Hyde Amendment AFF by wuyunyi

VIEWS: 14 PAGES: 103

									Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                                   1
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                         Hyde Amendment AFF


                                                    Hyde Amendment AFF
Hyde Amendment AFF ........................................................................................................... 1
___**1AC .............................................................................................................................. 4
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ........................................................................................................................... 5
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ........................................................................................................................... 6
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ........................................................................................................................... 7
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ........................................................................................................................... 8
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ........................................................................................................................... 9
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 10
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 11
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 12
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 13
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 14
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 15
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 16
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 17
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 18
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 19
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 20
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 21
  Hyde Amendment – 1AC ......................................................................................................................... 22

___**Case Extensions.......................................................................................................... 23
  Inherency – McRae Upheld ..................................................................................................................... 24
  Inherency – Obama Won’t x Hyde .......................................................................................................... 25
  ADV – Constitutionality ........................................................................................................................... 26
  ADV – Crime ............................................................................................................................................ 27
  ADV – Health Care ................................................................................................................................... 28
  ADV – Indians .......................................................................................................................................... 29
  ADV – International HR Treaties ............................................................................................................. 30
  ADV – Overpopulation............................................................................................................................. 31
  ADV – Overpopulation............................................................................................................................. 32
  ADV – Rights ............................................................................................................................................ 33
  ADV – Rights ............................................................................................................................................ 34
  ADV: Violence Against Women ............................................................................................................... 35
  Solvency – Equal Protection** ................................................................................................................ 36
  Solvency – Equal Protection** ................................................................................................................ 37
  Solvency – Equal Protection** ................................................................................................................ 38
  Solvency – Generic** .............................................................................................................................. 39
  Solvency – Generic** .............................................................................................................................. 40
  Solvency – Hyde Repeal........................................................................................................................... 41
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                                   2
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                         Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                    Hyde Amendment AFF
  Solvency – McRae Reversal ..................................................................................................................... 42
  Solvency – McRae Reversal ..................................................................................................................... 43
  Solvency – McRae Reversal ..................................................................................................................... 44
  Solvency – Hyde Repeal........................................................................................................................... 45
  Solvency – Hyde Repeal........................................................................................................................... 46

____**Racism Extensions .................................................................................................... 47
  Biopolitics Impact .................................................................................................................................... 48
  AT: Norplant = Voluntary......................................................................................................................... 49
  Hyde x Human Rights .............................................................................................................................. 50
  Hyde x Poor ............................................................................................................................................. 51
  Hyde x Poor ............................................................................................................................................. 52
  Hyde x Poor ............................................................................................................................................. 53
  Hyde = Racist ........................................................................................................................................... 54
  Hyde = Racist ........................................................................................................................................... 55
  Hyde x Women’s Health .......................................................................................................................... 56
  Reprod Rights S Sterilization ................................................................................................................... 57
  Reprod Rights S Sterilization ................................................................................................................... 58
  Reprod Rights S Eugenics ........................................................................................................................ 59

___**Modeling Extensions .................................................................................................. 60
  Internal Link EXT – Spillover .................................................................................................................... 61
  Internal Link EXT – Spillover .................................................................................................................... 62
  Internal Link EXT – Spillover .................................................................................................................... 63
  Modeling Impact – Africa ........................................................................................................................ 64

___**AT: Common Neg Args ................................................................................................ 65
  2AC UQ Wall ............................................................................................................................................ 66
  Abortion Access Good – Decreases Abortions ........................................................................................ 67
  Abortion Access Good – Decreases Abortions ........................................................................................ 68
  Abortion Access Good – Equal Access..................................................................................................... 69
  Abortion Access Good – Multiple ............................................................................................................ 70
  Abortion Access Bad – Nietzsche ............................................................................................................ 71
  Abortion Access Good – AT: Life Begins @ Conception .......................................................................... 72
  Abortion Access Good – AT: Life Begins @ Conception .......................................................................... 73
  AT: Abortion PIC ...................................................................................................................................... 74
  AT: Agent CPs .......................................................................................................................................... 75
  AT: Coercion ............................................................................................................................................ 76
  AT: Coercion ............................................................................................................................................ 77
  AT: Coercion ............................................................................................................................................ 78
  AT: Congress CP ....................................................................................................................................... 79
  AT: Constitutional Amendment CP.......................................................................................................... 80
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                                   3
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                         Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                    Hyde Amendment AFF
 AT: Constitutional Amendment CP.......................................................................................................... 81
 AT: Constitutional Amendment............................................................................................................... 82
 AT: CPs – Medicaid S Deficit .................................................................................................................... 83
 AT: Gag Rule Removal S........................................................................................................................... 84
 AT: Politics – Plan Popular ....................................................................................................................... 85
 AT: Politics – Plan Popular ....................................................................................................................... 86
 AT: Politics – Plan Avoids Partisan Debate .............................................................................................. 87
 AT: Politics – Plan Avoids Partisan Debate .............................................................................................. 88
 AT: Politics – Plan  Cooperation .......................................................................................................... 89
 AT: Politics – Plan  Cooperation .......................................................................................................... 90
 AT: Politics – Plan  Cooperation .......................................................................................................... 91
 AT: State Courts CP.................................................................................................................................. 92
 AT: State Courts CP.................................................................................................................................. 93
 AT: State Courts CP.................................................................................................................................. 94
 AT: States CP............................................................................................................................................ 95
 AT: Sub Silentio CP................................................................................................................................... 96
 AT: Sub Silentio CP................................................................................................................................... 97
 AT: T – ‘For People Living in Poverty’ ...................................................................................................... 98
 AT: T – ‘For People Living in Poverty’ ...................................................................................................... 99
 AT: T – ‘For People Living in Poverty’ .................................................................................................... 100
 AT: T – ‘Substantially’ ............................................................................................................................ 101
 AT: Women Still Have Abortion Access ................................................................................................. 102
 AT: Zizek ................................................................................................................................................ 103
Mean Green Workshops 2009                               4
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                     Hyde Amendment AFF

                            ___**1AC
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                      5
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                            Hyde Amendment AFF

                                            Hyde Amendment – 1AC
OBSERVATION ONE is INHERENCY –

The Hyde Amendment continues to block funding to women seeking abortions – new federal
funding is crucial
Oliver, ‘9. Lindsey, co-founder of the Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project, “Every Woman Should
Have Reproductive Choices,” Richmond Times Dispatch, 5-22, Lexis.
   After the Roe v. Wade decision decriminalized abortion in 1973, Medicaid - the national system that offers financial support for
   medical care to low-income Americans - covered abortion care without restriction. But in 1976, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois introduced
                                                                                   Hyde Amendment has been
   an amendment to the federal budget that limited federal funding for abortion care. The
   passed with the federal budget every single year since. Although 15 states use their own funds to cover abortions
   under many circumstances, Virginia is not one of them. This leaves the commonwealth's poorest women without
   resources to determine the size and shape of their own families. In the absence of public funding, abortion
   funds pick up what slack they can. Last year, abortion funds across the country, including RRFP, raised and disbursed more than $3
                                                                          abortion funds like ours can help
   million to assist 21,000 women in paying for their abortions. However, grassroots
   only a fraction of all women who need it. We will never be able to take the place of public funding. That is why
   we need to restore Medicaid funding for abortion. THE NATIONAL Network of Abortion Funds - an
   organization composed of 103 grassroots abortion funds in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and overseas - is now taking on the Hyde
   Amendment through the "Hyde - 30 Years is Enough!" campaign. The 80-plus organizational members of the campaign are working to
   repeal the Hyde Amendment and restore dignity to poor women. For women who are struggling to make ends meet and who do not
                                        legal right to have an abortion does not guarantee access. The
   have insurance that covers abortion care, the
   restrictions imposed by the Hyde Amendment unfairly jeopardize the health and well-being of low-
   income women and their families. Women who do not have the ability to pay for abortion services may resort to attempting a
   self-induced abortion or obtaining unsafe, illegal abortions from untrained practitioners. Even though the Hyde Amendment has
   exceptions for rape, incest, and life endangerment, Medicaid virtually never pays even for abortions that meet those exemptions. As
   the Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project celebrates our fifth year as a nonprofit, I feel the urge to take a moment to reflect on the
   hundreds of women's lives we have directly impacted. However, the need for the health services we support calls for more action. It's
   time to make a full range of reproductive health services available to all Virginia women.


Obama is pushing a transformational reproductive rights agenda but has sidestepped the
Hyde Amendment
Camp, 6-11-’09. Sharon, CEO @ Guttmacher Institute, “Live-Blogging NCRW's "Reproductive Rights"
Panel,” http://rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2009/06/11/liveblogging-ncrws-reproductive-rights-
panel.
   First question is about the new administration and how much the climate for Reproductive Rights has changed + what new priorities
   are. Sharon Camp: "We     are already deeply disappointed that the new adminstration has failed to
   make eye-contact with the issue of abortion." Camp expresses concern that although Obama will be
   "transformational," administration has and will sidestep issues like the Hyde Amendment,
   stimulus funding, international funding, and Health reform that tackle social inequality in terms of abortion
   access and coverage.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                        6
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                              Hyde Amendment AFF

                                            Hyde Amendment – 1AC
ADVANTAGE ONE is RACISM –

Lack of access to abortion funding has led to widespread sterilization – this mirrors the worst
historical instances of eugenics against poor, minority women
Blake, Research Scholar, Center for the Study of Women, UCLA, 96 *Meredith, “Welfare and Coerce
Contraception: Morality Implications of State Reproductive Control,” University of Louisville Journal of
Family Law, Spring 95-96, l/n]
   The intersection of illegitimacy, welfare, and women has more to do with lower class women's lack of access to alternative and
   affordable contraception and abortion than the desire to defraud the government out of an extra twenty-four dollars or even sixty-
                                                            were available, the state would not need
   four dollars a month for an added child. If such alternatives
   coercive measures like the mandatory and incentive based welfare reform proposals that have surfaced. Such measures
   are "band-aid" solutions which ignore the correlation between welfare women having children
   and the lack of voluntary reproductive health care options and affordable family planning
   services. Such neglect mirrors the ignorance behind such reprehensible population control
   policies as those that were enforced under India's Indira Gandhi in the 1970's. 192 While the United
   States does not herd poor women into sterilization camps like that which existed under Gandhi's regime, 193
   coercive contraceptive measures for women on welfare smack of the same ignorance and
   potential for abuse 194 when one considers the lack of [*338] alternatives available to welfare women and the coercive
   nature of such measures. In the last decade or so, while the federal government has made the rhetoric of family planning high on its
   agenda, federal     funding for family planning has plummeted. Between 1980 and 1990, federal spending on family
   planning programs dropped by a third in inflation-adjusted dollars. 195 Additionally, the federal government will not
   pay for abortion 196 while the cost of an abortion, at the low end of the spectrum, is about $ 265. 197 "You don't have
   to be Pythagoras to see the math here. While some of these 300,000 women every year
   manage to come up with enough cash for an abortion . . . [an estimated] twenty percent of Medicaid-
   eligible American women now carry their unwanted children to term." 198 Moreover, government health
   services often do not make available information about, and access to, other contraceptive options. 199 Yet, while few poor
   women are provided with information about, and access to, many contraceptive methods, and
   while the federal government and most state governments will not fund abortions for poor women, sterilization
   procedures are paid for by the federal government and most state Medicaid programs. 200 Moreover,
   additional financial pressures work to influence women to undergo sterilization. In many understaffed and
   underfunded agencies, sterilization is encouraged because women will no longer need contraceptive or obstetric care thus freeing
   resources and cutting case loads for the clinic. 201 Such "subtle coercion by care providers [*339] may often confirm the view of the
   welfare patient that sterilization is the only alternative to impersonal, degrading reproductive health care that often denies access to
   safe, effective contraception or to abortion." 202 Add to this existing conundrum for welfare women, the fact that Norplant is being
   offered free of charge by many states and, in some cases, implantation is even accompanied by increased welfare benefits. 203 Again,
   one must question what "choice" exists for poor women, and how voluntary such a "choice" is,
   when the only fully funded, accessible, and promoted methods of birth control are permanent
   sterilization or long-acting Norplant. Perhaps in answer to this question, one writer has noted the "state makes it easier
   for a mother on welfare to obtain a sterilization than to keep warm in winter, find child care, or provide nourishing meals for her
   children." 204 Before politicians "embark on draconian efforts to cut off AFDC for poor mothers, they ought to be doing a lot more to
                                                   first step in addressing what politicians deem
   help welfare moms avoid motherhood in the first place." 205 The
   the "welfare problem" is to provide a range of affordable and accessible reproductive health
   care and contraceptive alternatives for poor women.<CONTINUED>
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                        7
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                              Hyde Amendment AFF

                                            Hyde Amendment – 1AC
  <CONTINUED>
   If politicians are really serious about ending poverty among women and children, they will take the next step by providing education
  and job opportunities, health care, child care, decent, affordable housing, and economic parity between men and women. 206 Only
  then will politicians [*340] have succeeded in solving the "welfare problem" and only then will we, as a nation, be able to call
  ourselves just, equal, and humane. All of this is not to say that sterilization and Norplant are not beneficial birth control options for
  some -- even many -- women. It cannot be doubted the continuing research, development, and offering of new methods of birth
  control as well as continued availability of methods such as sterilization are imperative. Women must have such options to gain and
  retain control over their own bodies and reproductive decisions. However, the decision to undergo any reproductive surgery or take
  any form of contraception must be made only by the woman whose body will be affected. In this regard, such contraceptive methods
  must be chosen voluntarily by women who have been provided with all the information necessary to make an informed decision, and
  the choice to partake in any method of birth control must not be a product of coercion or pressure in any form. Moreover, poor
  women must be provided the full range of contraceptive options available to wealthier women and they must be provided at a
                               the debate over abortion continues to incite deep divisions in the
  reduced fee or at no charge. So, while
  American populace, feminists must continue to work on making abortion accessible and
  affordable to low income and impoverished women. Only with such a full range of accessible,
  affordable, family planning options will we be able to address poverty related reproductive
  issues.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                          8
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

