The Hyde Amendment is NOT what we normally consider a "law"

[Lyric]

It's a rider that gets attached to the big appropriations bill every year. The wording changes from year to year, but the basic premise is that no federal monies appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services will be used to pay for an abortion, save in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother might die.

We don't need to repeal Hyde to get rid of it. We just need to STOP RENEWING IT. There's no law that says we HAVE to put it in there every year; we just do it because it's an easy way to make good political hay. Unfortunately, Democratic politicians tend to value the swing votes of misogynistic fetus-clutchers over the votes of free-thinking, liberated women and the best interests of poor women nationwide. After all, what motivation is there to worry about the votes of women who support choice? Where else are they gonna go? They get to "choose", all right--between the party that wants them chained back to their kitchens, and the party that wants the same thing, except with softer, more comfortable chains.

Want to see Hyde go away? Make choice a voting priority, for once and stick to it! Tell your Congresscritters that you've had enough; no more support, cash, or votes until they take a stand against the Hyde Assault on Poor Women. This is something that would be EASY to fix once and for all if we can just summon up the political will to do so.

[backscatter712]

1. That's OK.

Instead of an amendment to an appropriations bill, Hyde's instead in an executive order, which can be overturned later by the President, or overturned by legislation if we can get enough people in Congress without their heads in their asses.

Certainly not ideal, but far better than Stupak's coathanger amendment, which would have become a full law. We killed that, and essentially maintained the status quo.

[Lyric]

2. Yep. That's why Stupak's amendment was SO onerous.

Unlike Hyde, it would have been PERMANENT. :shudder:

[calimary]

3. Too bad we can't get around this stupid amendment more easily.

[Solly Mack]

4. That's correct.

Contrary to the tenaciously embraced misconception on the matter - the Hyde Amendment has to be re-authorized each year. Meaning, it isn't settled law or written in stone or something that just is... it requires Congress to actively re-authorize it and the President to actively sign it.

[Canuckistanian]

5. Is there any other legislation that paralells the Hyde amendment?

Or is this just some weird artifact of tradition that things automatically get tacked onto HHS bills?

[Lyric]

6. Basically it's just tradition, but a longstanding one and hard to break.

If only we could get a solidly pro-choice Congress, we might be able to change it.