Congress can come up with some really messed up nomenclature. Orrin Hatch is prattling on-and-on about ‘non-Hyde abortions.’ It’s a reference to the Hyde Amendment. In its current form, the Hyde Amendment looks like this, and it applies to all federal funding:
None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made known to the federal entity or official to which funds are appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
So, a non-Hyde abortion is an abortion where there is no rape or incest involved and the life of the mother is not threatened. The ironic result of this definition is that a Hyde abortion is often the result of rape or incest. That seems like a somewhat cruel but perhaps just tribute to Henry Hyde.
I guess that the preferred outcome, in every circumstance, to a potential Hyde abortion would be a Hatchling.
that’s pretty good.
But Hatch will make sure that there’s plenty of federally-funded social programs to support all those new mothers, right?
Yeah, starting with health care coverage for all.
Needed to laugh today. silver lining that the Rs on FC unable to comprehend irony. -I know yesterday’s vote was to be expected, perhaps it turned out better than expected. It’s the bombast that dragged me down. Read a story on Huffpo about a mother going blind, sacrificing her $ so her daughters can see – that side by side with the FC Rs – felt like I was listening to the Supreme Court in 1857 deciding the Dred Scott case. FC Rs mouth phrases about every human life has value, but they really mean every human life that isn’t costing medical $ has value. makes me ill.
My suspicion is that he is talking about private-insurance funded abortions (as part of the contractual policy), which is what pays for a portion of abortions now. And he is trying to use the fact that the healthcare reform legislation imposes extensive regulation on private insurers to insist that adding a prohibition against abortion is just a little bit of regulation.
Non-Hyde = privately funded
It’s a dodge to avoid saying that you are going to impose regulations on anything “private”.
So under the guise of bipartisan health care reform, the Democrats are about to ban funding for all abortions, even under insurance policies that previously paid for them?
Alice in Wonderland.
Might insurance companies themselves object to this? An abortion is a lot cheaper for them than a live birth.