                                             Hyde Amendment – 1AC
And, this system intentionally coerces poor and minority women into sacrificing their right to
control their bodies. Deemed ‘unfit to parent’, these women are isolated from the political
discourse of reproduction, creating permanent divisions among the population
Blake, Research Scholar, Center for the Study of Women, UCLA, 96
*Meredith, “Welfare and Coerce Contraception: Morality Implications of State Reproductive Control,”
University of Louisville Journal of Family Law, Spring 95-96, l/n]
   The public should be skeptical about "reform" measures which burden only poor women and which, because they are
   based on a set of racist stereotypes and myths, are designed to target minority women. At first glance, the
   measures may appear to be race-neutral, applying to any woman on welfare regardless of her race. However, while the measures
   purport to cut across all racial lines, the reality is that, consistent with the classist and racist myths which prompted these measures,
   such proposals are likely to target minority women through institutional coercion. The
   history of sterilization abuse reveals such procedures, during the first half of this century and during the 1970's, were
                                                                    recent studies show poor and
   disproportionately applied to certain [*341] groups and races. 207 Even today, the most
   minority women are still coerced into sterilization at much higher rates than middle-class, white women.
   208
      Racist agendas such as those evidenced by the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER editorial lead one to suspect the future for Norplant may
   fare no better. It is more than likely that these class and race biases will continue to accompany coerced contraception in the welfare
   reform context. Such      proposals smack of social engineering and mark a return to the eugenic
   principles of the first half of this century when women were subject to mass sterilization campaigns in an effort to
                            "unfit" appear to be poor, minority women who are being subjected
   eradicate the "unfit." 209 Today's
   to a form of state sponsored, coerced Darwinism. The Eugenics movement, launched in 1904, embraced the
   theory that personality traits, intelligence, and even predisposition to crime were genetically inherited from one's parents. 210 In this
   regard, Eugenicists sought to discourage or prohibit procreation by the unfit. 211 The theory reached its height of popularity during the
   reform movement of the progressive era, and the combination proved to be dangerous. 212 Campaigns [*342] to remedy America's
   social ills by stemming biological degeneracy flourished and Eugenic theory manifested, most notoriously, in compulsory sterilization
   laws. 213 Such campaigns were designed to prevent reproduction by those deemed likely to produce defective offspring. 214 While the
   mentally retarded and mentally ill are the most cited examples of those held to be burdens on society, a wide range of individuals fell
   within the gamut of "undesirables." This group included criminals, epileptics, orphans, paupers, and the inebriate, diseased, blind,
   deaf, deformed, and home-less. 215 All in all, it has been estimated that over 70,000 individuals were involuntarily sterilized under
                                   These Eugenic sterilization laws imposed the reproductive norms of dominant society on
   Eugenic sterilization statutes. 216
   those who departed from social norms and, cloaked in the name of science, "masked racist and class-based judgments
   about who deserves to procreate." 217 Reproductive methods and technology have [*343]
   historically been used in this country as a mechanism for social control. "At various times in American
   history fear of blacks, immigrants, Native Americans, working people, Hispanics, and welfare recipients has been expressed in explicit,
   although, unofficial, attempts to control their growth rates." 218 Similarly,   compulsory or coercive contraception
   statutes which would mandate or coerce women on welfare, including numerous minority women, to submit to mandatory birth
   control "has vast class and racial implications." 219 Just as Eugenic policy reinforced the prevailing
   social order by sanctioning who was fit or unfit to have children, the new wave of compulsory contraceptive
   measures poses the same danger. While it is true the new reform movement is not technically Eugenic because
   politicians are not claiming that poverty is genetically inherited, the underlying premise is the same. Both the Eugenicists and
   today's politicians who have proposed compulsory contraceptive welfare reform have decided
   certain groups are unfit to procreate. <CONTINUED>
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                         9
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                                            Hyde Amendment – 1AC
  <CONTINUED>
  By making such a judgment, both Eugenic policy and so called welfare "reform" policy impose the morality of its lawmakers (generally
  middle and upper class, white males) on the rest of society. "The idea behind all of these projects is the same: only those women . . .
  who conform to majoritarian middle-class values deserve government subsistence benefits." 220      Welfare policy has been described
  as serving various purposes from assisting the less fortunate and relieving misery to maintaining industrial discipline and order. 221
  Clearly, welfare programs serve other interests and perform other functions at the same time. These programs        are
  expressive and symbolic, defining values and confirming status. 222 "The distinction between the deserving
  and undeserving poor is a moral issue that affirms the values of the dominant society by stigmatizing the outcasts." 223 The
  modern welfare state reproduces the dominant social values, mores, and stratification of the
  larger society. 224 [*344] By imposing and enforcing the morality of dominant society on poor and
  minority women, the welfare state, through compulsory contraception, furthers division along class
  lines. The ultimate effect, like that of the Eugenic movement, is to equate social class with genetic worth and reproductive value.
  These compulsory contraception proposals give politicians and the government the power to decide who can and cannot bear children
  and, consequently, provide the potential for far-reaching and devastating abuse of power and social control. 225
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                              10
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                     Hyde Amendment AFF

                                               Hyde Amendment – 1AC
Racist government health policies are the foundation of all warfare and genocide – their DA
scenarios are all inevitable in a world where we don’t challenge biopolitical control
Mendieta, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, San Francisco, 2k2 *Eduardo, “To make live and to Let Die
p- Foucault on Racism,” APA Central Division Meetinf – Chicago, April 25th, 2002,
http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/emendieta/articles/foucault.pdf]
   I have thus far discussed Foucault’s triangulation between the discourses of the production of truth, the power that these discourse
   enact and make available to social agents, and the constitution of a political rationality that is linked to the invention and creation of
   its horizon of activity and surveillance. I want now to focus on the main theme of this courses’ last lecture. This theme discloses in a
   unique way the power and perspicacity of Foucault’s method. The theme concerns the kind of power that biopower renders available,
   or rather, how biopolitics      produces certain power effects by thinking of the living in a novel way. We
   will approach the theme by way of a contrast: whereas the power of the sovereign under Medieval and early Modern times was the
                                   power of the total state, which is the biopower state, is the power to
   power to make 7 die and to let live, the
   make live and to let die. Foucault discerned here a telling asymmetry. If the sovereign exercised his power with the
   executioner’s axe, with the perpetual threat of death, then life was abandoned to its devices. Power was exhibited only on the
   scaffold, or the guillotine –its terror was the shimmer of the unsheathed sword. Power was ritualistic, ceremonial, theatrical, and to
   that extent partial, molecular, and calendrical. It was also a power that by its own juridical logic had to submit to the jostling of rights
   and claims. In the very performance of its might, the power of the sovereign revealed its limitation. It is a power that is localized and
                                                                                                power of the biopower
   circumscribed to the theater of its cruelty, and the staging of its pomp. In contrast, however, the
   state is over life *expand+. And here Foucault asks “how can biopolitics then reclaim the power over death?” or rather, how can
   it make die in light of the fact that its claim to legitimacy is that it is guarding, nurturing, tending to life? In so far as biopolitics is the
   management of life, how does it make die, how does it kill? This is a similar question to the one that theologians asked about the
   Christian God. If God is a god of life, the giver of life, how can he put to death, how can he allow death to descend upon his gift of life –
   why is death a possibility if god is the giver of life? Foucault’s answer is that in order to re-claim death, to be able to
   inflict death on its subjects, its living beings, biopower must make use of racism; more precisely,
   racism intervenes here to grant access to death to the biopower state. We must recall that the political
   rationality of biopower is deployed over a population, which is understood as a continuum of life. It

   is this continuum of life that eugenics, social hygiene, civil engineering, civil medicine, military
   engineers, doctors and nurses, policeman, and so on, tended to by a careful management of roads,
   factories, living quarters, brothels, red-districts, planning and planting of gardens and
   recreation centers, and the gerrymandering of populations by means of roads, access to public
   transformations, placement of schools, and so on. Biopolitics is the result of the development and maintenance of
   the hothouse of the political body, of the body-politic. Society has become the vivarium of the political
   rationality, and biopolitics acts on the teeming biomass contained within the parameters of that
   structure built up by the institutions of health, education, and production. This is where racism
   intervenes, not from without, exogenously, but from within, constitutively. For the emergence of biopower as
   the form of a new form of political rationality, entails the inscription within the very logic of the
   modern state the logic of racism. For racism grants, and here I am quoting: “the conditions for the
   acceptability of putting to death in a society of normalization. Where there is a society of normalization,
   where there is a power that is, in all of its surface and in first instance, and first line, a bio-power, racism is
   indispensable as a condition to be able to put to death someone, in order to be able to put to
   death others. <CONTINUED>
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                           11
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                  Hyde Amendment AFF

                                             Hyde Amendment – 1AC
  <CONTINUED>
  The homicidal [meurtrière] function of the state, to the degree that the state functions on the
  modality of bio-power, can only be assured by racism “(Foucault 1997, 227) To use the formulations from his
  1982 lecture “The Political Technology of Individuals” –which incidentally, echo his 1979 Tanner Lectures –the power of the state after
  the 18th century, a power which is enacted through the police, and is enacted over the population, is a power over living beings, and
  as such it is a biopolitics. And, to quote more directly, “since the population is nothing more than what the state takes care of for its
  own sake, of course, the state is entitled to slaughter it, if necessary. So the reverse of biopolitics is thanatopolitics.” (Foucault 2000,
  416). Racism, is the thanatopolitics of the biopolitics of the total state. They are two sides of one same 8 political technology, one same
                                                                                                     with
  political rationality: the management of life, the life of a population, the tending to the continuum of life of a people. And
  the inscription of racism within the state of biopower, the long history of war that Foucault has
  been telling in these dazzling lectures has made a new turn: the war of peoples, a war against
  invaders, imperials colonizers, which turned into a war of races, to then turn into a war of
  classes, has now turned into the war of a race, a biological unit, against its polluters and
  threats. Racism is the means by which bourgeois political power, biopower, re-kindles the fires of war
  within civil society. Racism normalizes and medicalizes war. Racism makes war the permanent
  condition of society, while at the same time masking its weapons of death and torture. As I wrote
  somewhere else, racism banalizes genocide by making quotidian the lynching of suspect threats to
  the health of the social body. Racism makes the killing of the other, of others, an everyday
  occurrence by internalizing and normalizing the war of society against its enemies. To protect society entails
  we be ready to kill its threats, its foes, and if we understand society as a unity of life, as a continuum of the living, then these threat
  and foes are biological in nature.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                         12
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

                                             Hyde Amendment – 1AC
ADVANTAGE TWO is INTERNATIONAL REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS –

Backsliding in the US legal framework is part of a global assault on reproductive rights – US
action is crucial to empowering global abortion access
Ernst, Katzive, and Smock, 04 *lawyers with the Center for Reproductive Rights, “SYMPOSIUM:
THE LEGACY OF ROE: THE CONSTITUTION, REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, AND FEMINISM: THE GLOBAL
PATTERN OF U.S. INITIATIVES CURTAILING WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: A PERSPECTIVE ON
THE INCREASINGLY ANTI-CHOICE MOSAIC,” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law,
April, 6 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 752, P. Lexis]
   The impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade 1 has been immeasurable, both in the United States and around the world.
   In its opinion, the Supreme Court acknowledged that a woman's right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy was protected
   under the constitutional principles of individual autonomy and privacy. For the first time, reproductive choice was recognized as a
   fundamental right, entitled to the same protection as guarantees of religious freedom and free speech, and afforded the highest
   standard of constitutional protection under the doctrine of strict scrutiny. 2 The decision not only secured the legality of abortion in the
   United States, but also gave strength to an emerging reproductive rights movement that transcended national borders. Roe was
   decided at a time when legislatures and courts around the world were showing increasing respect for women's right to self-
   determination in all aspects of life, including in deciding whether or not to bear children. Roe, therefore, both informed and was
   informed by a larger global movement to recognize reproductive health and self-determination as integral components of women's
   equality. By the late 1970s and 1980s, this movement had led to collaboration in United Nations conferences and other fora toward
   the development of international standards for the protection of women's human rights, including their reproductive rights. At the
   same time, since 1973, a vocal anti-choice movement within the United States has chipped away at the core of the principles espoused
   by Roe. This gradual backsliding in the legal framework and [*754] jurisprudence affecting women's right to
   abortion, together with an increasingly anti-choice U.S. foreign policy, pose serious threats to
   women's ability to exercise their right to reproductive choice, not only in the United States but around
   the globe. Early attempts by anti-choice fundamentalists to reverse Roe through frontal attacks on the right to abortion have
   steadily been replaced by a more sophisticated, surreptitious, multifaceted approach. In 1980, the right wing of the Republican Party
                                                                                                                          3
   succeeded in compelling the party to adopt a platform supporting a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion. Having realized
                                                                                                     4
   that a pro-choice majority within the United States opposed such a constitutional amendment, abortion opponents have largely
   turned to more incremental tactics to erode women's ability to exercise their right to abortion. For example, they espouse restrictions
   primarily affecting those who are least likely to be able to exercise the franchise or have a voice in government, such as low-income
   women, adolescents, and women in other countries. In addition, anti-choice leaders have learned to moderate their rhetoric, using
   deceptive tactics to lull policy makers and the American public into believing that core reproductive rights are not being threatened by
                                                                                                                  5
   their individual policy initiatives. The sophisticated and disproportionately powerful anti-choice movement has been alarmingly
   influential to the current Bush administration, posing substantial threats to the right to choose both within our borders and overseas.
   Pro-choice lawmakers have tended to confront each of the proposed infringements upon
   women's reproductive rights as an isolated problem, not placing it within the context of the
   broader anti-choice offensive. In taking this disconnected approach, policy makers have
   enabled those opposing choice to control the debate. Anti-choice lawmakers have thus focused on isolated issues
   with limited constituencies, again, such as initiatives targeting low-income women or adolescents. Or they have taken measures with
   apparently limited direct - and therefore less visible - consequences, such as promoting fetal rights or stacking the federal judiciary.
   <CONTINUED>
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                       13
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                              Hyde Amendment AFF

                                            Hyde Amendment – 1AC
  <CONTINUED>
  Furthermore, pro-choice lawmakers have largely failed to make the links between the anti- [*755]
  choice agenda in the United States and the U.S. foreign policy imposed upon women in the rest
  of the world. As one commentator put it, "George Bush ... is gearing up to police the wombs of the
  world's women." 6 This Article argues that each seemingly disconnected initiative advanced by the
  U.S. anti-choice movement must be viewed collectively as part of a unified agenda to
  undermine global recognition of women's reproductive rights. The argument is premised on
  the observation that global respect for reproductive rights, like all human rights, can be greatly
  enhanced or hindered by the policies and actions of the U.S. The Article first examines Roe in its
  historical, global context, considering the extent to which the decision was influenced by the legal approach to abortion taken in other
  countries and discussing its contribution to the liberalization of abortion laws that has been occurring around the world since the early
  1970s. It next considers the gradual backsliding in abortion rights in U.S. domestic and foreign policy between 1973 and 2000. The
  Article then examines the vigorous momentum under the Bush administration toward an increasingly stringent schema of restrictions
  on women's access to safe and legal abortion services in the United States and worldwide. It calls attention to the negative
  implications of the United States' increasingly anti-abortion policies for women globally. Finally, the Article concludes with a call for
  pro-choice lawmakers to recognize the interconnectedness of each of the anti-choice initiatives -
  within both domestic and foreign policy - in order to expose the broad political agenda of the
  far right and more effectively fight against each initiative by placing it within this
  comprehensive framework.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                         14
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

