

what[it]isforbiddentoachieve

withsticks.’”),quotingL.Tribe,

AmericanConstitutionalLaw,

§15-10n.77(1

ed.1978);

Simat,56P.3dat32(“Having

undertakentoprovidemedically

necessaryhealthcareforthe

indigent,thestatemustdoso

inaneutralmanner.”);Planned

Parenthood of Alaska.,28P.3dat

913(“[A]womanwhocarriesher

pregnancytotermandawoman

whoterminatesherpregnancy

exercisethesamefundamental

righttoreproductivechoice.

Alaska’sequalprotectionclause

doesnotpermitgovernmental

discriminationagainsteither

woman;bothmustbegranted

accesstostatehealthcareunder

thesametermsasanysimilarly

situatedperson.”).

170 Comm. to Defend Reprod. Rts.,

625P.2dat781.See also Women

of Minn.,542N.W.2dat26

 (“[T]herestrictionsimposedon

poorwomenwhoseektherapeutic

abortionsmayactuallysubvert

thepurposeofthe[stateMedicaid

program],whichistoalleviate

thehardshipsfacedbythose

whocannotaffordmedical

treatment.”).

171 Comm. to Defend Reprod. Rts.,

625P.2dat790.Cf. Id. at799

(“[T]hestatutoryscheme…is

allthemoreinvidiousbecause

itspracticaleffectistodenyto

poorwomentherightofchoice

guaranteedtotherich.”).

172 Roe v. Wade,410U.S.113(1973).

173 Comm. to Defend Reprod. Rts.,

625P.2dat797.See also Id. at

793(“[T]hestate’sdiscriminatory

treatmentwillpreventthevast

majorityofpoorwomenfrom

exercisingtheirfundamental

righttochoosewhetherornot

tobearachild.”);Women of

Minnesota v. Gomez,542N.W.2d

at19(ndingbroaderprotection

towomen’sprivacyrightunder

stateconstitutionthanunderU.S.

Constitution,andthusrejecting

Harris v. McRae).

174 Comm. to Defend Reprod. Rts.,

625P.2dat797.

175 NewYorkStateDep’tofHealth,

PresumptiveEligibilityQualied

ProviderApplication,http://www.

health.state.ny.us/health_care/

medicaid/program/docs/qualied_

provider.pdf(lastvisitedJul.26,

2010).

176 Id.

177 SeeNewYorkStateDep’tof

Health,WhatHealthServicesare

CoveredbyMedicaid?,http://

www.health.state.ny.us/health_

care/medicaid/#services(last

visitedJul.26,2010).

178 Nat’lInst.ForReprod.Health,

ResourceGuideforNewYork

StateAbortionProviders:

HelpingLow-IncomeWomen

PayforAbortionsinNewYork

State,http://www.nirhealth.org/

sections/ourprograms/documents/

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

ProviderResourceGuidenal.pdf

(lastvisitedJul.26,2010).

179 InterviewwithBloom,supra note

167.

180 Interviewwithananonymous

WestVirginiaprovider(Feb.3,

2010).

181

access/Women’s HealtH

rts. coal., Barriers to entry:

ensuring equitaBle and timely

access to medi-cal For

pregnant Women1(March2009),

http://www.whrc-access.org/pdf/

MediCal_Brief_4.pdf.

182 ACCESS/Women’sHealthRts.

Coal.,Medi-CalReimbursement

forSecondTrimesterAbortion,

http://www.whrc-access.

org/pdf/Access-Medi-Cal_

Reimbursement_for_Second_Tri_

Abortion.pdf(lastvisitedJul.26,

2010).

183 InterviewwithBanh,supranote

27.

184 Id.

185 Id.

186 TelephoneinterviewwithGloria

Johnson,ExecutiveDirector,

WholeWoman’sHealth,in

Baltimore,MD(Jan.6,2010).

187 Id.

188 Id.

189 Othernon-discriminationstates,

suchasCalifornia,permit

electroniclingofabortion

claims,butrequireallofthe

supplementalpaperworktobe

submittedbymail.Telephone

interviewwithDestinyLopez,

formerExecutiveDirector,

ACCESS/Women’sHealthRts.

