Abortion Funding Research Articles

Abortion Policy in 1978: A Follow-up Analysis

Abortion policy was a major issue in the politics of 1977; in 1978 it continued to touch every plane and branch of government in the American federal system. The year 1977 marked an important turning point in U.S. abortion policy. Congressional legislation resulted in a sharp cutback in federal funds for abortions; and the Supreme Court, while not altering the basic legal access to abortion established in Roe v. Wade (1973), gave recognition to state discretion in abortion funding policy. By December 1977 only 12 states and the District of Columbia were funding abortions at their pre-June 1977 level.Here we provide a brief update report on three important developments of abortion politics in 1978: evolving patterns of state funding response, the stepped up involvement of the federal courts in interpreting state funding responsibilities, and emerging forms of abortion politics throughout the federal system.

Abortion Funding: Legal and Moral Questions

S. Callahan is considered to be correct in maintaining (Hastings Center Report, August 1977) that there is a distinction between one's moral position on abortion and the legal status of abortion, but by acquiescing in the discriminatory effects of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 20 decision the force of her objection to this apparent discrimination is diluted by introducing the ethical "red herring" of the ideal observer. If it is assumed that a given group of economically poor women have made it clearly known that they feel subjectively coerced and deprived of options concerning the procurement of an abortion and that they believe they are so deprived primarily because of their economic situation, it is at this point that the ideal observer enters. Presumably this concept is introduced as a way of saying that there might be another interpretation of the situation of these women. If these women could appraise their situation impartially, freely, calmly, and fully informed, they might rather see themselves as being saved from a potentially harmful situation, i.e., a situation where abortion would be effecitvely available to them and a situation where they would avail themselves of the opportunity. Although this writer does not deny that the women can be mistaken in their assessment of what might be in their own best interest, the discussion is obscured and the force of Callahan's earlier comments is diluted by her final statement of regret in that an ideal observer is lacking. Her statement, in this context, is tantamount to saying that there continues to be an ethical and moral disagreement over abortion. Appeal to an ideal observer functions here as a reiteration of the recurring hope for a demonstration of a unique set of standards which are objective and universally binding and, in terms of which, an adjudication of all moral issues would be achieved.

Comments received on excess deaths from restricting Medicaid funds for abortions.

Methodological errors inherent in an article by D.B. Petitti and W. Cates (American Journal of Public Health 67:860-862, 1977) on projecting excess maternal mortality resulting from restriction of Medicaid funds for abortion are cited. It is claimed that the authors' mortality estimates are too high because they failed to correct for other early-pregnancy-related mortality risks occurring prior to a planned abortion. To calculate excess risk, the risk for Medicaid patients who abort must be subtracted from non-pregnancy-related maternal mortality rates. Analysis of gestation-age-specific nonabortion maternal mortality can be used to indicate excess maternal mortality for Medicaid recipients choosing abortion, as well as the increased number of deaths due to the postponement of abortion.

The Court, the Congress and the President: Turning Back the Clock on the Pregnant Poor

The effect of recent U.S. Court decisions and of executive, congressional, and state actions will be to cut off public funds for abortion services. This impact will fall most severely on the poor, especially black, teenage, unwed, and rural poor. Charts are presented which show the disproportion among states of abortion availability and expenditure. A virtual cutoff of public abortion funds will affect the estimated 300,000 poor women annually who receive Medicaid-funded abortions, the 150,000 other low-income women whose abortions are subsidized by clinics or hospitals, and the estimated 424,000 needy women unable to obtain abortion services because of Medicaid restrictions or inaccessibility. More than 3 million Medicaid-eligible women of reproductive age are at risk of unwanted pregnancy. Teenage illegitimacy and unwanted pregnancies will certainly rise, as will pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality. The final result of these recent decisions and actions will be soaring public expenditures for health and welfare payments.

Ask Judge to Reconsider Bar to U.S. Abortion Fund Ban

Ask Judge to Reconsider Bar to U.S. Abortion Fund Ban

Is Support of Abortion Political Suicide?

A systematic review of national and local press coverage of congressional races makes possible a general appraisal of the significance of the abortion issue in the 1974 general election; analysis of polls conducted by congresspersons offers further clues to voter sentiment regarding this issue. Congressional initiatives in regard to abortion following the 1973 Supreme Court decision fell into 3 major categories: 1) introduction of proposals for constitutional amendments to reverse the Supreme Court decision; 2) efforts to exempt both individuals and institutions from having to perform or to allow the performance of abortion; 3) attempts to prohibit or restrict the use of federal funds for abortion in domestic or foreign programs. Many districts are so "safe" that the incumbent is virtually assured of election without campaigning, so a more reliable test of the importance of the abortion issue is to examine what happened to those incumbents whose hold over their districts was generally acknowledged to be insecure or who faced especially strong challengers. The voting records and election outcomes of 119 incumbents were scrutinized. Incumbents from unsafe districts fared considerably more poorly than those from safe areas in the 1974 elections. 1% of the safe incumbents lost compared to 31% of those whose races were considered close. Antiabortion candidates from unsafe districts had a much higher casualty rate (39%) than proabortion candidates (8%); while those with mixed records fared about the same as congresspersons from unsafe districts generally. Among Republicans running in close races, 42% of the antiabortion incumbents were defeated, about the same porportion of casualties as among Republicans in unsafe districts generally. Among Democrats, all of the 12 proabortion incumbents from unsafe districts were reelected, while 2 of the 8 who voted consistently in opposition were defeated. When party affiliation is controlled and attention is on those districts where a single issue might conceivably have made the difference between victory and defeat, the losses among antiabortion incumbents were heavier than those losses among those who voted in favor of legal abortion. The data show conclusively that support of legal abortion does not constitute political suicide.

Medicaid Coverage of Abortions in New York City: Costs and Benefits

PIP: New York was among the first states to provide Medicaid financing of abortions for needy women. This was begun in July 1970 when the liberalized state abortion law took effect. Each year since, nearly 40% of the New York City abortion patients have been funded by Medicaid. There is evidence that Medicaid funding of abortions for indigent women has had a favorable impact on improving the health and welfare of these women. There are attempts nationwide to cut off or restrict Medicaid financing for abortions. Results of a cutback on funding will be 1) many septic and incomplete illegal abortions, 2) an increase of 10,000-15,000 births in New York City, and 3) added costs to federal, state, and local relief funds for delivery services, foster care, welfare payments, and day care facilities for these added births. Additional costs to government health and welfare organizations in the first year would be from 7-10 times what Medicaid coverage of abortions would cost.