                                             Hyde Amendment – 1AC
SCENARIO ONE is AFRICA –

Reproductive rights are vital to preventing the transmission of HIV and AIDS
Jones, Editor, BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL, 04 *“HEALING THE WOUNDS OF
SLAVERY: CAN PRESENT LEGAL REMEDIES CURE PAST WRONGS?: NOTE: The "Mexico City Policy" and Its
Effects on HIV/AIDS Services in Subsaharan Africa,” Boston College Third World Law Journal, Winter, 24
B.C. Third World L.J. 187, P. Lexis]
   The Mexico City Policy fails to address the complexities that HIV/AIDS raises for pregnant women in the reproductive health decision-
   making process by effectively foreclosing the option of voluntary, safe, legal abortion for many women suffering from HIV or AIDS in
   sub-Saharan Africa. 140 Ensuring individuals' access to uncensored information regarding their full range of reproductive rights is
   essential [*210] in the HIV/AIDS context. 141 In    sub-Saharan Africa, women are frequently prevented from
   exercising full control over their sexual and reproductive lives due to gender inequalities, societal
   or spousal pressures, lack of information, or lack of financial means to implement their decisions. 142 HIV-positive or AIDS
   status adds to women's vulnerability by creating pressure to conduct their reproductive lives in
   certain ways based on the stigma and discrimination they perceive from others, including even health
   professionals. 143 Not only is full access to information and resources necessary for HIV/AIDS
   prevention, it is also crucial for pregnant women who have HIV or AIDS because they
   customarily face complex decisions regarding whether and how to proceed with their
   pregnancies. 144 [*211] Women living with HIV/AIDS may wish to terminate their pregnancies for a number of HIV/AIDS-related
   reasons. 145 Some women fear transmission of HIV to their fetuses or newborns. 146 Worldwide, more than 2,000 children are
   infected with HIV every day. 147 Compared with industrialized nations, developing countries experience proportionately higher rates
   of mother-to-child transmission due to inadequate resources and the prevalence of breast-feeding. 148 In sub-Saharan Africa, up to
   30% of pregnant women are infected with HIV and 25-35% of their children will be born infected. 149 Mother-to-child transmission in
   this region is of particular concern due to the region's high birth rates, high prevalence of HIV, high rates of HIV among women of
                                                                                        A fetus may contract HIV from
   reproductive age, and the sizeable population of women capable of bearing children. 150
   his or her mother at any time during pregnancy, delivery, or after the baby is born through
   breast-milk. 151 Based on the work of scientists and health professionals, methods for reducing the chances of mother-to-child
   transmission of HIV and methods for prolonging the disease's progression in children are being developed, thereby creating hope for
   the lives of women and children living with HIV/AIDS. 152 Voluntary HIV/AIDS testing, counseling, [*212] medical treatment plans,
   safe infant feeding methods, and elective cesarean delivery can reduce the likelihood of mother-to-child transmission; however, these
   services and drugs are only effective if they are available, accessible, and affordable for mothers. 153   There are also moral
   and ethical dimensions to the risk of mother-to-child transmission. 154 One HIV-positive mother from
   South Africa whose baby died of AIDS writes, "To have a baby die of AIDS is the most horrible thing because the child experiences a
   kind of pain that nobody can explain--not even a doctor. But a mother can feel it in her gut." 155 Another HIV-positive woman
   described her thoughts when facing the possibility of being pregnant, "It's profoundly, deeply selfish to put a baby at risk." 156 Other
   pregnant women with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa may seek abortions or information about abortion because they realize that
   even if their fetus escapes infection, the mother will likely die before the child becomes self-sufficient. 157 UN statistics show that of
   the more than 13.2 million children who have been orphaned by the AIDS epidemic, 95% are from sub-Saharan Africa. 158 The
   psychological and emotional trauma on both a mother who is dying and her child is immeasurable. 159 A woman from South Africa
   wrote: Apart from the pain, anxiety and the feeling of death being so near during the time of my HIV diagnosis, another hurdle and
   indescribable pain was when I had to disclose [my status] to my eldest child. I had never cried in front of anyone to whom I had told
   my status. On this particular day, [*213] when I tried to explain everything about my HIV status to my daughter, the tears kept
   flowing down. 160 Children orphaned by AIDS experience trauma that can manifest itself in the form of depression, aggression, drug
   abuse, malnutrition, anxiety about the future, or developmental problems caused by the loss of consistent nurturing and guidance.
   161 In addition to the emotional and psychological toll, the economic burden on children affected by AIDS is significant. 162 The
   presence of AIDS in a household often causes children to assume responsibility for generating income and providing food for their
   families, as well as caring for their ill family members. 163<CONTINUED>
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                          15
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                              Hyde Amendment – 1AC
   <CONTINUED>
    A case study by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) points out that "the death of a mother or father[M1] can
   leave unsettled debts which impact negatively on the future care and resources left for the remaining children." 164 In Zimbabwe,
   when a family's breadwinner is ill or its income is spent on medical treatment for HIV/AIDS, children are often forced to drop out of
   school and work. 165 In Uganda, 25% of children whose parents have HIV/AIDS drop out of school. 166 Children orphaned by AIDS
   often leave school to care for parents or younger siblings because they cannot pay school fees, or because of discrimination or
   emotional distress. 167 These children are also at greater risk of illness, abuse, and sexual exploitation compared to children orphaned
                                                                                      Another
   by other causes. 168 Further, these factors increase orphaned children's own chances of contracting HIV. 169
   consideration for pregnant women is that HIV/AIDS may significantly weaken their immune
   systems and jeopardize their health, as well as the health of their fetuses. 170 A report published by Ipas
   explains: [*214] Pregnancy in itself does not accelerate HIV progression in women who are in the earlier and asymptomatic stages of
   infection; the situation may be different for women with high viral loads and diagnoses of AIDS. Pregnancy complications that have
   been observed more frequently among pregnant [women living with HIV/AIDS] than HIV-negative women include genital and urinary
   tract infections, more frequent and severe blood loss, anemia, bacterial pneumonia, intrauterine growth retardation, preterm labor
   and premature rupture of membranes, premature delivery and low birth weights. 171


Unchecked AIDS epidemic risks human extinction
Mathiu 2K (Mutuma, Africa News, July 15, lexis)
 Every age has its killer. But Aids is without precedent. It is comparable only to the Black Death of the Middle Ages in the terror it
 evokes and the graves it fills. But unlike the plague, Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space
 exploration, the manipulation of genes and the mapping of the human genome. The Black Death - the plague, today easily cured by
 antibiotics and prevented by vaccines - killed a full 40 million Europeans, a quarter of the population of Europe, between 1347 and 1352.
 But it was a death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be
 seen and exterminated. With Aids, the vector is humanity itself, the nice person in the next seat in the bus. There is nowhere to
 run and nowhere to hide. Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural
 mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. And whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony, HIV is not satisfied until
 years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim. The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable
 holocaust, but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far, 18.8 million people are already dead; 43.3 million infected worldwide
 (24.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise - unwilling participants in a March of the Damned. Last year alone,
 2.8 million lives went down the drain, 85 per cent of them African; as a matter of fact, 6,000 Africans will die today. The daily toll in Kenya is
 500. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. During the First World War, more
 than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone, setting a trend that was to become fairly common, in which generals would use
 soldiers as cannon fodder; the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the
 dreams - even the mere living out of a lifetime - of a generation. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a
 battlefield with young blood, patriotism or simply racial pride. Aids, on the other hand, is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted
 justification. It is simply a waste. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. It is
 difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                     16
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                            Hyde Amendment AFF

                                            Hyde Amendment – 1AC
SCENARIO TWO is RUSSIA –

India will be the center of new AIDS epidemic – strengthening reproductive rights is key to
halting it
UNAIDS, 04 [Women and HIV/AIDS; Confronting the Crisis,
http://www.unfpa.org/hiv/women/report/chapter1.html]
   According to the United Nations, the Asia Pacific region, where more than 7 million people are living with
   HIV/AIDS (see Map), could become the epicentre of the global AIDS pandemic in the next decade,
   with China and India––the world’s two most populous nations––facing a potential AIDS catastrophe. In
   East Asia 22 per cent of adults living with HIV/AIDS are women, as are 28 per cent of young people aged 15 to 24. In South and South-
   East Asia more than a quarter of adults and 40 percent of young people living with HIV/AIDS are women. According to India’s National
   AIDS Control Organization (NACO), HIV/AIDS is no longer confined to specific groups or urban areas but is steadily spreading into the
   wider population and rural areas. The    number of adults living with HIV/AIDS in India is estimated at
   nearly 4 million.      In China, where the epidemic is spreading, the gap between the rates of HIV infections among men compared
   to those of women is narrowing. Until now the mode of transmission in Asia has been mainly through injecting drug use and sex work.
   As a result, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in most countries of the region has been restricted to groups with high-risk behaviour and has
   not spread to the general population. However this could change quickly. For example, injecting drug use and sex work are so
   pervasive in some areas of China that the epidemic could rapidly spread outside these groups to the wider population. Three Asian
   countries—Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand—are already dealing with serious epidemics. All three have made efforts to prevent the
   spread of HIV by targeting high-risk groups, and to some degree they have succeeded. However there is also evidence that HIV
   transmission between spouses has become a more prominent cause of new infections. Factors affecting the spread of HIV/AIDS
   among women and girls in the region are poverty, early marriage, trafficking, sex work, migration, a lack of education, and gender
                                      the culture of silence is critical. As in many regions, both industrialized
   discrimination and violence. Breaking
   and developing, complex social and cultural barriers have made talking about sexuality or insisting
   on protection from HIV so difficult that even educated middle class women say they are unable
   to protect themselves, while poor women have even less power to do so.

The impact is coming within the year and makes tension inevitable
CIA, ‘3 ["The Worldwide Threat in 2003: Evolving Dangers in a Complex World," 2-11,
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2003/dci_speech_02112003.html]
   Among the most unfortunate worldwide are those infected with HIV. The HIV/AIDS pandemic continues unabated, and last year more
   than 3 million people died of AIDS-related causes. More than 40 million people are infected now, and Southern Africa has the greatest
                                 Intelligence Community recently projected that by 2010, we may
   concentration of cases. That said, the
   see as many as 100 million HIV-infected people outside Africa. China will have about 15 million cases and
   India will have 20 to 25 million—higher than estimated for any country in the world. The
   national security dimension of the virus is plain: it can undermine economic growth, exacerbate
   social tensions, diminish military preparedness, create huge social welfare costs, and further
   weaken already beleaguered states. And the virus respects no border.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                         17
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

                                             Hyde Amendment – 1AC
Eurasian AIDS pandemic will lead to massive Russian instability and make nuclear security
impossible
Maureen T. Upton, Council on Foreign Relations, 2k4 [World Policy Journal, Volume XXI, No. 3,
http://worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-3/Upton.html]
   The political economist Nicholas Eberstadt has demonstrated that the coming Eurasian AIDS pandemic has the
   potential to derail the economic prospects of billions of people—particularly in Russia, China,
   and India—and to thereby alter the global military balance.5 Eurasia (defined as Russia, plus Asia), is
   home to five-eighths of the world’s population, and its combined GNP is larger than that of either the
   United States or Europe. Perhaps more importantly, the region includes four of the world’s five militaries with
   over one million members and four declared nuclear states. Since HIV has a relatively long
   incubation period, its effects on military readiness are unusually harsh. Officers who contract the disease
   early in their military careers do not typically die until they have amassed significant training and expertise, so armed forces are faced
   with the loss of their most senior, hardest-to-replace officers. Moscow, New Delhi, and Beijing appear to be either unable or unwilling
                                                                               of two years ago,
   to monitor the epidemic, but even rough estimates of the number of people infected are alarming. As
   Russian officials had registered 200,000 cases, but independent estimates put the number at
   closer to 2 million. This would imply an infection rate of two to three times the U.S. rate. However,
   Russia spends only $6 million a year on HIV/AIDS programs, compared to the $6 billion the United States spends. Russia has also
   created incentives for infected people to conceal their condition, subjecting those who test positive to possible prosecution for drug
                                                                                         number
   use. A 2004 report published jointly by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Milbank Memorial Fund warns that the
   of HIV-infected people in Russia by 2010 could “imperil Russia’s tenuous democratic transition
   and breed economic and political disorder in a nation already struggling to safeguard
   thousands of nuclear weapons and vast quantities of nuclear materials.”6 But Russia has
   opposed the inclusion of public health in the global security agenda of the U.N. Security Council, on the grounds that this would lead to
   increased interference by outside agencies in its domestic affairs.7 China has taken a similar position.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                                                               18
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                                                      Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                           Hyde Amendment – 1AC
This is the most deadly security threat
Steven David, ’99. Professor of Political Science at The Johns Hopkins University, Foreign Affairs,
Jan/Feb.
   "If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a" "society where, ten years ago,
   unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twentytwo" "percent of Russians live below the
   official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it" "is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers
   tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where" "subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition
   to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the" "current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than
   most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of" "patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet
   days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist" "Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile
   foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military" "commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts
   in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A" "new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the
   military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled" "generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police
   force. Newly enhanced ties between military" "units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and
   wages. Draftees serve closer to home," "and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is
   not at all clear which side the" "military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain
   that regional" "conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the
   central" "government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and"
   "less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some" "claim to
   sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful" "revolt against
   Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds" "with force, civil war is
   likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia --" "even though in decline -- does not

                               An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from
   suffer civil war quietly or alone.

   enemies such as China." "Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia
   could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the" "fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants,
   would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences"
   "would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet
   communism, a second civil war might produce" "another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent
   disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear" "arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but
                                                                                      some 20,000" "nuclear
   even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains
   weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered
   throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the" "loss of any
   weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will
   slacken, making weapons and" "supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and
   states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest" "physical threat
   America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that" "would
   follow a Russian civil war.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                   19
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                          Hyde Amendment AFF

                              Hyde Amendment – 1AC
THUS THE PLAN –

The United States Supreme Court should overrule Harris v McRae by ruling that federal
funding restrictions for abortion services violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                          20
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                             Hyde Amendment – 1AC
This solves – affirming the District Court’s judgment would force the Secretary of Health to
amend current law to provide abortion access
ACLU 2007, 6-27-2008, “Harris v. McRae” http://aclu.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=431, 6-
23-2009
   On September 30, 1976, the day on which Congress enacted the initial version of the Hyde Amendment, these consolidated cases were
                                                                           a New York Medicaid
   filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs - Cora McRae,
   recipient then in the first trimester of a pregnancy that she wished to terminate, the
   New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., a public benefit corporation that operates 16 hospitals, 12 of which
   provide abortion services, and others - sought to enjoin the enforcement of the funding
   restriction on abortions. They alleged that the Hyde Amendment violated the First,
   Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments of the Constitution insofar as it limited the
   funding of abortions to those necessary to save the life of the mother, while
   permitting the funding of costs associated with childbirth. Although the sole named defendant was
   the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the District Court permitted Senators James L. Buckley and Jesse A. Helms and
                                                       District Court entered a
   Representative Henry J. Hyde to intervene as defendants. After a hearing, the
   preliminary injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the Hyde Amendment
   and requiring him to continue to provide federal reimbursement for abortions under
   the standards applicable before the funding restriction had been enacted. Although
   stating that it had not expressly held that the funding restriction was unconstitutional, since the preliminary injunction was not its final
          the District Court noted that such a holding was 'implicit' in its decision
   judgment,
   granting the injunction. The District Court also certified the McRae case as a class
   action on behalf of all pregnant or potentially pregnant women in the state of New
   York eligible for Medicaid and who decide to have an abortion within the first 24
   weeks of pregnancy, and of all authorized providers of abortion services to such
   women.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                            21
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                   Hyde Amendment AFF

                                  Hyde Amendment – 1AC
Equal protection grounds are vital to securing the woman’s right to choose and for compelling
the state to make resources available
McDonagh, professor of political science, Northeastern University and Visiting Scholar, Radcliff College,
99 *Eileen L., “MY BODY, MY CONSENT: SECURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION
FUNDING ,” Albany Law Review, 1999, L/N+

When the Supreme Court established the constitutional right to choose to have an abortion in Roe v.
Wade, 1 it was a breakthrough for women's reproductive rights. 2 The Court's ruling that the due
process right to privacy was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to
terminate her pregnancy" without interference from the state 3 struck down numerous state laws that
had [*1058] severely limited procurement of an abortion. 4 The resilience of Roe in the ensuing
decades has been sufficient to retain the constitutional right to choose an abortion. However, the due
process basis used by the Court in Roe has been completely inadequate for establishing a
constitutional right to state assistance for obtaining one. 5 In the aftermath of Roe, the Court ruled
that a state need not provide public funding, 6 public personnel, 7 or public facilities for performing an
abortion, 8 even in the case of an indigent woman suf [*1059] fering from a medically abnormal
pregnancy that could cripple her for life. 9 The Court has also ruled that it is constitutional for the state
to require restrictive abortion regulations, such as twenty-four hour waiting periods and informed
consent decrees. 10 It is also constitutional in publicly funded planning clinics to prohibit the
distribution of any information about abortion. 11 Many criticize the way the Court's rulings on
abortion policies have seriously weakened the right to an abortion, with crucial policy consequences
falling disproportionately upon the women most vulnerable, due to their indigency, class, race, and age.
12 Policy inadequacies stemming from [*1060] the Roe foundation for abortion rights can be
corrected by reconstructing the constitutional right to an abortion on an equal protection foundation
evoking a woman's right to consent-to-pregnancy rather than merely her right to choose an abortion.

