House Republicans Tried to Capitalize on Coronavirus to Sneak Anti-Abortion Language Into Law

The Hyde Amendment, once more, became a political football.

Nancy Pelosi( D-Calif.) makes a statement about the Coronavirus Response Act aid package in the Capitol on Friday, March 13th. Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly via ZUMA Press

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

As stock markets plummet businesses, prepare for staff to work from home, and confirmed cases and deaths from the novel coronavirus continue to grow, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) announced that the House plans to vote on a bill Friday to address the inevitable hardships that will result from the pandemic. But discussions with Republican leadership for the multi-billion dollar aid package may have stalled on Thursday over funding for abortion. 

According to reporting from Bloomberg News and NBC, Republican lawmakers are demanding that any new funding to combat COVID-19 include the anti-abortion Hyde Amendment. 

“Right now we are hearing that some of the fights and some of the gridlock is because people are trying to put pro-life provisions into this,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in an interview with Fox News on Thursday night. “We can have that debate another time.”   

Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976 following the landmark 1973 abortion case Roe v. Wade, as a way of limiting access to abortion in lieu of being able to ban it altogether. Named after Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) it forbids federal funding of abortions, which has made it impossible for low income women to receive Medicaid coverage to terminate pregnancies. Because it is an appropriations rider, it has to be renewed every budget cycle. In the 2020 presidential primary campaign former Vice President Joe Biden was criticized by reproductive rights activists after he refused to say he would push to get rid of it as president; he since has reversed his position and said he would support repealing it. 

Conservative lawmakers have argued that by not including the Hyde Amendment in the coronavirus spending package, Democrats are trying to invalidate current federal spending bans on abortion and allow this new funding to pay for abortion services. However, Kelsey Ryland, director of federal strategies for All Above All, an organization focused on dismantling Hyde and expanding access to abortion, explains that simply isn’t how getting rid of Hyde would work. “I wish it was that easy. It’s a little mind-boggling to me,” Ryland says adding, “I have a hard time seeing how this bill would undue FY2020 appropriations bills that already passed.”

Making the Hyde Amendment a point of contention in a spending bill that included making testing more available, and letting workers take time off if they’re sick, seemed to be particularly poor timing. As of Thursday, the number of people in the United States with coronavirus has surpassed 1,300, in 44 states and Washington, DC, with at least 38 people reported dead as a result. 30 governors have declared states of emergencies, and, on Wednesday, the World Health Organization announced that the virus had reached pandemic levels.

On Thursday, President Trump said he wouldn’t support a Democratic spending package that includes increased spending on food assistance and unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, and expanding the availability of testing. Trump called the measures “goodies [Democrats] haven’t been able to get for the last 25 years.” Since Pelosi’s announcement that the House plans to vote on the bill on Friday, there has been no word on whether the White House plans to back the legislation. However, according to Pelosi’s aides, she spoke with White House Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin 20 minutes before delivering an update on the status of the spending bill in which she said the House planned to vote on the bill Friday. 

Democrats have argued that these policy changes are vital emergency measures to need to protect people in the United States from coronavirus and ensure that the virus doesn’t bankrupt everyday Americans, who are now being asked to adjust to a very different world. 

President Trump, who has repeated a series of false and misleading statements about the novel coronavirus—including  that anyone who wants to get tested can be despite widespread reports of symptomatic individuals being unable to access a test—has done little encourage confidence in his response to the crisis. In his speech to the nation on Wednesday night, the president told the public that he planned “to unleash the full power of the federal government,” on combatting the coronavirus. But as he and other Republicans have criticized Democrats for politicizing the response, their efforts to stall an essential aid package over a controversial 44-year old budget rider may tell a different story. 

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate