Skip to main content

We know what we think about the Hyde Amendment. But what do women who are on Medicaid, the very people who are most affected by Hyde, think about the restrictions it places on their insurance coverage?

Written by Steph Herold for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Evidence-Based Advocacy is a bi-monthly column seeking to bridge the gap between the research and activist communities. It will profile provocative new abortion research activists may not otherwise be able to access. 

September 30th marks the anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents Medicaid coverage of abortion in most circumstances. When activists and advocates talk about Hyde, we discuss the injustice of health care denial, the importance of grassroots abortion funds, and the stories of people who’ve sacrificed rent, food, and monthly bills in order to pay for an abortion their insurance won’t cover. And rightly so—there’s no denying that the more we talk about the horrific ramifications of the Hyde Amendment and the more awareness we raise, the better. We know what we think about Hyde. But what do women who are on Medicaid, the very people who are most affected by Hyde, think about the restrictions it places on their insurance coverage?

Amanda Dennis of Ibis Reproductive Health interviewed 71 low-income women who had  abortions while living in Arizona, Florida, New York, and Oregon, states that represent those operating under Hyde’s restrictions and those that have pro-actively provided Medicaid coverage for abortion. These women ranged from 18 to 35 years old, most reported having some college education, and a majority of them had surgical, first trimester abortions within the past two years. All of them met their state’s Medicaid income qualifications.

Most of the women supported government funding for abortion care; in fact, 82 percent said that they support Medicaid coverage of abortion. When asked about whether funding should be available in specific circumstances, however, they wavered. The interviewees didn’t think abortion should be covered if a woman could not afford another child. Similarly, they didn’t think Medicaid should cover abortion if a woman was not in a relationship with the person with whom she had sex. These views held constant even for women who were themselves in these same circumstances when they had their abortions. For example, a majority of the women cited financial instability as the most salient factor in their personal abortion decision, yet when specifically asked if Medicaid should cover abortion as a result of not being able to afford another child, 40 percent said no. Similarly, women often used disparaging language to talk about people who seek abortions for reasons they don’t approve of, again, even if they themselves had abortions in those circumstances.

This seems contradictory: why would women who have abortions for financial reasons disapprove of Medicaid coverage of abortion for the exact same reason? Dennis and her colleagues points to abortion stigma, explaining:

“Women said that they did not support coverage in these circumstances because they felt coverage would promote ‘irresponsible’ behavior…these circumstances conjured images of irresponsible, promiscuous, and callous women, which participants sought to distance themselves from in order to view their own abortion decision as consistent with their moral values.”

Dennis and colleagues propose that abortion stigma operates differently for low-income women, as they are battling both abortion stigma and welfare stereotypes. The researchers note that the overlap between stereotypes of women who have abortions and women on welfare are notable—they’re both thought of as irresponsible, lazy, and promiscuous, the exact qualities from which the women in this study were trying to distance themselves. Indeed, the shame associated with welfare reflects an American view that holds individuals accountable for their own poverty rather than recognizing the systemic determinants of poverty and health.

The point of this research is not to suggest that we should keep Hyde in place because low-income women themselves don’t believe that Medicaid should cover abortion in every circumstance. A person's character, whether upstanding or “irresponsible,” should not determine whether or not they receive insurance coverage. This particular study uncovers just how pervasive abortion stigma is, so much so that even women who need Medicaid to cover abortion because they can’t afford another child don’t believe women like them deserve to have this coverage. 

The Hyde Amendment has made it acceptable to debate whether different pregnancy circumstances merit abortion coverage. As we see in this particular study, parsing out who does and doesn’t deserve abortion coverage based on the circumstances of a pregnancy only further embeds stereotypes about people who seek abortions, especially among those who need access to these services (in this case, low-income women). Research like this demonstrates that our work on the Hyde amendment can’t just be at the policy level. Repealing Hyde is not enough—it does not undo the damage of stereotypes associated with people who have abortions. We must advocate for policy change coupled with culture change, in which we both repeal Hyde and challenge the multiple stigmas and stereotypes associated with those who need Medicaid coverage of abortion.

If you are interested in having your research profiled, leave your contact information in the comments section. 

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Decades of propaganda -- added to millenia (5+ / 0-)

    which undervalues equal rights for women.  

    British common law legalized killing in self defense (& defense of others) and originally even included the DUTY to kill/apprehend a highwayman in self defense and to prevent their future crimes to others.   It is the basis for castle doctrine.

    We women are new ish to accepting our right to defend ourselves.  Invasion of one drop of sperm should not negate our right to decide what bodily damage/risk of death we are willing to risk in pregnancy.    

    Many religions & politicians brainwash against planning parenthood --- for their own various goals.  

    In dollars and common sense --- it is cheaper to space births so we don't do like a dedicated Catholic friend and have 8 live births plus two miscarriages --- then cost her insurance the high prices of replacing both knee joints and both hip joints.  But surely it must just be coincidence?   Nah.  

    Plagues are rare and modern wars kill less people at a time.  We have more people than jobs.  It is unpatriotic to produce more kids than  we can raise well and provide productive work for.

    Can you tell I'm from the Zero population growth generation?  

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 12:11:57 PM PDT

  •  Abortion is only for "nice" women who would make (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stormicats

    perfectly good mothers. Women who are organized, have sufficient income, carefully plan out their lives, are in stable relationships. These "nice" women should be allowed the choice of not having a child.

    But no abortions for "bad" women who have random sex with no thought of the consequences. They should have babies. Because society needs more "bad" women to become mothers....Wha----?

    I don't get the moral logic of denying abortion to women who, by any reasonable standard, should not have a baby at that point in their lives. She doesn't want the child, can't afford the child, has no support from the guy, has no concrete plans about how she will care for the child. So, hey, let's take away her options and make her have that baby!

    I guess the baby is a punishment for the "bad" behavior, and the woman is supposed to suffer and be poor, miserable, and struggling. How can anyone who cares anything about women or babies think this way?

    If Lindsay Lohan gets pregnant, move her to the front of the line at the clinic.

    Non-profit single payer health care. Next question?

    by terran on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 01:32:46 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site