The argument, explored in Part I of this Article, briefly is this: If a woman does not consent to
pregnancy, the fetus's effects on her body constitute serious harm impinging upon her bodily integrity
and liberty. The quantity and quality of the fetus's harm to a woman when it imposes a nonconsensual
pregnancy on her justifies the use of deadly force to stop it. Bodily integrity and liberty are fundamental
rights. 13 Although the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not obligate the state to
protect a person's bodily integrity and liberty, the Equal Protection Clause does mandate contingent
protection. Namely, if the state protects the bodily integrity and liberty of some people, the state is
obligated to provide protection to others who are similarly situated. 14 When harm results from a
fetus, that harm similarly situates a woman to other people who have suffered harm to their bodily
integrity and liberty. 15 The state does act to protect people from harm in most situations; hence, the
state is obligated to act to stop harm to a woman's bodily integrity and liberty resulting from the
fetus. 16 The state's refusal to fund abortions as the necessary means to stop that harm is thus an
unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                        22
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                                             Hyde Amendment – 1AC
Removing the Hyde Amendment is key to every crucial 1AC internal link
Allison Stevens (Washington Bureau Chief), 5/8/07 (Do Low-Income Women have a right a place, The
American Prospect,
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=do_lowincome_women_have_a_right_to_choose,
Accessed 6/22/09)
   Even though the girl could not afford the abortion she so badly wanted, she was able to get it thanks to funds provided by private
                millions of other low-income girls and women seeking abortions, the money hasn't
   donors. But for
   been there. That is the intended result of a 31-year-old law known as the Hyde Amendment, which bars the federal
   government from funding most abortions through Medicaid. Over the past three decades, states have followed suit: Currently, 33
   states ban the use of state funds for abortion except in limited circumstances. This obscure law poses       the single
   greatest barrier to abortion, reproductive rights advocates say. At an average cost of $370 at 10 weeks gestation (not
   including attendant expenses related to transportation, accommodation, and child care), abortion is often too expensive
   for low-income women. More than 7 million women of reproductive age are enrolled in Medicaid, and the average salary for
   a family of three is $930 a month, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That leaves little extra for anything other than basic
   necessities like rent, utilities, food, child care, and transportation. Finding the money to cover an unplanned expense like an abortion
                          It is impossible to count the number of girls and women who have
   can be an insurmountable task.
   proceeded with unwanted pregnancies since the ban was enacted three decades ago, but
   studies conclude that between 18 and 35 percent of women on Medicaid who would have had
   abortions if government funding were available -- at least 64,000 women a year, according to a
   conservative estimate -- instead carried their pregnancies to term. The 64,000 figure does not account for women who live in states
   that do cover abortion but who do not qualify for Medicaid or cannot afford related expenses like transportation and child care. In
   terms of sheer numbers, the impact of the ban is far greater than that caused by other restrictions, such as parental consent
   requirements, mandatory waiting periods and counseling laws, according to Heather Boonstra, a senior public policy associate at the
   Guttmacher Institute. "Some of the other restrictions are a bother, but there is not the evidence that any of those other restrictions
   actually mean fewer abortions," Boonstra said. Recognizing the role public-funding bans have played in reducing the abortion rate,
   pro-life activists recoiled when Rudy Giuliani, a leading candidate for the Republican party's presidential nomination, told CNN on April
   4 that he supported government subsidies of some abortions. Editors of the National Review were quick to excoriate Giuliani for his
   perfidy. "We can therefore assume that an America with Giuliani's favored policies would be a country with more abortion -- probably
   reversing the 15-year trend of decline, including the decline in New York City for which he takes dubious credit," they wrote in an April
   6 editorial. Giuliani has since backpedaled, saying during a May 3 debate among GOP presidential hopefuls that he supports the Hyde
   Amendment and that public funding decisions should be left to the states.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                          23
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                            ___**Case Extensions
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          24
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                               Inherency – McRae Upheld
Harris vs. McRae has been strongly upheld on the grounds that the Government doesn’t need
to provide social services and supported the Hyde Amendment
Rickie Solinger (Historian), November 2005 (Pregnancy and Power, New York University Press, Page
201)
In 1980, in Harris v. McRae, the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde Amendment. The Court justified
denying federal funds for the medically necessary abortions of poor women. Justice Potter Steward
explained that he supported the Hyde Amendment because the government is not responsible for a
person’s poverty or for alleviating it. The government’s responsibilities, Steward wrote, must be
narrowly drawn: “*A+lthough government may not place obstacles in the path of a woman’s exercise
of her freedom of choice, it need not remove those not of its own creation: Indigency falls in the latter
category.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                               25
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                      Hyde Amendment AFF

                                      Inherency – Obama Won‟t x Hyde

Obama does not support the removal of the Hyde Amendment
Portela(Amnesty International Volunteer and writer for several weekly newspapers) 5/26/09
http://www.empowher.com/news/herarticle/2009/05/26/does-obama-budget-ignore-healthcare-needs-millions-women
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, President Obama has failed to strike government funding
restrictions on abortion, in particular the Hyde Amendment, from his proposed budget for the year 2010. The Center
does point out however, that the budget proposes reversed funding for abstinence-only sex education, as well as creating programs whose goal
                                        the Hyde Amendment all about? Well, it bans federal funding for abortion
is to reduce teenage pregnancy. What exactly is
in the Medicaid program, with the exception of situations that are extremely limited. The Center for
Reproductive Rights maintains that this budget is abandoning the millions of women who rely on Medicaid
and other federal programs for health services. These programs include federal employees and their
spouses and dependents, women in the Peace Corps, women in federal prisons, and women who
receive services by Indian Health Services. Nancy Northup, president of the Center said the following: "At a time
in our nation's history when Americans at every income level are losing their jobs and their health
benefits, guaranteeing access to affordable,quality healthcare, including reproductive healthcare, is
imperative." The Center is calling on Congress to eliminate all restrictions on funding for abortion. It
believes that this would demonstrate a commitment to human rights, which form the heart of
reproductive rights. “Despite the leading role the United States has played in the development of
international human rights law and standards…the United States has historically been reluctant to ratify
international human rights treaties or to allow international standards to be applied to its own
performance,” said Bill Schulz, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress who moderated a panel on domestic human
rights and national security Wednesday at CAP. The three-member panel focused on how applying international human rights standards to
domestic practices can enhance U.S. national security goals. The panelists were Wade Henderson, the president and CEO of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights; Laura Murphy, a strategist for the Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda; and Shira Saperstein, also a
Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Schulz attributed U.S. resistance to international human rights treaties to two factors: its
“self-image as a nation set apart from the rest of the world,” and “the notion that ‘human rights’ violations occur to people in other countries
and that, while the United States may have once had a ‘civil rights’ problem, it certainly has no ‘human rights’ problems of any consequence.”
                                                                          Saperstein, who specializes in reproductive rights,
This resistance has had serious domestic consequences according the panelists.
explained that “sexual and reproductive rights are integral to human rights, but the United States has
never treated them as such.” She said that no specific international treaty comprehensively covers
reproductive rights and they are instead “rooted in an array of other instruments,” which form a “constellation of human rights.” But
the United States’ failure to ratify the treaties that support those instruments has led to poor
reproductive health at home. She pointed to its unacceptably high infant and maternal mortality rates,
which rank 29th and 41st in the world, respectively.Henderson described public education as the “most profound” of all U.S.
domestic failures to meet basic human rights. He said the disparities within cities such as Baltimore are “stark” and “cannot be rationalized or
justified.” Such discrepancies, said Henderson, stem from the United States’ failure to recognize education as a fundamental constitutional right
despite international treaties’ efforts to establish it as a basic human right. But it will be more difficult for the United States to isolate itself from
                                                           explained Schulz. “As Americans grow
international standards as globalization continues and the world becomes smaller,
more aware of their interdependence with the rest of the world and begin to see the world as others
see it, and as they begin to understand that how we treat our neighbors at home has a direct impact
on how we are perceived abroad…appreciation for the full range of human rights will grow,” he said.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                    26
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                           Hyde Amendment AFF

                                ADV – Constitutionality

Under the U.S. constitution women should have the right to full reproductive freedom.
American Civil Liberties Union 03 (“Threats to Abortion Rights Should Be Challenged”
http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/retrieve.do 6/27/09)

The American Civil Liberties Union is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the rights
and liberties that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Women fought a long and difficult battle before the right to abortion was won as a result
of the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. Legalized abortion improved the lives
and health of thousands of women, but anti-choice supporters are enacting laws that
make it increasingly difficult for a woman to secure an abortion. Low-income women or
women who lack health insurance often find it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain federal
funding for an abortion, despite laws that require the government to fund all
contraceptive options equally. In most states, young women under the age of eighteen must
have their parents' consent to obtain an abortion, unless they convince a judge to waive that
requirement. Pro-life advocates challenged the partial-birth abortion procedure, but they failed to
achieve presidential approval. Most counties lack an abortion provider, due to the risks
posed by violent pro-life activists and demonstrators. America needs to safeguard
women's health by challenging these threats to abortion rights.

A woman's decision whether or not to bear a child is one of the most intimate and important
decisions she will ever make. Like decisions about contraception, marriage, and child-rearing,
the decision to continue or to end a pregnancy is protected from government
interference by the U.S. Constitution. Securing full reproductive freedom for all women,
regardless of age or economic status, remains among the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) highest priorities.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                           27
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                  Hyde Amendment AFF

                                           ADV – Crime
Abortion has been proven to drastically reduce crime
DONOHUE and LEVITT 01 (John J., Steven D., May 2001, “The Quarterly Journal of Economics”
Vol. CXVZI, Issue 2)
   We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime
   reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion legalization. The five states
   that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which
   legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s
   experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those
   born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to
   account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                    28
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                           Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                  ADV – Health Care
Refusal provide access crushes crucial foundations of health care
NARAL, 1-30-06. (Refusal Clauses and Counseling Bans “Gag Rules.” http://www.proch
oiceamerica.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/refusal-clauses-and-counseling-bans/)

State and federal lawmakers have crafted a complex set of laws designed to deny women medically
necessary information, referrals, and services. Contrary to anti-choice claims, no federal law forces any specific provider to
offer abortion services against its will. There is a delicate balance between the rights of both patients and of providers, and NARAL Pro-
Choice America does not advocate forcing anyone to provide abortion services against his or her will.
Refusal clauses and counseling bans upset this balance, endanger women's health, and undermine
patients' rights to get the care and information they need. Although carefully crafted refusal clauses may be acceptable
in some circumstances to protect individual medical providers, broad refusal clauses unnecessarily deny women medically necessary
information.   Refusal clauses permit a broad range of individuals and/or institutions — including hospitals,
hospital employees, health care providers, pharmacists, employers, and insurers — to refuse to provide,
pay for, counsel, or even refer for medical treatment that they personally oppose. Counseling bans,
also known as "gag rules," prohibit health-care providers including individuals, under certain circumstances,
from counseling or referring women for abortion care, preventing doctors from treating their patients responsibly and
severely limiting women's ability to make informed decisions. Women and their health care providers – not politicians
– should be free to make private medical decisions.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                             29
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                    Hyde Amendment AFF

                                           ADV – Indians
Anti-Abortion laws are inherently racist, often targeting minorities
Lillis 08 (Mike, writer for the Washington Independent, March 6 2008,
<http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/78796/anti-abortion_law_targets_native_american_women>)
   Following scant debate, the Senate last week approved an amendment to an Indian health care
   bill that would permanently prohibit the use of federal dollars to fund abortions for Native
   Americans except in rare cases. The move has prompted an outcry from women’s health advocates
   -- who point out that a similar ban has existed on a temporary basis for years -- and from tribal
   groups, who are asking why Native American women should be subject to restrictions not
   applicable to other ethnic groups. Some charge that the Senate proposal is overtly racist. The
   issue is a sensitive one in American Indian communities, where women are statistically more likely
   to be victims of rape or sexual assault than other American women -- but also where victims very
   rarely use the exceptions to the current federally funded abortion ban in the wake of those crimes.
   In the face of that discrepancy, advocates say, Congress should encourage victims to take
   advantage of the available services, not impose tighter restrictions. The debate pits anti-abortion
   lawmakers on both sides of the aisle against health-care advocates who fear the latest move could
   set the stage for broader abortion prohibitions under federal programs outside the realm of Indian
   health services. In addition, there is the intrigue of scandal, for the sponsor of the controversial
   amendment, [is] Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), made headlines last year for his earlier entanglement
   in a prostitution ring. Several abortion-rights sources suggested that Vitter -- who built his political
   career on family-values issues -- is trying to bolster his conservative credentials in the wake of that
   embarrassment. The controversy swirls around a federal law -- known as the Hyde amendment --
   that prohibits abortion coverage under Medicaid, Medicare and Indian Health Service
   programs. While the Hyde law must be renewed by Congress each year, the Vitter amendment
   -- which the Senate approved on Feb. 26 -- would apply Hyde‟s restrictions permanently to IHS
   beneficiaries. For that reason, tribal health advocates charge that the Vitter language treads on
   the sovereignty of Indian communities and places unique constraints on native women. "It’s a
   very racist amendment," said Charon Asetoyer, executive director of the Native American
   Women’s Health Education Resource Center, "[because] it puts another layer of restrictions on
   the only race of people whose health care is governed primarily by the federal government.
   All women are subject to the Hyde amendment, so why would they put another set of conditions on
   us?" Vitter’s office did not return several calls and e-mails requesting comment. A number of
   women’s health groups have criticized the Vitter amendment as well, claiming it will have no
   practical effect on women’s health services. "Apart from being bad public health policy," Planned
   Parenthood said in a statement, "this language is duplicative of current law and serves only to
   politicize important legislation regarding comprehensive health care for Native Americans."
   Though the Hyde amendment -- named for its sponsor, the late Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde -- first
   took effect in 1977, Congress must reapply it annually through the appropriations process. That,
   according to Vitter, puts the Hyde language "in a tenuous and precarious posture. It puts it up for
   debate and possible change of policy every year, every time we debate a new Health and Human
   Services appropriations bill. Therefore, it doesn’t make the policy very solid, very secure, or very
   clear."
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                        30
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                          ADV – International HR Treaties
Disparities in reproductive rights access violate international human rights treaties – reversal
is key to US credibility
Center for Reproductive Rights, 1-14-09, ―Racial Disparities in U.S. Reproductive Healthcare”
http://reproductiverights.org/en/project/racial-disparities-in-us-reproductive-healthcare, 6-26-09
The U.S. spends at least twice as much per capita on healthcare than almost every other
western industrialized country. Yet, the U.S. has some of the widest disparities in health
outcomes. This is particularly true in the field of reproductive and sexual health. Women
of color fare worse than white women in every major health indicator from maternal
mortality to the incidence of cervical cancer. The poor health outcomes for women of
color do not just reveal bad policy – they are evidence that the U.S. is failing to meet its
human rights obligations to provide equal access to reproductive healthcare. The U.S. has
ratified two international human rights treaties that prohibit racial discrimination: the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The treaties prohibit polices or practices that have the
purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race or national origin and require that
countries work towards eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms. These treaties
create an international legal obligation that the US address and eliminate persistent
racial disparities in reproductive health outcomes and reproductive healthcare access. In
February 2008, the U.S. reported on its progress in eliminating racial discrimination to the
UN Committee that oversees governments' compliance with ICERD. Center President
Nancy Northup presented evidence to the Committee on dramatic disparities in
reproductive health between women of color and white women in the U.S. She noted that
African American women die in childbirth at a rate three to four times that of white
women, and that African American women and Latinas account for over three-quarters of
reported female HIV/AIDS diagnoses even though they represent only one quarter of the
U.S. female population. The Center also authored a "shadow letter" to the Committee, which
discussed how U.S. policies exacerbate and even help to create disparities rather than
reducing them. The lack of universally available and affordable health insurance, coupled
with restrictions on access to government safety-net programs, are key barriers to
reproductive healthcare for poor and low-income women. Women of color are
disproportionately burdened by government restrictions on access to reproductive healthcare because
they are more likely to be low-income and therefore to rely upon government insurance programs. The
CERD Committee expressed concern that "wide racial disparities continue to exist in the field of sexual
and reproductive health" in the United States, and it recommended that the U.S. government undertake
a number of policy steps to improve access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                               31
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                      Hyde Amendment AFF

                                      ADV – Overpopulation
Reproductive Rights and Contraception solve for overpopulation
Francine Kopun, April 18, 2009(Toronto Star reporter, writer, preschooler mom, teenager
stepmom)(Dark alley all too real for many women)June 22, 2009
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6823085099&format=GNB
FI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6823086802&cisb=22_T6823086801&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi
=8286&docNo=15
   Reproductive rights are universal. There are countries where property rights are a major concern,
   other countries that have more equitable inheritance laws. Reproductive rights are in certain
   ways a precondition for these other rights. For example, for education, one of the major reasons
   girls drop out of school is either because they get pregnant or because they're basically married
   off. How would improving women's reproductive rights change the world? The most immediate
   way, the most intuitive way, is that the world population is going to be upwards of 9 billion
   people in a generation, and maybe as many as 10 billion. We know from many decades of failed
   and sometimes coercive population strategies that the single best way to bring down population
   growth is to give women contraception and give women the choice of whether and when to have
   children.