Coal.,inOakland,CA(Nov.28,

2009).

190 Interviewwithananonymous

WestVirginiaprovider,supranote

180.

191 Id.

192 InterviewwithJohnson,supra

note186.Thisisalsothecasein

California.InterviewwithLopez,

supranote189.

193 InterviewwithBloom,supranote

167.

194 Id.

195 InterviewwithJohnson,supra

note186.

196 InterviewwithSchewel,supra

note24.

197 InternationalCovenantonCivil

andPoliticalRights,adoptedDec.

16,1966,G.A.res.2200A(XXI),

U.N.GAOR21stSess,,Supp.No.

16,arts2.1,6.1,17,U.N.Doc.

A/6316(1966),999U.N.T.S.171

(entered into forceMar.23,1976)

[hereinafterICCPR];International

ConventionontheElimination

ofAllFormsofRacial

Discrimination,adoptedDec.

21,1965,G.A.res.2106(XX),

art5(e)(iv)(1965),U.N.Doc.

A/6014(1966),660U.N.T.S.195

(entered into forceJan.4,1969)

[hereinafterCERD];Convention

ontheEliminationofAllForms

ofDiscriminationagainstWomen,

adopted Dec.18,1979,G.A.

Res.34/180,U.N.GAOR,34th

Sess.,Supp.No.46,arts.1,10,

12,U.N.Doc.A/34/46(1979),

1249U.N.T.S.12(entered into

force Sept.3,1981)[hereinafter

CEDAW];InternationalCovenant

onEconomic,Socialand

CulturalRights,adoptedDec.16,

1966,G.A.res.2200A(XXI),

U.N.GAOR,21stSess,,Supp.

No.16,arts.2(2),12,U.N.Doc.

A/6316(1966),993U.N.T.S.

3(entered into forceJan.3,

1976)[hereinafterICESCR];

Programme of Action of the

International Conference on

Population and Development,

Cairo,Egypt,Sept.5-13,1994,

Principle8and¶7.2,U.N.Doc.

A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1(1995)

[hereinafterICPDProgramme

of Action];Beijing Declaration

and the Platform for Action,

Fourth World Conference on

Women,Beijing,China,Sept.4-15

1995,¶¶89-92,U.N.Doc.A/

CONF.177/20(1996)[hereinafter

Beijing Declaration and Platform

for Action];Vienna Declaration

and Programme of Action, World

Conference on Human Rights,

Vienna,Austria,Jun14-25,1993,

¶18,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.157/23

(1993).

198 ICCPR,supranote197,atarts.2,

6,17,26.TheICCPRwasratied

bytheU.S.in1992.

199 CERD,supranote197,atarts.2,

5.CERDwasratiedbytheU.S.

in1994.

200 HumanRightsCommittee,

General Comment 31, Nature of

the General Legal Obligation on

States Parties to the Covenant,

paras.3-6,(18

Sess.,2004)

U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/

Add.13(2004);HumanRights

Committee,General Comment 3,

Article 2 Implementation at the

national level, para.1,(13

Sess.,

1981),U.N.Doc.HRI/GEN/1/

Rev.1at4(1994)[hereinafter

HRC,General Comment 3].

CERD,supranote197,atart.2

(“StatesParties...undertaketo

pursuebyallappropriatemeans

andwithoutdelayapolicyof

eliminatingracialdiscrimination

inallitsforms.”).

201 HRC,General Comment 3,supra

note200,at¶1(“TheCommittee

considersitnecessarytodraw

theattentionofStatesparties

tothefactthattheobligation

undertheCovenantisnot

connedtotherespectofhuman

rights,butthatStatesparties

havealsoundertakentoensure

theenjoymentoftheserights

toallindividualsundertheir

jurisdiction.Thisaspectcallsfor

specicactivitiesbytheStates

partiestoenableindividualsto

enjoytheirrights.”).

202 TheU.S.hassigned,butnot

ratied,theICESCR.

203 TheU.S.hassigned,butnot

ratied,theCEDAW.

204 ViennaConventionontheLawof

Treaties,art.18,1155U.N.T.S.

