Talk:Hyde Amendment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachellane3. Peer reviewers: Mmurray930.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Income.

As the article explains, the amendment targeted Medicaid, which is only available to those with low incomes. Please stop removing this well-cited fact, as there is clearly a consensus in support of its relevance. Spotfixer (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No madam, as [1] explains the Hyde Amendment restricts federal funding for abortions, not just through medicare and certainly not targeted at low income women. - Schrandit (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pick one of these. For that matter, pick ten. Spotfixer (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I have the choice between the text of the document and partisan organizations who have a vested interest in painting this decision as something it almost certainly is not? Find a hard source saying this was designed to bar the use of federal funds to pay for abortions for low-income women only or I think I'd be justified in changing it back. - Schrandit (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit, there were 12,300 hits for that search. It is no longer credible to deny that the Hyde Amendment is seen by reliable third parties as being related to low income. Nor is it original research to recognize that removing funding for a relatively cheap procedure affects the poor disproportionately. This is obvious and cited, so you need to back away slowly and stop pretending this is controversial. It just isn't. Spotfixer (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the amendment unfairly targets low-income women is relevant to this article, as it has been often used by opponents of the amendment to attack it. However, it should be attributed and presented in an NPOV manner. I hope my edits have done that. -Neitherday (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Spotfixer (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Neitherday's version. - Schrandit (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It bans federal funds for abortions across the board, not just for low income people. It means that the federal government cannot make tax dollars go toward abortions. BenW (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

Spotfixer (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's inaccurate to say that the law "targets" low-income women without evidence about the intent of the author(s) of the amendment. Instead, you need to say something like the law has a greater impact on low-income women, as they are less able to afford to pay for abortion services out-of-pocket. This statement is backed-up by fact, while I seriously doubt any active politician would be stupid enough to say that s/he's targeting low-income women. JohannVII (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mexico City Policy comparison

Regarding revision as of 22:36, 29 January 2009 that was reverted by spotfixer with explanation "Restored relevant explanation".

Though this article isn't about the Mexico City Policy, perhaps it makes sense to briefly compare the two. But, spotfixer, why do you insist that the article omit the detail that the MCP concerns funding in non-US countries? I think that is an extremely relevant distinction between the two. In fact, I got here from the MCP article and felt the need to go back to double check the MCP article after reading this line.

Futhermore, the subsequent sentence that was reinserted is untrue and redundant... and doesn't seem to be NPOV to me. The first sentence states that:
- The MCP prohibited US funding of agencies that promote or perform abortions. (factual, though incomplete without "in other countries")
The second sentence says:
- Agencies couldn't "discuss" abortion (untrue - they couldn't "promote" abortions--as the previous sentence already explains)
- Agencies were black-listed "regardless of whether or not they performed [abortions]" (redundant - the previous sentence already says agencies that "promote OR perform" abortions.)
The final part of the sentence that wrapped up the idea that the two are different by saying the Hyde Amendment is more broad was left in the previous version. So, aside from that final part of the sentence, what "relevant explanation" does this sentence add to the article? What idea are you trying to convey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.149.93 (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The promote/discuss distinction comes down to what the reality is in the application of the law. Even if the text of the law says "promote", it might still be accurate to say the law bars discussion of abortion if, for example, the overwhelming majority of cases in which abortion is discussed in a manner that does not actively dissuade people from seeking termination are ruled to be promotion (this would be similar to the claim that comprehensive sex-ed "promotes" non-marital sex, even if the actual info and presentation is neutral). This sort of thing would be necessary to claim that saying the law bans "discussion" of abortion is NPOV, and it would certainly require extensive, credible sourcing. JohannVII (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

State actions

I find the language in this section problematic. The statement "required by court order" is denotatively accurate; however, it reads with a negative connotation to me. Do others dis/agree? I think something like "do so as the result of court rulings that overturned state funding bans" (assuming this is accurate; I can't think what else "required by court order" would mean) is more neutral. Opinions? Ideas? Also, the use of "voluntarily" vs. "under court order" in the caption for the graphic is definitely both inaccurate and biased language, as the courts are PART of the entity of the state, and therefore any acts of the courts are acts of the state, undertaken as 'voluntarily' as any other action. I'm guessing the distinction here is between those states that explicitly fund/subsidize abortions in the language of their legislation, and those whose courts have ruled it unconstitutional (state constitution) to not fund abortions when other procedures are being funded. The language needs to be updated to be both more accurate and devoid of connotatively-positive and -negative words (like "voluntarily"). JohannVII (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Only

I have an issue with this statement "As of 2007, only 17 of the 50 states provide such funding, and 13 of these are required by court order to do so." The word "only" in this case reveals the likely bias of the author. Would 30 states be enough for the author to take the world "only" out? 40 states? How many? Either way I'm taking it upon myself to remove the word "only" since it reads the same without it. The only difference being that the bias is removed. This same statement is made in Abortion in the United States, so I'm removing it from there as well. Please do not put it back in without explaining why it should be there. 98.204.199.107 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

New Reference

Can someone fix my reference. Apparently I'm incompetent at the tagging and titling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.12.169 (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Effect on low-income women section

This seems like an outright attack on the amendment. BS24 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Hyde

A clear case of Mr. Hyde prevailing over Dr. Jekyll. ---Dagme (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)