The Hyde Amendment leads to overpopulation which is bad.
Wu-Meng Tan 04/13/2009 Overpopulation and Conception
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=37

   Population is a major problem today – the world population of 6 billion is expected to reach
   10.7 billion by 2050. Given the strain on global resources and the environment today, it is clear
   that an environmental disaster is waiting to happen, as the population time bomb ticks away.
   While reproduction, as part of family life, is a fundamental human right, we must also consider
   that rights come with responsibilities. We have a responsibility to future generations, and
   population control is one method of ensuring that there will still be some natural resources left
   for our descendants.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                  32
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                         Hyde Amendment AFF

                                      ADV – Overpopulation

Reproductive Rights and Contraception solve for overpopulation
Francine Kopun, April 18, 2009(Toronto Star reporter, writer, preschooler mom, teenager stepmom)(Dark alley all too
real for many women)June 22, 2009
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6823085099&format=GNB
FI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6823086802&cisb=22_T6823086801&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi
=8286&docNo=15
   Reproductive rights are universal. There are countries where property rights are a major concern,
   other countries that have more equitable inheritance laws. Reproductive rights are in certain
   ways a precondition for these other rights. For example, for education, one of the major reasons
   girls drop out of school is either because they get pregnant or because they're basically married
   off. How would improving women's reproductive rights change the world? The most immediate
   way, the most intuitive way, is that the world population is going to be upwards of 9 billion
   people in a generation, and maybe as many as 10 billion. We know from many decades of failed
   and sometimes coercive population strategies that the single best way to bring down population
   growth is to give women contraception and give women the choice of whether and when to have
   children.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                33
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                       Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                     ADV – Rights
Abortion is a Human Right
Rebecca Cook, received degrees from Bernard, Tufts, Harvard, Georgetown and Columbia
University, Proffessor at University of Toronto, Bernard Dickens, Dr. William M. Scholl Professor of
Health Law and Policy at the Faculty of Law, 2003, “Human Rights Dynamics of Abortion Law Reform”
Human Rights Quarterly 25 (2003) 1–59. 6-23-2009
   The legal approach to abortion is evolving from criminal prohibition towards
   accommodation as a life-preserving and health-preserving option, particularly in
   light of data on maternal mortality and morbidity. Modern momentum for liberalization
   comes from international adoption of the concept of reproductive health, and wider
   recognition that the resort to safe and dignified healthcare is a major human right.
   Respect for women’s reproductive self-determination legitimizes abortion as a choice
   when family planning services have failed, been inaccessible, or been denied by
   rape. Recognition of women’s rights of equal citizenship with men requires that their
   choices for self-determination be legally respected, not criminalized.


Bill of Rights states that a person’s personal decision does not involve government including
abortion. The movement to restrict reproductive choice destroys principle of equality for
woman taking away their personal guaranteed rights.
The ‘Lectric Law Library 6-22-09, (“Reproductive Freedom: A Fundamental Liberty”),
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con17.htm, 6-22-09, The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal
Pros & Laypeople Alike
The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals
the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions
regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business.
That right, which is part of the right to privacy, encompasses decisions
about parenthood, including a woman's right to decide for herself whether to
complete or terminate a pregnancy, as well as the right to use
contraception, freedom from forced sterilization and freedom from employment
discrimination based on childbearing capacity. As early as 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
Constitution protects personal decisions regarding marriage and the family from governmental intrusion. In 1965, the Court ruled
that a state cannot prohibit a married couple from practicing contraception. In 1972, it extended the right to use birth control to all
people, married or single. And in its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the Constitution's protections of privacy as a
fundamental right encompass a woman's decision to have an abortion. The Roe decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, led to
a dramatic improvement in the lives and health of women. Before Roe, women experiencing unwanted or crisis pregnancies faced
the perils and indignities of self-induced abortion, back-alley abortion, or forced childbirth. today, Roe protects the right of women
to make life choices in keeping with their conscience or religious beliefs, consistent with American tradition. And by relieving
American women of the burden of unwanted pregnancies, Roe has permitted them to pursue economic opportunities on a more
               The movement to newly restrict reproductive choice is, therefore, not
equal basis with men.
only an attack on personal autonomy but also on the principle of equality for
women, and it is a grave threat to all Americans' cherished right to privacy, bodily
integrity and religious liberty.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                     34
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                            Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                ADV – Rights
Women have the responsibility and burden of motherhood, therefore they should have the
right to decide about contraceptives.
Rosalind P Petchesky 1998 “Negotiating Reproductive Rights: Women’s Perspectives Across Countries
and Cultures” http://www.rhmjournal.org.uk/PDFs/11petchesky.pdf accessed 6/22/2009 UNT Library
The active assertion of rights or entitlement was, however, very often linked to economic activities,
which in turn were seen as part of the burdens and responsibilities of motherhood. When women argue
(as many of our respondents did), ‘I am the one who should decide about contraception, because I am
the one who bears the burdens and responsibilities of motherhood’, they are asserting that motherhood
forms their identity as adults. For many women, motherhood was the domain where they experienced
the only real gratification and sense of authority they knew. But this stance may also imply a belief that
the harsh burdens and gender and class inequities of motherhood as it exists are somehow in the nature
of things; that poverty, lack of education and the absence of social supports keep any different, more
public identity beyond motherhood virtually out of reach. To the extent that the concept of agency
connotes self-determination, it points to a vision of a transformed set of relations and a transformed
society, in which women act as full citizens and empowered decision-makers both within the home and
in public life. At the same time, at this juncture in history and social development, women may evidence
a sense of entitlement even in the absence of any concrete vision of a more just family situation and
society, or of any practical remedy for the compromises they make of their own bodily integrity. It is this
tenuous, ambiguous, but still promising place where the women we encountered through our research
now find themselves. As the 20th century closes, many of the life experiences presented in this book
and the social conditions limiting those experiences will speak to women across the globe.

Abortion Ban hurts Rights
NAPW (National Association of Pregnant Women) April 29, 2002 (“NAPW response letter to the proposed
regulations”,http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/state_child_health_insurance_program/na
pw_response_letter_to_the_proposed_regulations.php) 6/23/2009 UNT Library
As the Supreme Court explained in later cases, Roe has been ―sensibly relied upon to counter‖ attempts to interfere
with a woman's decision to become pregnant or to carry her pregnancy to term.3 In Roe, the Court rejected the
argument that fetuses are persons and that states may treat them as such. In so doing the Court protected the
Constitutional personhood of women. Thus, while the court in Roe recognized a limited state interest in potential life
that permits states to prohibit access to abortion under some circumstances, the decision established that there is no
point in pregnancy when women lose their fundamental civil rights – to bodily integrity, informed medical decision-
making, due process, liberty, and life itself. Roe and subsequent decisions recognized that according legal rights to
fetuses separate from those of the pregnant women would not only jeopardize women’s lives and health by denying
them access to legal abortion, but would also undermine substantially their dignity, their ability to participate as full
and equal citizens in our society, in short their status as full Constitutional persons.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                 35
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                        Hyde Amendment AFF
                                       ADV: Violence Against Women

Besides saving lives the Hyde amendment saves taxpayers’ dollars
Maria Vitale, June 5, 2009(Public Relations Director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation)(“ Abortion
Advocates Misrepresent American Pro-Life Movement After Tiller Shooting”) June 26, 2009
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5125.html
From the beginning, the pro-life movement has fought to prevent taxpayer dollars from being
spent on abortion. The legendary Hyde Amendment, named for the late Congressman Henry
Hyde of Illinois, prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortions through
Medicaid, except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. In addition to
saving money, the Hyde Amendment saves lives. Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director for
National Right to Life, estimates there are at least one million Americans alive today because of
the Hyde Amendment. Everyday, the pro-life movement is empowering women, protecting
families, and rebuilding lives torn apart by violence and abuse. America owes a profound debt to
this movement of mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, students and medical
professionals who are restoring dignity and compassion to our culture and enhancing the quality
of life in our country.

Many women get unwanted abortions because of domestic violence or threat
Maria Vitale, June 5, 2009(Public Relations Director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation)(“ Abortion
Advocates Misrepresent American Pro-Life Movement After Tiller Shooting”) June 26, 2009
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5125.html
Research indicates that more than 60 percent of abortions are coerced, meaning that most
women are having abortions they don't even want. In some cases, violence or the threat of
violence by a boyfriend, husband, or other family member plays a role. Pregnancy resource
centers become the first line of defense against family violence and work regularly with at-risk
women to give them the assistance they need to safeguard their personal safety and that of
their babies.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                          36
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                        Solvency – Equal Protection**
Equal protection ground empowers women socially and constitutionally by transforming
traditional notions of motherhood .
McDonagh, professor of political science, Northeastern University and Visiting Scholar, Radcliff College,
99 *Eileen L., “MY BODY, MY CONSENT: SECURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION
FUNDING ,” Albany Law Review, 1999, L/N+
   Finally, many will object to a foundation for abortion rights that depicts the mother and the fetus in conflict, and its reverse, which is
                                                                    important, of course, to recognize
   the depiction of the pregnant woman as the victim of harm resulting from the fetus. It is
   the [*1108] significance of the mother-child bond and the positive symbiotic unity that can ensue
   from a pregnancy when a woman consents to pregnancy. 229 Yet it is also crucial that we do not wall-off
   pregnant women, or women in general, as being so "different" or "unique" as to be ineligible to benefit from cultural norms, social
                                                                                               fact of the matter is that any
   experiences, and legal principles already in place that protect the rights of others. 230 The
   relationship, no matter how positive it may be, such as friendship or romantic love, nevertheless becomes adversarial
   when there is no consent. Regardless of how the right to an abortion is framed, terminating a pregnancy by
   destroying a fetus challenges assumptions about nurturing role norms associated with women. And, as
   Robin West observes, "American feminism is primarily strategic." 231 Hence, it is understandable why pro-choice advocates
   for strategic and political reasons wish to minimize the challenge of that role dissonance by framing the
   abortion decision in terms of women's traditional identities as mothers. In such representations of the abortion
   decision, a woman chooses an abortion in order to be a good mother, either to children she has already born or to children she intends
   to bear. The particular fetus that is aborted at most is a "problem" or poses a "dilemma" to the woman, but is not in conflict with her.
   232    [*1109] However, locating the abortion decision within the framework of women's traditional roles has not been effective in
                                                                                                        can correct this
   gaining constitutional support for a woman's right to government assistance in obtaining an abortion. 233 We
   problem by expanding the depiction of pregnancy to include adversarial possibilities between
   the woman and the fetus. 234 As law scholar Sylvia Law notes, for all women, "involuntary motherhood
   denies the full humanity of women who would choose not to bear a child." 235 The consent
   approach to abortion rights offers an effective way to garner state protection of women from the
   harm of involuntary motherhood. 236 Similarly, some may think that it disempowers a woman to
   depict her as a victim of a nonconsensual pregnancy. However, one must remember that the first step
   in correcting women's disempowerment often requires identifying hidden ways in which
   women are victimized in the first place. 237 Hence, before sexual harassment could be defined as a crime, women
   had to be identified as victims of the harm of sexual harassment. 238 In the context of abortion, before women
   can be empowered by gaining a constitutional right to abortion funding, women must first be
   identified as victims of the harm of a nonconsensual pregnancy. Recognizing how and why
   women are victims of harm in nonconsensual pregnancies deconstructs traditional role norms for women in
   much the same way as previous generations deconstructed traditional marital role norms for
   women; the similarities between the abortion, suffrage, and [*1110] equal rights movements
   serve to point up the commonalties across historical generations in the ongoing struggle for
   women's rights. 239
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                           37
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                  Hyde Amendment AFF

                              Solvency – Equal Protection**
Establishing a right to choose based on equal protection compels the state to fund abortion
options.
McDonagh, professor of political science, Northeastern University and Visiting Scholar, Radcliff College,
99 *Eileen L., “MY BODY, MY CONSENT: SECURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION
FUNDING ,” Albany Law Review, 1999, L/N]

The way the Court has allowed a lack of access to abortion to undermine the right to an abortion can be
countered by reframing abortion rights to ensure not only the right to choose an abortion, but the
constitutional right to abortion funding. This reframing can be accomplished by connecting what up
until now have been two disparate components of the Court's reasoning: first, that pregnancy is a
condition of massive burden for the woman; and second, that the fetus is a separate entity that is
necessarily carried by the woman when she is pregnant. The Court's acknowledgment that pregnancy is
a massive burden for a woman is clear. 50 In Casey, for example, the Court noted that pregnancy entails
"anxieties," "physical constraints," "suffering [that is] intimate and personal," and "pain," which only the
pregnant woman bears. 51 "These sacrifices," the Court stated, "have from the beginning of the human
race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others." 52
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          38
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                             Solvency – Equal Protection**
Basing abortion rights on equal protection erodes the states position against providing state
funding.
McDonagh, professor of political science, Northeastern University and Visiting Scholar, Radcliff College,
99 *Eileen L., “MY BODY, MY CONSENT: SECURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION
FUNDING ,” Albany Law Review, 1999, L/N+

However, reframing abortion rights on a fundamental rights analysis based on the Equal Protection
Clause rather than on a privacy analysis based on the Due Process Clause produces just the opposite
conclusion. Since state policies explicitly criminalize harm resulting from people, 168 a woman's claim
that the state must protect her from harm resulting from a fetus is most explicit and clear when the
fetus itself is constructed to be a person. Of course, the fetus's lack of mens rea puts it into a category
of mental incompetence, which means that the fetus would not be held criminally responsible for harm.
However, since the state protects people from harm resulting from mentally incompetent people lacking
criminal intent, the Equal Protection Clause mandates the state to protect a woman from harm
resulting from a mentally incompetent fetus. [*1090] Thus, even if the fetus were a person, a woman
surely has an equal protection claim that the state must protect her from the harm of a nonconsensual
pregnancy resulting from the fetus because the state protects the bodily integrity and liberty, if not
property, of people from harm resulting from mentally incompetent persons.