331,U.S.No.58(1980),reprinted

in8I.L.M.679(1969)(entered

into forceJan.27,1980).

205 See, e.g.,Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Andorra,25



Sess.,516-523

mtg.,para.

48,U.N.Doc.A/56/38(2001);

ConcludingObservations of the

Committee on the Elimination

of Discrimination against

Women: Antigua and Barbuda,

Sess.,340-348

mtg.,

para.258,U.N.Doc.A/52/38/

Rev.1,PartII(1997);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Belize,20

Sess.,

432-438

mtg..para.56,U.N.

Doc.A/54/38(1999);Bolivia,14



Sess.,284

mtg.,para.82,U.N.

Doc.A/50/38(1995); Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women:Chile,14

Sess.,

264-271

mtg.,para.139,U.N.

Doc.A/50/38(1995);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Chile,36

Sess.,

749-750

mtg.,para.19,U.N.

Doc.CEDAW/C/CHI/CO/4

(2006);Colombia,20-21

Sess.,

424

mtg.,para.393,U.N.Doc.

A/54/38(1999);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Cyprus,15



Sess.,287

mtg.,para.55,

U.N.Doc.A/51/38(1996);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Dominican Republic,18-19



Sess.,379-380

mtg.,para.

337,U.N.Doc.A/53/38(1998);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Ireland,20

Sess.,440-441



mtg.,para.185,U.N.Doc.

A/54/38(1999);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Jordan,22



Sess.,448-456mtg.,para.180,

U.N.Doc.A/55/38(2000);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Liechtenstein,20

Sess.,410-

414

mtg.,para.169,U.N.Doc.

A/54/38(1999);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Luxembourg,

16-17

Sess.,338-344

mtg.,

para.210,U.N.Doc.A/52/38/

Rev.1,PartII(1997);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Mauritius,

Sess.,268-271

mtg.,para.

196,U.N.Doc.A/50/38(1995);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Mauritius,36

Sess.,745-

746mtg.,para.30,U.N.Doc.

CEDAW/C/MAR/CO/5(2006);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Namibia,16-17

Sess.,336-

342mtg.,para.111,U.N.Doc.

A/52/38/Rev.1,PartII(1997);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Nepal,20

Sess.,343-349



mtg.,paras.139,147,U.N.Doc.

A/54/38(1999);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Panama,18-19



Sess.,392-393

mtg.,para.201,

U.N.Doc.A/53/38/Rev.1(1998);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Paraguay,15

Sess.,289&

297

mtg.,para.131,U.N.Doc.

A/51/38(1996);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women:Peru,18-19



Sess.,397-398

mtg.,para.339,

U.N.Doc.A/53/38/Rev.1(1998);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Portugal,26

Sess.,534-535



mtg.,para.345,A/57/38(2002);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination

of Discrimination against

Women: Saint Vincent and

the Grenadines,16-17

Sess.,

317&322

mtg.,para.140,U.N.

Doc.A/52/38/Rev.1(1997);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Suriname,37

Sess.,769-

770

mtg.,para.29,U.N.Doc.

CEDAW/C/SUR/CO/3(2007);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland,20-21



Sess.,424

mtg.,para.309,U.N.

Doc.A/55/38(1999);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Venezuela,16-

Sess.,333

mtg.,para.236,

U.N.Doc.A/52/38/Rev.1(1997);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Zimbabwe,18-19

Sess.,383



mtg.,para.159,U.N.Doc.

A/53/38(1998);Concluding

Observations of the Human

Rights Committee:Chile,89



Sess.,2429-2430

mtg.,para.

8,U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/CHL/

CO/5(2007);Concluding

Observations of the Human

Rights Committee:Madagascar,

Sess.,2425-2426

mth.,

para.14,U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/

MDG/CO/3(2007);Concluding

Observations of the Human Rights

Committee:Bolivia,59

Sess.,

1562-1563

mtg.,para/22,U.N.

Doc.CCPR/C/79/Add.74(1997);

Concluding Observations of the

Human Rights Committee:Chile,

Sess.,1740

mtg.,para.15,

U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/79/Add.104

(1999);Concluding Observations

of the Human Rights Committee:

Guatemala,72

Sess.,1040-

1042

mtg.,para.19,U.N.Doc.

