The 1993 controversy over federal funding of abortions for poor women is an issue that has been brewing since the 1977 provision of the Hyde Amendment, which outlines the abortion services the government will pay for. “[Representative Henry] Hyde said financing abortions through Medicaid, the health program for the poor, would offend taxpayers by making them unwilling accomplices in abortion” (Clymer para 5). Government pass laws everyday and although people do not agree with them, it does not make them accomplices to these laws that they do not agree with. The United States is a country of freedom of speech and religion, but it is also a country like others who have placed certain government officials in place to decide on laws that will impact the country as a whole. Because we are citizens, we have to obey the laws, even if we do not agree with them. In the 1993 debate over federal funding of abortions for poor women, Representative Hyde’s fallacious argument was not taken well. “Representative Nancy Johnson, Republican of Connecticut, argued that taxpayers already subsidized abortions for the middle class through the tax deductibility of private health insurance plans that paid for them” (Clymer para 6).
The idea of government funding for abortions began after the ruling of the Roe v. Wade case. “In 1973, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that women have a fundamental right to have an abortion” (Find Law para1). Federal funding for abortions is the issue now. “Medicaid is the publicly funded health care program for the poor, that is those on welfare---mostly women with children---or those who are destitute” (McBride pg.48). Medicaid is vital to the health care of many women in the U.S. As mentioned earlier, the issues surrounding abortions such as federal funding is a result of an unresolved issue in America today, which is whether or not the unborn fetus is human or not. “What about the rights of the unborn child?” In abortion cases we often hear the words, “The rights of women.” “The Court’s decision was greeted with elation by women’s organizations that had been fighting a generally unsuccessful battle to get restrictive state abortion laws repealed” (Rubin 87). Significance should also be placed on the rights of an unborn child. Though there are many who advocate for