Moving from choice to consent in the abortion debate to secure state funding of abortions, however,
does not depend upon establishing that the fetus is a person; the state also acts to stop harm resulting
from entities that are not people, particularly entities under state protection. The burden upon the
state, therefore, is to locate even one instance in which state protection of a non-person entity, such
as wildlife, includes an explicit state policy to allow that entity to harm people as a means for
protecting it. No such policy can be found. Thus, when the state prohibits the use of public funds,
facilities, and personnel to stop harm resulting from the fetus, the state is not protecting a woman
from harm in the same way it protects others who are similarly situated with her. Even if the fetus is
not a person, the Equal Protection Clause mandates that the state must protect a woman from the
harm of a nonconsensual pregnancy resulting from the fetus to the extent that the state protects the
bodily integrity and liberty, if not property, of other people from harm resulting from non-persons under
state protection, such as wildlife. To do otherwise is an unconstitutional denial of equal protection to a
woman suffering from the harm of a nonconsensual pregnancy resulting from a separate entity under
state protection: the fetus.
         Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                39
         Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                       Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                         Solvency – Generic**
The Hyde Amendment is unconstitutional and unfair
Argan, Kenneth. Professor at Whittier Law School, 05. (WHEN GOVERNMENT MUST PAY:
COMPENSATING RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION. http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/
lnacademic/search/journalssubmitForm.do)

                                                 If it is unconstitutional for government to offer its citizens a financial
     Now consider the more controversial issue of abortion.
incentive not to vote, shouldn't it be similarly unconstitutional for government to offer women a financial
incentive not to procure an abortion? Somewhat surprisingly, the answer is no. Consistent with the Supreme Court's
decisions in Maher v. Roe and Harris v. McRae, federal and state governments can - and do - offer poor pregnant
women such financial incentives through the Medicaid program by subsidizing medical expenses incident to
pregnancy and childbirth while denying coverage for medical services related to abortion. Maher and McRae have
provoked intense criticism because they sanction government programs that appear to undermine Roe v. Wade by inducing poor pregnant women to bear
                                                 McRae effectively transform abortion - a liberty protected by
children that they might otherwise choose not to have. Maher and
the fundamental right to privacy - into a commodity, available only to those who can afford it. This result is
morally and legally indefensible to those who believe that if a fundamental right is "implicit in the concept of
ordered liberty," or "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," then government ought to provide
affirmative assistance to guarantee access to that right, regardless of ability to pay.


         The only way to achieve reproductive equality for all women the Hyde Amendment must be
         repealed.
         The Guttmacher Institute, April 08―State Funding of Abortion Under Medicaid,‖ State Policies in Brief
         (June 1, 2005) (available at http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf). xiii Heather Boonstra
         and Adam Sonfield, ―Rights Without Access: Revisiting Public Funding of Abortion for Poor Women,‖ The
         Guttmacher Report on Public Policy vol.3(2)
         The Hyde Amendment marginalizes and stigmatizes abortion care rather than recognizing it as an
         essential component of women‟s health, and denies low-income women basic reproductive health
         care. The Hyde Amendment is reauthorized each year under appropriations bills for the Department of
         Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. The current restrictive version of the Hyde
         Amendment does not provide coverage for abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities, or health exceptions
         apart from life-threatening conditions. Removing funding restrictions for abortion care is an integral
         step in ensuring that abortion remains safe, legal, and accessible. American women have had the legal
         right to choose abortion for more than thirty years. To achieve reproductive equality for all women,
         restrictive barriers such as the Hyde Amendment must be removed.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                        40
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                                   Solvency – Generic**
Gold JA(Law and Medical Professors), Fall 1980 (Does the Hyde Amendment violate religious freedom?
American Journal of Law and Medicine. Page 361-72)
In Harris v. McRae, the recent case in which the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
Hyde Amendment, the Court, for the first time was asked to consider whether antiabortion legislation
respects the establishment of religion or violates the free exercise thereof. The Court held that the
Amendment did not effect an establishment of religion and found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to
raise the free exercise argument. The author explores the questions raised, agreeing with the Court's
disposal of the establishment argument. He finds considerable validity in the free exercise challenge, but
concludes that the Court, as presently constituted is unlikely to accept it. In addition, he believes that
the Court in its treatment of both arguments, either ignored or improperly distinguished earlier cases
that supported the plaintiffs. McRae held that the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of
Medicaid funds for medically necessary abortions except under certain narrowly defined circumstances,
does not violate either the federal Medicaid statute, the liberty or equal protection guarantees of the
fifth amendment's due process clause, or the establishment clause of the first amendment. The view
that there is no relation whatever between what the poor may suffer on account of their poverty and
the unequal protection of the laws is based upon a narrow view of the purposes of government.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                          41
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                              Solvency – Hyde Repeal
The Hyde Amendment is thoroughly unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violates women’s
basic rights
Skuster and Brooks 06 (Patie, Jamie D., October 20, 2006 Policy Associate for Ipas, Staff Attorney for the
National Health Law Program, “Does the Hyde Amendment Violate Human Rights?”
<http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/violating_human_rights.html>)
   The Hyde Amendment has prohibited federal funding for abortion for women for the past 30 years, with few exceptions. The 12 million
   women of reproductive age on Medicaid, as well as women in the military, in the Peace Corps, in federal prisons, and those receiving
   health care from Indian Health Services, are effectively banned from receiving safe abortion services because most of them cannot
   afford the cost of abortion care on their own. Hyde-like restrictions deny women their freedom, equality, and dignity. But does the Hyde
   Amendment violate human rights? The 1973 Supreme            Court decision Roe v. Wade affirmed
   women‟s fundamental right to determine whether or when to have children. Three years
   later, however, the Hyde Amendment was introduced and subsequently found constitutional by the
   Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae. Together, the Hyde Amendment and the Harris decision in
   practice deny most women with federal health insurance the right to an abortion . In contrast
   to United States constitutional standards, human rights standards recognize governments‟ duty to
   provide individuals with the means to exercise their rights. International human
   rights recognize principles of human dignity and equality and emphasize non-discrimination. All people regardless
   of their race, color, sex, language, religion, opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status hold human rights, which
   governments have a duty to respect, protect, and fulfill. A human rights lens is a powerful tool for assessing the validity of laws because
   it forces us to view not just the behavior choices made by women, but also how government policies affect women in specific
                        governments—including the United States—affirmed that control of one‟s
   conditions. In 1994, 179
   fertility is a basic right at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development. This was
   reaffirmed at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In 1999, the       U.N. General Assembly agreed that,
                                   health systems should...ensure that such abortion is safe and
   ―where abortion is not against the law,
   accessible.‖ United Nations committees charged with interpreting human rights
   treaties have found that the denial of abortion services in certain circumstances. The Hyde
   Amendment and similar funding bans clearly violate women‟s human rights under these evolving
   international norms. They discriminate on the basis of sex, race, and economic status. They restrict
   access to a type of health care needed only by women, especially those who are poor and overwhelmingly of color. Women make up 70
   percent of adult Medicaid beneficiaries; women of color make up 51 percent of non-elderly beneficiaries; and 60 percent of indigenous
   people obtain care from Indian Health Services. U.S. foreign policy also undermines the above international agreements by restricting
   women’s reproductive health access and human rights around the world. The 1973 Helms Amendment, which is the equivalent of the
   Hyde Amendment in the international arena, prohibits U.S. funding for abortion outside of the U.S. In 2001, the Bush administration
   reinstated the ―Global Gag Rule,‖ which prohibits U.S. funding to any foreign organizations that use their own, non-U.S. government
   funding to provide abortion counseling, referrals, or services, or to lobby their government for a less restrictive abortion law. These
   restrictive U.S. policies have resulted in increased risk to the health and lives of women in the developing world. Globally, nearly 70,000
                                                                            levels of death and
   women die from abortion and tens of thousands more suffer serious injury each year. Persistently high
   injury from unsafe abortion have been recognized as violations of women‟s right to
   life and health by global authorities—human rights violations that are exacerbated by
   U.S. foreign policy. All women, regardless of their economic status, deserve to be afforded
   the dignity to make personal decisions about pregnancy and childbearing and the
   ability to access the reproductive health care necessary to implement those decisions.
   For thirty years, U.S. policies have been allowed to violate the human rights of women at home and abroad. We must
   work for the day in which our laws protect those rights instead.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                       42
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                              Hyde Amendment AFF

                              Solvency – McRae Reversal
Hyde Amendment Ruled Unconstitutional in Harris v. Mcrae
Supreme Court Case Collection, 1999, “Harris v Mcrae” Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court
(1930-1999) 6-24-2009
   Title XIX of the Social Security Act established the Medicaid program in 1965 to provide federal
   financial assistance to States that choose to reimburse certain costs of medical treatment for
   needy persons. Since 1976, versions of the so-called Hyde Amendment have severely
   limited the use of any federal funds to reimburse the cost of abortions under the
   Medicaid program. Actions were brought in Federal District Court by appellees
   (including indigent pregnant women, who sued on behalf of all women similarly situated, the New
   York City Health and Hospitals Corp., which operates hospitals providing abortion services,
   officers of the Women's Division of the Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church
   (Women's Division), and the Women's Division itself), seeking to enjoin enforcement of the
   Hyde Amendment on grounds that it violates, inter alia, the Due Process Clause of the
   Fifth Amendment and the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, and that, despite
   the Hyde Amendment, a participating State remains obligated under Title XIX to fund
   all medically necessary abortions. Ultimately, the District Court, granting injunctive
   relief, held that the Hyde Amendment had substantively amended Title XIX to relieve a State of
   any obligation to fund those medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement is
   unavailable, but that the Amendment violates the equal protection component of the
   Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First
   Amendment. Having determined that Title XIX does not obligate a participating State to pay for
   those medically necessary abortions for which Congress has withheld federal funding, we must
   consider the constitutional validity of the Hyde Amendment. The appellees assert
   that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment violate several rights secured
   by the Constitution -- (1) the right of a woman, implicit in the Due Process Clause of
   the Fifth Amendment, to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, (2) the
   prohibition under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment against any "law
   respecting an establishment of religion," and (3) the right to freedom of religion
   protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The appellees also
   contend that, quite apart from substantive constitutional rights, the Hyde
   Amendment violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                         43
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

                               Solvency – McRae Reversal
Court Ruled that Medicaid should Cover First Trimester Abortions
ACLU 2k7, 6-27-2008, “Harris v. McRae” http://aclu.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=431, 6-
23-2009
   On September 30, 1976, the day on which Congress enacted the initial version of the Hyde
   Amendment, these consolidated cases were filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of
   New York. The plaintiffs - Cora McRae, a New York Medicaid recipient then in the first
   trimester of a pregnancy that she wished to terminate, the New York City Health and
   Hospitals Corp., a public benefit corporation that operates 16 hospitals, 12 of which
   provide abortion services, and others - sought to enjoin the enforcement of the
   funding restriction on abortions. They alleged that the Hyde Amendment violated the
   First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments of the Constitution insofar as it limited
   the funding of abortions to those necessary to save the life of the mother, while
   permitting the funding of costs associated with childbirth. Although the sole named
   defendant was the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the District Court
   permitted Senators James L. Buckley and Jesse A. Helms and Representative Henry
   J. Hyde to intervene as defendants. After a hearing, the District Court entered a
   preliminary injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the Hyde Amendment
   and requiring him to continue to provide federal reimbursement for abortions under
   the standards applicable before the funding restriction had been enacted. Although
   stating that it had not expressly held that the funding restriction was unconstitutional, since the
   preliminary injunction was not its final judgment, the District Court noted that such a
   holding was 'implicit' in its decision granting the injunction. The District Court also
   certified the McRae case as a class action on behalf of all pregnant or potentially
   pregnant women in the state of New York eligible for Medicaid and who decide to
   have an abortion within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, and of all authorized
   providers of abortion services to such women.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                         44
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

                               Solvency – McRae Reversal
McRae violates equal protection
J. Stewart (reporting on the opinion of the district court), 6/30/80. (Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297
(1980), Supreme Justia, http://supreme.justia.com/us/448/297/, Accessed 6/23/09)
   Title XIX of the Social Security Act established the Medicaid program in 1965 to provide federal
   financial assistance to States that choose to reimburse certain costs of medical treatment for
   needy persons. Since 1976, versions of the so-called Hyde Amendment have severely limited the
   use of any federal funds to reimburse the cost of abortions under the Medicaid program. Actions
   were brought in Federal District Court by appellees (including indigent pregnant women, who
   sued on behalf of all women similarly situated, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.,
   which operates hospitals providing abortion services, officers of the Women's Division of the
   Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church (Women's Division), and the Women's
   Division itself), seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Hyde Amendment on grounds that it
   violates, inter alia, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Religion Clauses of the
   First Amendment, and that, despite the Hyde Amendment, a participating State remains obligated
   under Title XIX to fund all medically necessary abortions. Ultimately, the District Court, granting
   injunctive relief, held that the Hyde Amendment had substantively amended Title XIX to relieve a
   State of any obligation to fund those medically necessary abortions for which federal
   reimbursement is unavailable, but that the Amendment violates the equal protection component
   of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First
   Amendment.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                      45
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                             Hyde Amendment AFF

                                              Solvency – Hyde Repeal
Hyde Amendment must be removed to solve access barriers
Poggi 2005 (Stephanie, April 28, Center for American Progress, ―Abortion Funding for Poor Women: The Myth of the Rape Exception‖,
http://www.hyde30years.nnaf.org/resources/poggi_rape_exception.pdf, accessed June 26)

Unique barriers face low-income women accessing comprehensive reproductive health care. Barriers to
abortion access such as the lack of providers, state laws delaying women from receiving timely care, and
funding restrictions like the Hyde Amendment fall disproportionately on low-income women who have
limited resources with which to overcome these obstacles. The Guttmacher Institute has found that 20-35% of Medicaid-
eligible women who would choose abortion carry their pregnancies to term when public funds are not available.13 Additionally, lack of public
funding results in women waiting while they raise funds, postponing their abortions until later in their pregnancies when the costs and health
risks can be higher. For women who are struggling to make ends meet and who do not have insurance that covers abortion care, the legal right
to have an abortion does not guarantee access.The restrictions imposed by the Hyde Amendment unfairly
jeopardize the health and well-being of low-income women and their families. Women who do not have
the ability to pay for abortion services may resort to self-inducing an abortion or obtaining unsafe, illegal
abortions from untrained practitioners. Also, the Hyde Amendment harms women's health by denying coverage for abortion
services in cases where women have serious physical or mental health concerns. The Hyde Amendment marginalizes and
stigmatizes abortion care rather than recognizing it as an essential component of women's health, and
denies low-income women basic reproductive health care. The Hyde Amendment is reauthorized each year under
appropriations bills for the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. The current restrictive version of the Hyde
Amendment does not provide coverage for abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities, or health exceptions apart from life-threatening
conditions. Removing funding restrictions for abortion care is an integral step in ensuring that abortion remains safe, legal, and accessible.
                                                             To achieve reproductive equality for all
American women have had the legal right to choose abortion for more than thirty years.
women, restrictive barriers such as the Hyde Amendment must be removed.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                46
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                       Hyde Amendment AFF