CCPR/CO/72/GTM(2001);

Concluding Observations of

the Human Rights Committee:

Honduras,88

Sess.,2398-2400



mtg.,para.8,U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/

HND/CO/1(2006);Concluding

Observations of the Human Rights

Committee:Mauritius,83

Sess.,

2261-2262

mtg.,para.9,U.N.

Doc.CCPR/CO/83/MUS(2005);

Concluding Observations of

the Human Rights Committee:

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Morocco,82

Sess.,2234-2236



mtg.,para.29,U.N.Doc.CCPR/

CO/82/MAR(2004); Concluding

Observations of the Human Rights

Committee:Paraguay,85

Sess.,

2315-2317

mtg.,para.10,U.N.

Doc.CCPR/C/PRY/CO/2(2006);

Concluding Observations of

the Human Rights Committee:

Peru,70

Sess.,1879–1892



mtg.,para.20,U.N.Doc.CCPR/

CO/70/PER(2000);Concluding

Observations of the Human

Rights Committee:Poland,

Sess.,2240-2241

mtg.,

para.8,U.N.DOC.CCPR/

CO/82/POL(2004);Concluding

Observations of the Human

Rights Committee:Senegal,61



Sess.,1618-1619

mtg.,para.12,

U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/79/Add82

(1997);Concluding Observations

of the Human Rights Committee:

Sri Lanka,79

Sess.,2156-

2157

mtg.,para.12,CCPR/

CO/79/LKA(2003);Concluding

Observations of the Human Rights

Committee:Venezuela,71

Sess.,

1899-1900

mtg.,para.19,U.N.

Doc.CCPR/CO/71/VEN(2001);

Concluding Observations of the

Human Rights Committee:El

Salvador,78

Sess.,2113-2115

mtg.,para.14,U.N.Doc.CCPR/

CO/78/SLV(2003);Concluding

Observations of the Human Rights

Committee:Guatemala,72



Sess.,1940-1942

mtg.,para.19,

U.N.Doc.CCPR/CO/72/GTM

(2001);Concluding Observations

of the Human Rights Committee:

Kenya,83

Sess.,2255-2256



mtg.,para.14,U.N.Doc.CCPR/

CO/83/KEN(2005);Concluding

Observations of the Human Rights

Committee:Mauritius,83

Sess.,

2261-2262

mtg.,para.9,U.N.

Doc.CCPR/CO/83/MUS(2005);

Concluding Observations of the

Human Rights Committee:Peru,

Sess.,1879-1881

mtg.,para.

20,U.N.Doc.CCPR/CO/70/PER

(2000);Concluding Observations

of the Human Rights Committee:

United Republic of Tanzania,63



Sess.,1689-1690

mtg.,para.15,

U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/79/Add.97

(1998);Concluding Observations

of the Human Rights Committee:

Venezuela,71

Sess.,1899-1900



mtg.,para.19,U.N.Doc.CCPR/

CO/71/VEN(2001).

206 See, e.g., Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Bolivia,40



Sess.,811-812

mtg.,paras.

42-43,U.N.Doc.CEDAW/C/

BOL/CO/4(2008);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Colombia,37



Sess.,769-770

mtg,paras.

22–23,U.N.Doc.CEDAW/C/

COL/CO/6(2007);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Jamaica,36



Sess.,745-746

mtg.,paras.

35–36,U.N.Doc.CEDAW/C/

JAM/CO/5(2006);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Mexico,36



Sess.,751-752

mtg.,paras.

32–33,U.N.Doc.CEDAW/C/

MEX/CO/6(2006);Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Peru,37



Sess.,763-764

mtg.,paras.

24–25,U.N.Doc.CEDAW/C/

PER/CO/6(2007); Concluding

Observations of the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women: Republic of

Moldova,36

Sess.,749-750



mtg,,paras.30-31,U.N.Doc.

CEDAW/C/MDA/CO/3(2006);

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women:

Saint Lucia,35

Sess.,729-730



mtg.,paras.31–32,U.N.Doc.

CEDAW/C/LCA/CO/6(2006).

207 SeeConcluding Observations of

the Committee on the Elimination

of Discrimination against Women:

Burkina Faso,22-23

Sess.,458

–459

mtg.,para.276,U.N.Doc.

A/55/38(2000).

208 SeeConcluding Observations of

the Committee on the Elimination

of Discrimination against Women:

Dominican Republic,supranote

205,atpara.309,U.N.Doc.

A/59/38(SUPP)(2004).

209 ICPD Programme of Action,

supranote197,atpara.7.3;see

ICESCR,supranote197,atart.

12(1)(recognizingtherightof

everyoneto“thehighestattainable

standardofphysicalandmental

health”).

210 CommitteeonEconomic,Social

andCulturalRights,General

Comment 14: The Right to the

Highest Attainable Standard

of Health,para.21,(22

Sess.,

2000)U.N.Doc.E/C.12/2000/4

(2000)[hereinafterCESCR,

General Comment 14].

211 Id,atpara.12(b).

212 Report of the Special Rapporteur

on the Right of Everyone to

the Enjoyment of the Highest

Attainable Standard of Physical

and Mental Health: Report on

Maternal Mortality and Access to

Medicines,61

Sess.,para.17(c),

21,U.N.Doc.A/61/338(2006),

para.17(c);CESCR,General

Comment 14,supranote210,at

para.12(b).

213 Beijing Declaration and Platform

for Action,supranote197,at

para.97.

214 CERD,supranote197,atart.5(e)

(iv):CESCRGeneral Comment

14,supranote210,atpara.12(b).

215 SeeConcluding Observations of

the Committee on the Elimination

of Racial Discrimination: China,

58-59

Sess.,1438-1493

mtg.,

para.250,U.N.Doc.A/56/18

(2001)(recommendingthatthe

nextStatepartyreportcontain

“informationonmeasurestaken

topreventgender-relatedracial

discrimination,includinginthe

areaof…reproductivehealth.”)

[hereinafterCERD,Concluding

Observations: China];Concluding

Observations of the Committee

on the Elimination of Racial

Discrimination: India,70



Sess.,1796-1797mtg.,para.

24,U.N.Doc.CERD/C/IND/

CO/19(2007)(recommending

“thattheStatepartyensure

equalaccessto…reproductive

healthservices…”)[hereinafter

CERD,Concluding Observations:

India]. See also UnitedNations

EconomicandSocialCouncil,

The Right of Everyone to the

Enjoyment of the Highest

Attainable Standard of Physical

and Mental Health: Report of the

Special Rapporteur, Paul Hunt,

Sess.,para.25,UNDoc.E/

CN.4/2003/58(2003)(“[t]heright

tohealthisabroadconceptthat

canbebrokendownintomore

specicentitlementssuchasthe

rightsto…[m]aternal,childand

reproductivehealth.”).

216 See, e.g., CERD,Concluding

Observations: China,supra

note215,atpara.250;CERD,

Concluding Observations: India,

supranote215,atpara.24;

Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination: Uganda,

Sess.,1562-1563

mtg.,para.

18,U.N.Doc.CERD/C/62/CO/11

(2003).

217 Concluding Observations of the

Committee on the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination: United

States of America,58-59



Sess.,138-1492rdmtg.,para.

403,U.N.Doc.A/56/18(2001)

(recommendingthat“thenext

Statepartyreportcontainsocio-

economicdata,disaggregated

byrace,ethnicoriginand

gender…”).

218

megan tHomas & cara James,

Kaiser Family Foundation,

issue BrieF: tHe role oF HealtH

coverage For communities oF

color 2 (Nov.2009),http://www.

kff.org/healthreform/upload/8017.

pdf.

219 Nat’lNetworkofAbortionFunds,

supranote42.

220 See UniversalDeclarationof

HumanRights,adopted Dec.

10,1948,G.A.Res.217A(III),

art.3,U.N.Doc.A/810(1948);

ICCPR,supranote197,atarts.

6.1,9.1;ConventionontheRights

oftheChild,adopted Nov.20,

1989,G.A.Res.44/25,U.N.

GAOR,44

Sess.,Supp.No.49,

arts6.1,6.2U.N.Doc.A/44/49

(1989)(entered into force Sept.2,

1990)[hereinafterCRC];ICPD

Programme of Action,supra note

197,atparas.7.3,7.15,8.34;

Beijing Declaration and the

Platform for Action,atparas.96,

106,108.

221 See ICCPR,supranote197,at

art.17.1;CRC,supranote221,at

arts.16.1,16.2;ICPDProgramme

of Action,supranote197,atpara.

7.45;Beijing Declaration and the

Platform for Action,supranote

197,atparas.106,107.

222 See CEDAW,supranote197,at

art.16(1.e);ICPDProgramme

of Action,supranote197,at

principle8;Beijing Declaration

and the Platform for Action, supra

note197,atpara.223.

223 Concluding Observations of the

Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights: Nepal, 26



Sess.,44-46

,55

mtg.,para.

32,note12,U.N.Doc.E/C.12/1/

Add.66(2001).

224 CommitteeontheEliminationof

DiscriminationagainstWomen,

General Comment 24, para.

14, (20

Sess.,1999) U.N.Doc.

A/54/38/Rev.1(1999).

225 RachelK.Jonesetal.,supranote

13,at24.

226 KaiserFam.Found., supra note

46.

227 18-37percentofwomenend

upcarryingtoterm,according

tostudies.SeeCtr,forDisease

Control,supranote5;Trussell

etal.,supranote5;Torresetal.,

supranote5;Blanketal.,supra

note5;Cooketal,supranote5;

Morgan&Parnell,supranote5;

Henshawetal.supra note5.

228 Nat’lNetworkofAbortionFunds,

supranote42,at19.

229 Id.

230 Theseventeenstatesthatuse

statefundstocoverabortions

are:Alaska,Arizona,California,

Connecticut,Hawaii,Idaho,

Illinois,Maryland,Massachusetts,

Minnesota,Montana,NewJersey,

NewMexico,NewYork,Oregon,

Vermont,Washington,andWest

Virginia.Thesestatesarereferred

toas“non-discriminationstates”

inthereport.Ofthesestates,only

four–WestVirginia,NewYork,

Hawaii,andMaryland–provide

suchcoveragevoluntarily;the

othersdosopursuanttocourt

orders.

guttmacHer inst., supra

note64.Inaddition,asofAugust

1,2010,theDistrictofColumbia

fundsallmedicallynecessary

abortions.

231 Twenty-sixstatesprohibittheuse

oftheirstateMedicaidfundsfor

abortionexceptincasesofrape,

incest,orlifeendangerment,in

linewiththerestrictionsimposed

bytheHydeAmendment.These

statesarereferredtoas“Hyde

states”inthereport.SouthDakota

onlyfundsabortionsincasesof

lifeendangerment,inviolationof

Hyde.Id.

232 IowaandMississippiprovide

stateMedicaidcoveragein

casesofrape,incest,andlife

endangerment,asrequiredby

Hyde,aswellasincasesoffetal

abnormality.Indiana,South

Carolina,UtahandWisconsingo

beyondtherequirementsofHyde

toprovideMedicaidcoverage

forabortionincaseswhere

continuingthepregnancywould

endangerthephysicalhealthof

thepregnantwoman.Id. These

sixstatesarereferredtoas“Hyde

plusstates”inthereport.

233 See, e.g., Nat’lNetworkof

AbortionFunds,TheHyde

Amendment:AViolationof

HumanRights,http://www.

nnaf.org/pdf/Hyde%20and%20

Human%20Rights%20-%20web.

pdf(lastvisitedJul.27,2010).

234 SeeNat’lNetworkofAbortion

Funds,supranote42.See also

Ctr.forDiseaseControl,supra

note5;Trusselletal.,supranote

5;Torresetal.,supranote5;

Blanketal.,supranote5;Cook

etal,supranote5;Morgan&

Center for Reproductive Rights

120 Wall Street, 14th Floor

New York, NY 10005

United States

Tel +1 917 637 3600

Fax +1 917 637 3666

info@reprorights.org