                                      Solvency – Hyde Repeal
Hyde amendment takes away the ability for women to make a choice, forcing them to
continue with pregnancy even when their health is in danger. Repeal of this amendment is
critical in allowing reproductive rights for all women.
Reprowrites 09, (“Take action against the Hyde Amendment”) http://reproductiverights.org/en/feature/take-action-
against-the-hyde-amendment , date acc: 6-22-09
   When abortion was first legalized in 1973, federal funds were available to low-income women on
   Medicaid who sought abortions. But four years later Congress enacted the Hyde Amendment, which
   bans federal funding for abortion except under extremely limited circumstances: rape, incest, and
   danger to the mother’s life.
   The Hyde Amendment has prevented millions of low-income women from making their own
   decisions about whether to have a child, forcing some to continue with a pregnancy even when it
   jeopardizes their health. According to the Guttmacher Institute, as many as 35% of women eligible
   for Medicaid who want an abortion will not be able to get one.Many other women who rely on
   the federal government for health coverage—including women in federal prisons, federal
   employees, and Native American women—have also been deprived of their right to abortion.
   Washington, DC is prohibited by federal law from using even its own funds to cover abortion
   services for poor women. And women serving in the military can’t get abortions on their bases
   even with their own money.
   A key goal of the Center’s Federal Policy Agenda is expanding access to abortion for all women, and
   we are calling on President Obama to strike these funding restrictions from his 2010 proposed budget.
   You can help us: Tell President Obama that the government should not intrude on a poor woman’s
   decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                             47
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                    Hyde Amendment AFF

                            ____**Racism Extensions
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                             48
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                    Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                      Biopolitics Impact
Biopolitics necessitates endless cycles of violence and slaughter in the name of preserving
the health of the body politic – this makes genocide and extinction inevitable.
Foucault – 78 (Michel, philosopher and chair at the College de France, ―The History of Sexuality‖, p.
135-37)
   For a long time, one of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death.
   In a formal sense, it derived no doubt from the ancient patria potestas that granted the father of the Roman family the right to ―dispose‖
   of the life of his children and his slaves; just as he had given them life, so he could take it away. By the time the right of life and death
   was framed by the classical theoreticians, it was in a considerably diminished form. It was no longer considered that this power of the
   sovereign over his subjects could be exercised in an absolute and unconditional way, but only in cases where the sovereign’s very
   existence was in jeopardy: a sort of right of rejoinder. If he were threatened by external enemies who sought to overthrow him or contest
   his rights, he could then legitimately wage war, and require his subjects to take part in the defense of the state; without ―directly
   proposing their death,‖ he was empowered to ―expose their life‖: in this sense, he wielded an indirect power over them of life and death.
   But if someone dared to rise up against him and transgress his laws, then he could exercise a direct power over the offender’s life: as
   punishment, the latter would be put to death. Viewed in this way, the power of life and death was not an absolute privilege: it was
   conditioned by the defense of the sovereign and his own survival. Must we follow Hobbes in seeing it as the transfer to the prince of the
   natural right possessed by every individual to defend his life even if this meant the death of others? Or should it be regarded as a specific
                                                                                          In any case, in its modern form—
   right that was manifested with the formation of that new juridical being, the sovereign?
   relative and limited—as in its ancient and absolute form, the right of life and death is a dissymmetrical one.
   The sovereign exercised his right of life only by exercising his right to kill, or by refraining from killing; he
   evidenced his power over life only through the death he was capable of requiring . The right which was formulated as the
   ―power of life and death‖ was in reality the right to take life or let live. Its symbol, after all, was the sword.
   Perhaps this juridical form must be referred to a historical type of society in which power was exercised
   mainly as a means of deduction (prelevement), a subtraction mechanism, a right to appropriate a portion of
   the wealth, a tax of products, goods and services, labor and blood, levied on the subjects. Power in this
   instance was essentially a right of seizure: of things, time, bodies, and ultimately life itself; it culminated in
   the privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it. Since the classical age the West has undergone a very profound
   transformation of these mechanisms of power. ―Deduction‖ has tended to be no longer the major form of power but merely one element
   among others, working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it: a power bent on generating
   forces, making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding them, making them submit, or destroying them.
   There has been a parallel shift in the right of death, or at least a tendency to align itself with the exigencies of a life-administering power
                               This death that was based on the right of the sovereign is now manifested as simply
   and to define itself accordingly.
   the reverse of the right of the social body to ensure, maintain, or develop its life. Yet wars were never as
   bloody as they have been since the nineteenth century, and all things being equal, never before did regimes
   visit such holocausts on their own populations. But this formidable power of death—and this is perhaps what
   accounts for part of its force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly expanded its limits—now
   represent itself as the counterpart of a power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavors to
   administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations. Wars
   are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended: they are waged on behalf of the
   existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name
   of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race,
   that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And through
   a turn that closes the circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out
   destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly informed
   by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole
   population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual’s continued existence. The principle underlying the tactics of
                                                                                                                   But
   battle—that one has to be capable of killing in order to go on living—has become the principle that defines the strategy of states.
   the existence in question is no longer the juridical existence of sovereignty; at stake is the biological
   existence of a population. If genocide is indeed the dream of modern powers, this is not because of a recent
   return of the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species,
   the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          49
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                 AT: Norplant = Voluntary
Norplant is not voulantary
Eric Ludwig 2nd Year Law Student The University of Dayton School of Law Fall 1998
http://academic.udayton.edu/health/05bioethics/98ludwig.htm
   The problem with judicial and legislative enticement of Norplant implants is the decision is not
   voluntary. As was seen in the Johnson case, the defendant had the option of seven years in prison
   or one year in prison and Norplant implants. This is not much of an option. Likewise when the
   state offers increased welfare benefits for Norplant use, the recipient does not have much of an
   option. Many of the recipients need the extra money to provide for themselves and their family.
   The choice to "voluntarily" submit to Norplant is their only other option beside starving. For these
   reasons a woman’s choice is coerced into accepting Norplant. Thus the state is effectively
   sterilizing these women. Most of the following annotations provide insight on how this coercion
   effects poor African American women.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                           50
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                  Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                Hyde x Human Rights

Reproductive Rights Are Human Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights, 1-20-09 “Are Repro Rights Human Rights?”
http://reproductiverights.org/en/feature/are-repro-rights-human-rights, 6-26-09
   Six months pregnant with her second child, Alyne da Silva knew her nausea and abdominal pain were not normal. But when she went
   to a state clinic just outside Rio de Janeiro for help, the attending physician refused to admit her, sending her away with just vitamins
                                                                                        Maternal
   and cream. One week later, she died after delivering a stillborn baby in a state hospital. She didn't have to.
   mortality is usually seen as either an unfortunate fact of life or a poverty issue. But
   the vast majority of maternal deaths—some half a million worldwide every year—
   could be prevented at low cost. Most of them are caused by hemorrhages, infection,
   eclampsia, obstructed labor, and unsafe abortions—complications that some 15% of
   all pregnant women will experience at some point.While not preventable, these
   conditions can be treated. When women die in childbirth or pregnancy, it’s all too
   often because their governments have failed to value their lives and ensure every
   woman can get basic health services. Their deaths represent a violation of their
   most basic human right—the right to life. Maternal mortality rates reflect discrimination and inequity. One
   out of every six women in Afghanistan and every 22 women in sub-Saharan Africa will lose her life to pregnancy-related complications;
   in the United Kingdom, only one out of every 3800 women will. In Brazil, indigenous, poor, single, and Afro-Brazilian women like Alyne
   face the greatest risk of dying.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                         51
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF


                                                           Hyde x Poor
Hyde amendment denies federal coverage for abortion, specifically targets women of low
economic status, causes untold suffering and death, and is harmful to health by burdening
access to otherwise safe medical procedures. Additionally, absence of state funding has
caused financial problem for women. The amendment must be repealed to ensure
Reproductive Rights towards women. The plan will solve.
Marilu Gresens, 10-9-06, (“Hyde Amendment: 30 Years of Injustice for Poor Women”), (“: The National
Abortion Federation (Medicaid and Hyde Amendment fact sheet) and the Protect Women, Protect Medicaid Campaign 9/15/2006 Action”),
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/10-09-06hyde.html, 6-22-09
    October marks the 30th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, the legislative doctrine used to control the reproductive lives and limit the
    health care options of poor women. Passed     by Congress every year since 1976, the current version denies federal
    coverage for abortion, except in cases of incest, rape or life endangerment, but without any exception to preserve the woman's
    health. The National Organization for Women fought the Hyde Amendment when it was introduced, and continues to do so, decrying
                                                                           Hyde Amendment routinely denies access to
    the class-based system of health care that this amendment exacerbates. The
    safe and legal abortion for women, disproportionately women of color, who depend on government health
    coverage. According to NOW President Kim Gandy, "For 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has denied
    poor women their constitutional right to abortion as a health care option, and for 30 years it has
    marginalized abortion care instead of recognizing it as a safe, legal and vital part of all women's health
    care. Thirty years of this repression and discrimination have caused untold suffering and death; the
    Hyde Amendment must be repealed." The Hyde Amendment denies federal funding for abortions that
    do not fit its narrow criteria, and places the financial burden on already-tight state Medicaid budgets, in effect encouraging
    states not to expand abortion coverage. Currently, more than half of the states provide no additional funding ,
    according to the National Abortion Federation, which notes that only South Dakota provides less coverage than the Hyde Amendment,
    even refusing funding for abortion services in cases of incest and rape. And, no matter how expansive or restrictive the state laws are,
    women seeking federal funding for pregnancy termination are often obstructed by misinformation and
    administrative barriers that prevent them from receiving timely access to the abortion procedure. Because
    it creates a barrier to women's access to abortion services, a right that women with financial means are able to utilize, the Hyde
    amendment is unjustly harmful to the health of poor and low-income women by burdening access to
    otherwise safe and legal medical procedures. The risk of complication increases the later an induced abortion is
    performed, so administrative delays imposed on women decrease the safety of abortion procedures by forcing women to wait until later
                                                          who cannot pay for abortion services may be forced
    in pregnancy to receive necessary funding. Furthermore, women
    to choose a self-induced or illegal, life-threatening abortion. For those low-income women who do not
    seek such desperate measures, the amendment effectively forces them to carry unwanted pregnancies to
    term. Since the amendment's enactment, the Guttmacher Institute has found that 20-35 percent of women eligible
    under Medicaid who would choose abortion have carried their pregnancies to term due to lack of
    personal financial means and the absence of state funding. The right to reproductive health care necessitates that
    women have equal access to all care, including abortion, regardless of their economic means or the specific circumstances of their
                                                                                       current Hyde Amendment
    pregnancies. Since 12 million women of reproductive age are covered under Medicaid, the
    compromises millions of women's right to abortion access and routinely puts their health and lives at
    risk. Furthermore, the Amendment specifically targets women of low economic status, effectively blocking
    their Constitutional right to reproductive options and invading their privacy. As a result, the Amendment
    further politicizes abortion care, instead of recognizing it as a fundamental component of reproductive and family planning
    health care. In order to achieve complete reproductive equality that has been constitutionally guaranteed to all women for more than
    three decades, NOW urges that the Hyde      Amendment must be repealed.
        Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                        52
        Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                                   Hyde x Poor
        The Hyde Amendment Undermines Poor Women
          Cocco, Marie. Write for The Bryan Times, 5-3-05. (Henry Hyde and the Hypocrisy
          Amendment. The Bryan Times. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=799&dat=
          20050503&id=XmMKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iEkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3581,123932)

Henry Hyde has announced his retirement, so it is an appropriate time to reconsider the Hypocrisy amendment. Americans do not know the grandfather of all
the antiabortion legislation by that name. They know it as the Hyde amendment, a law on the books since 1976 that denies federal Medicaid funding for poor
women who seek abortions.     Though the prohibition applies only to federal money, the Hyde amendment has in practice
mean that most states do not cover abortions using their Medicaid funds, either. Poor women who want an
abortion – even for clear medical reasons – are denied them or are forced to scrounge up the money by scrimping
on rent or food. Those who beg or borrow the money wait for longer to have abortions than most other American women. Second-trimester
abortions are common among the poor, even though the delay adds hundreds to the cost and can introduce
harrowing medical complications. On his web site, Hyde, 81, an Illinois Republican, cited among his proudest achievements in his congressional
career “protecting the lives of the defenseless unborn.” There was no mention of the tragedies his law has wrought upon those already born. The first
known victim of the Hyde amendment was Rosie Jimenez, a 27-year-old daughter and a freshly awarded $700
college scholarship. Finding herself pregnant, unable to obtain an abortion under Medicaid – and unwilling to give
up her scholarship money, which she hoped as her daughter’s ticket to a better life – Jimenez sought an illegal abortion and died of
complications from it, weeks after the Hyde amendment took effect. A 1979 study by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention linked four deaths to the unavailability of Medicaid funding for abortions. More common than
illegal abortions, though, are other desperate measures that desperate women take. Like the case of the rubbing alcohol. “Ill never forget that one,” says Shawn
Towery, who in the 1990s ran the Greater Philadelphia Women’s Medical Fund, which helps poor women pay for abortions. The 17-year old girl from West
Philadelphia already had one child when she became pregnant again “It was a pretty sad story. Both her parents were in prison. She’d already had one kid
who’d been taken away from her,” recalls Towery, who now works for the National Network of Abortion Funds. The teenager knew she couldn’t obtain a
Medicaid-funded abortion, nor afford one on her own. So she drank a bottle of rubbing alcohol, thinking it would cause a miscarriage. She wound up instead in
an intensive-care burn unit of a Catholic hospital, where she vowed to try to abort again – no matter how self-destructive she had to be. No doctor would
recommend an abortion under Pennsylvania’s Medicaid law, which allows funding if the mother’s life is in danger. A sympathetic nurse referred the teenager to
the Greater Philadelphia’s Women’s Medical Fund. The hypocrisy of the Hyde amendment is blatant, odious and long ignored, even by abortion-rights
                                                                                             No medical procedure involving men or
supporters who seem to have given up trying to rectify the injustice. Let us count the corruptions.
Medicaid or any other form of insurance – is denied them because politicians find it objectionable. No other
constitutional right is denied – by legislative flat – because the citizen hasn’t the money to exercise that right. No
other policy that so obviously discriminates against minorities still is considered politically acceptable. For years the
very same politicians who voted to deny Medicaid abortion funding denounced poor women as irresponsible baby machines and welfare queens. The 1996
welfare revision enshrined the perfidy in federal law its “family cap” denies additional support to a woman who has
another child while on welfare. No money for abortions; not for babies, either. Hyde’s casualties are disproportionately poor but
they are no longer alone. Over the years, his amendment became the template for curtailing access to abortion for a range of women: federal employees who
get health insurance through their jobs, women serving in the military and the Peace Corps, those served by the Indian Health Service and residents of the
District of Columbia – all are denied coverage. The current movement to enact “conscience clauses” that would go so far as allowing pharmacies to refuse to fill
prescriptions for ordinary birth-control pills has its philosophical roots in Hyde’s amendment. Retirement finally will cut Hyde’s meddlesome reach. He’ll be gone
from women’s lives but not forgotten. He’s already done too much damage for that.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                        53
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                                          Hyde x Poor
Latinas are disproportionally affected by the Hyde Amendment
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, 2/20/09. (Statement on HealthCare for All, National
Latina Institute for Reproductive Health,
http://www.latinainstitute.org/publications/documents/NLIRHHealthcareforAllstatement-FINAL-
22008.pdf, Accessed 6/22/09)

It is important that such a system includes a full and comprehensive range of services, including
coverage for family planning, abortions, prenatal care and preventive services. Currently Latinas –
especially low-income, uninsured and immigrant Latinas – face numerous obstacles to obtaining these
services, including cost and lack of access. Under the Hyde Amendment, no federal funds can be used
for abortion services, meaning that many women on Medicaid are unable to access a full range of
options when facing an unintended pregnancy, and may turn to unsafe terminations if they do not wish
to carry the pregnancy to term. This and other obstacles create a disproportionate burden of morbidity
and mortality on Latinas.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          54
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                          Hyde = Racist

THE HYDE AMENDMENT VIOLATES REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE AND
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST POOR WOMEN AND WOMEN OF COLOR
Stephanie Poggi, National Network of Abortion Funds, 05, http://www.protectchoice.org/article.php?id=133




Reproductive justice requires that all women and girls have the power and resources to make
decisions about their bodies, lives, families, and communities.

Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has violated these human rights by forbidding public funding
of abortion - and thus, effectively denying the right to abortion to thousands and thousands of
poor women. Because of the Hyde Amendment, women across the U.S. struggle to raise money
to cover the cost of abortion. They often sacrifice food and other necessities and delay paying
rent and utilities. Too often, they can't raise enough money and they are unable to obtain an
abortion.

As Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall noted in 1980, in his dissent to the Court's
decision upholding the Hyde Amendment, "[F]or women eligible for Medicaid - poor women -
denial of a Medicaid-funded abortion is equivalent to denial of legal abortion altogether. By
definition, these women do not have the money to pay for an abortion themselves."

Most states have also banned state Medicaid funding for abortion, and Congress has severely
restricted abortion funding in virtually every federal program, including health programs for
military personnel and their families, disabled women, federal prisoners, and women receiving
care from Indian Health Services. For the more than 12 million women who depend on Medicaid
and other federal programs, the impact of the Hyde Amendment and state funding bans is
staggering. It is estimated that as many as one in three low-income women who would have an
abortion if it were covered by Medicaid are instead compelled to continue the pregnancy.

Because of racialized poverty in the U.S., women of color disproportionately rely on public
sources of health care; so the denial of Medicaid funding impacts these women most heavily.
The fight to restore Medicaid coverage is an important matter of racial justice, as well as
economic justice and women's rights.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                        55
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                         Hyde = Racist

Latinas are disproportionally affected by the Hyde Amendment
           National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, 1/N/A/04. (Latinas and Abortion Access, National
Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, http://www.latinainstitute.org/pdf/AbortionIssueBrief.pdf, Accessed 6/22/09)




The Hyde Amendment, which passed in 1977, prohibits the use of all federal funds for abortion
services, making it impossible for millions of low income women to access abortions. Currently,
federal funding for abortion is only available in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. These restrictions have had a long
lasting, chilling effect on the ability of Latinas to access abortion. While a handful of states use their own funds
to provide abortions for low-income women, the majority do not. The first women reported to have died as a direct result of the Hyde
Amendment was Rosie Jimenez, a young Latina who resorted to an unsafe abortion because she did not have the means to pay for the procedure.
Without health insurance and without federal funding for abortions, Latinas consistently
face reduced access to abortion services. To this day, Latinas are disproportionately
affected by economic limitations on access to abortions and other reproductive health
systems.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                      56
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                             Hyde Amendment AFF

                                       Hyde x Women‟s Health

The Hyde Amendment has put millions of impoverished women in jeopardy
CRR (Center for Reproductive Rights) 4/10/09 http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-room/tell-president-obama-to-
strike-the-hyde-amendment-from-his-budget
When abortion was first legalized in 1973, federal funds were available to low-income women who sought medically necessary
abortions. But four years later, Congress enacted the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion in the
Medicaid program except under extremely limited circumstances. Since then, the Hyde Amendment has put
millions of low-income women in dangerous situations, forcing some to continue with a pregnancy even
when it jeopardizes their health.


Hyde Amendment Jeopardizes Women’s Health
American Civil Liberties Union, 7/21/2004(“Public Funding for Abortion”) June 22, 2009
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/lowincome/16393res20040721.html
   The Hyde Amendment and other bans should be repealed because they are discriminatory and
   harm women's health. If a woman chooses to carry to term, Medicaid (and other federal
   insurance programs) offer her assistance for the necessary medical care. But if the same woman
   needs to end her pregnancy, Medicaid (and other federal insurance programs) will not provide
   coverage for her abortion, even if continuing the pregnancy will harm her health. The
   government should not discriminate in this way. It should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor
   woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively
   withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the
   government disfavors. With these bans, the federal government turns its back on women who
   need abortions for their health. Women with cancer, diabetes, or heart conditions, or whose
   pregnancies otherwise threaten their health, are denied coverage for abortions. Only if a woman
   would otherwise die, or if her pregnancy results from rape or incest, is an abortion covered. The
   bans thus put many women's health in jeopardy
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                       57
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                              Hyde Amendment AFF

                                           Reprod Rights S Sterilization
A strong commitment to reproductive privacy is essential to preventing forced sterilization of
the “undesirable” at the fringes of legal discourse.
Horsburgh, Associate Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law, 96
*Beverly, “SCHRODINGER'S CAT, EUGENICS, AND THE COMPULSORY STERILIZATION OF WELFARE
MOTHERS: DECONSTRUCTING AN OLD/NEW RHETORIC AND CONSTRUCTING THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT
TO NATALITY FOR LOW-INCOME WOMEN OF COLOR,” Cardozo Law Review, January 1996, l/n+
  Courts considering petitions to sterilize mentally handicapped women are now bound by Roe v. Wade n341 which established a
  fundamental right to reproductive autonomy. Hence, at least in theory, courts maintain that parents cannot decide to sterilize their
  daughters in their own right n342 and implement various procedural safeguards to protect women's procreative interests. n343 In this
  respect, a court's power to authorize sterilization is somewhat circumscribed as long as there is a commitment to the right of privacy.
  However, in light of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, n344 the degree to which women are in charge of
  their reproductive autonomy is unclear. In Casey the Supreme Court held that the state has a substantial interest in protecting the
  unborn n345 and that only some burdens on the right of privacy are impermissible. n346 In eliminating the strict scrutiny review
  standard, the status of procreation as a fundamental liberty interest is considerably weakened. n347 As a result,   scrutiny of
  sterilization decisions could become less circumspect in the future. In Casey, the Court was also
  particularly insensitive to the financial obstacles a waiting period would impose on poor women, n348 yet sympathetic to married
                                                                                        Court aligned reproductive
  women who it believed would be burdened by a spousal notification requirement. n349 The
  freedom with strictly middle-class wives who conform to patriarchal norms. The experiences of
  single poor mothers - who are more likely to be African-American than white - are not understood by courts and not taken
  into account in assessing threats to reproductive autonomy. n350 Reproductive rights are not public
  rights to reproductive choice, but are private rights that are available only to those women who can pay
  for the privilege of exercising them. n351 Rights cast in terms of economics mean that women on
  welfare are not a part of the institutionalized structure of the discourse on privacy. They are
  deprived of both the right to choose not to have a child and the right to choose to give birth due
  to their lack of prenatal health care and material resources. n352 In addition, regulations
  forbidding the coerced sterilization of welfare recipients depend on the vitality of privacy rights
  n353 and the procreative rights of low-income Black women are increasingly under attack. Poor
  women of color are often punished for choosing to bear children, a practice which further
  narrows the range of their reproductive choices. n354 The state's interest in future life is heightened, as is the
  inclination to imagine the fetus as a person in conflict with the pregnant wo- [*580] man, when it comes to welfare mothers who are
                              the entire panoply of their reproductive rights contracts, the less the
  the stereotypical "bad mothers." As
  concern with the voluntary consent of poor Black women to sterilization. Moreover, many
  might genuinely believe that it is less morally reprehensible to sterilize low-income single
  mothers than it is to allow them to resort to abortion. The morality of the abortion decision has been
  overwhelmed by anti-abortion rhetoric. n355 Poor women who decide to abort are more in the public eye because they use the
  services of clinics known to be abortion providers. Privileged women are in a position to handle the matter quietly in a doctor's office
                              is primarily low-income women, disproportionately members of
  and in a private facility. As a result, it
  racial minorities, who are harassed and assaulted at clinics for seeking access to abortion. n356
  The negative images of women as lazy, selfish mothers, simultaneously plaguing both the welfare
  mother and the anti-abortion rhetoric, tend to link the two groups together as if they are
  comprised of the same women.<CONTINUED>
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                   58
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                          Hyde Amendment AFF

                                       Reprod Rights S Sterilization
  <CONTINUED>
  The inconsistency in blaming poor women for becoming pregnant and, conversely, for terminating their pregnancies, yields
  but one form of socially acceptable conduct - no sexual activity at all. Since that is unrealistic,
  sterilization looks like a solution. Additionally, low-income Black mothers' exclusion from the regime of
  procreative rights increases their susceptibility to eugenic sterilization because the reproductive
  discourse, even in its imperfect form, symbolizes society's validation of women's intrinsic human worth
  as a protection against instrumentalism. Achieving personhood, the ongoing struggle of the women's movement,
  requires that a woman be able to conceptualize her body, including her reproductive organs, as a part of herself. Social
  recognition of the inviolability of one's body as integral to one's personhood is for [*581] many
  women the core meaning of reproductive rights. n357 When poor women of color are excluded from the
  reproductive rights discourse, they are foreclosed from securing the basic human right to achieve personhood and to be valued for
                                              for personal dignity and bodily integrity are necessities if
  their own sake. In light of past history, society's respect
  Black women are to guard against the totalitarian eugenic excesses of a racist culture. n358
  Eugenic practices arise when a demonized minority is denied their fully human status and, in
  this country, reproductive rights afford this safeguard. Without an affirmation of their identity or their innate
  humanity, poor minority women will continue to be vulnerable to eugenic practices.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                          59
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                            Reprod Rights S Eugenics
Seating control over reproductive freedom in the state opens the door for the new eugenics
project of the 21st century.
Dvorsky, philosopher, writer, organizer and activist; president of the Toronto Transhumanist
Association, Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, 2k3
*George, “Its About Reproductive Rights, Stupid,” Betterhumans,
http://archives.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/299/Default.aspx]
   When I hear the words "ban" or "moratorium," or "never," I cringe. I tend to take such sweeping pronouncements
   very seriously. When I look deep into the bioconservative agenda, I see a dangerous authoritarian
   imposition -- one that reminds me of the institutionalized eugenics of the 20th century. Like previous
   eugenicists, these bioethicists have a rather far-reaching vision of what humanity must and should
   look like. By declaring a halt to self-directed evolution and the end to novel personal genomic technologies,
   they hope to impose a kind of "neugenics" -- state enforced germline stasism. In light of this
   revelation, the accusation that transhumanists are the eugenicists -- while they the bioconservatives are not -- is a punch below the
   belt. Transhumanists aren't interested in collective breeding schemes. They aren't interested in seeing the government play a larger
   role in the reproductive practices of the people. And they are certainly not interested in repealing democratic rights and civil liberties.
   Rather, transhumanists, like the social   reformers before them, are working to ensure greater freedom and
   autonomy for individuals. And just as importantly, they are working to see these technologies made safe, effective and
   accessible. The alternative is truly the rise of 21st century eugenics, but with the bioconservatives
   at the helm, controlling your body more than ever by appointing themselves the guardians of
   your genome.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                              60
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                     Hyde Amendment AFF


                            ___**Modeling Extensions
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                              61
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                     Hyde Amendment AFF

                               Internal Link EXT – Spillover
US anti-abortion law creates a ripple effect throughout the globe – we must counter every
instance to create a counter-strategy to protect women’s rights
Ernst, Katzive, and Smock, 04 *lawyers with the Center for Reproductive Rights, “SYMPOSIUM: THE LEGACY OF ROE:
THE CONSTITUTION, REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, AND FEMINISM: THE GLOBAL PATTERN OF U.S. INITIATIVES CURTAILING
WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: A PERSPECTIVE ON THE INCREASINGLY ANTI-CHOICE MOSAIC,” University of Pennsylvania
Journal of Constitutional Law, April, 6 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 752, P. Lexis]


In 1973, Roe v. Wade contributed to an emerging global understanding of women's reproductive
autonomy as a basic human right. Today, in contrast, the global pro-choice movement is working to
counter U.S. policies that deny women needed reproductive health care services. It should be
increasingly clear to women in the U.S. that their own reproductive rights are not invulnerable. For this
reason, and because pro-choice advocates overseas have little power to influence the decisions of
American politicians, attacks on reproductive rights abroad should engender resistance and protest at
home.

Likewise, pro-choice policy makers in the U.S. need to connect the dots among the assaults on choice
by the Bush administration, Congress and the federal judiciary. While each of these initiatives carries
implications for the women directly affected by it, its threat to basic freedoms for the larger pro-choice
public might not be immediately evident. This "divide-and-conquer" tactic incrementally takes away
access to abortion from discrete groups in the U.S. and abroad, while seemingly leaving a skeleton of
the "right to choose" in place. When regarded together, as a unified, coordinated plan to dismantle
the protections afforded women by the U.S. Constitution and human rights instruments, these
individual steps paint a more ominous picture.

Piecemeal attempts to slow these anti-choice assaults have met with uneven success. Pro-choice policy
makers in the U.S. need to respond to their opponents in kind, by presenting an alternative,
comprehensive, positive vision of women's reproductive rights and health, [*795] including not only
access to safe and legal abortion, but also to comprehensive reproductive health care services,
education, and information. History has shown that, for better or for worse, the U.S. can have
tremendous influence on the reproductive rights, health, and well-being of millions of women across
the globe. Now it is time for U.S. leaders to listen to voices of women worldwide who know far too
well what it means to live without choice. The rights of all women may depend on it.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                           62
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                  Hyde Amendment AFF

                              Internal Link EXT – Spillover
Abortion rights work in a continuum – renewing rights requires a recognition of the
interconnectedness of the anti-choice agenda

Senator Mikulski et al, 03 [PARTICIPANTS: SENATOR BARBARA BOXER (D-CA); SENATOR
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY); SENATOR BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-MD);
REPRESENTATIVE DIANA DEGETTE (D-CO) ―CONGRESSIONAL PRO-CHOICE CAUCUS
NEWS CONFERENCE,‖ Federal News Service, 1-22, p. Nexis]

For those who wonder are we pro-abortion?, we're pro- the health of women. We believe that abortion
should be safe, legal and rare. And this is why we support Roe versus Wade. Today's anniversary is a
solemn one. Thirty years have passed, and yet once again, Roe is under attack. The Bush administration
is already whittling away at the spirit of Roe. There's a war against contraception. There's a war against
birth control. There's a war against women, whether we're -- he's attacking international family
planning by reinstituting the global gag rule or appointing women to the Women's Health Advisory
Committee, who are absolutely opposed to Roe versus Wade and absolutely opposed to the FDA
decision to approve RU-486.

When we deny women access to the tools she needs to choose, we deny her the right to help herself
and her family. If we're to meet the existing needs for family planning around the world, if we're going
to fight the global epidemic of AIDS around the world, we need to protect maternity and child health, and
one of the first ways is family planning. Now, abortion is never -- and never should be used as a tool for
family planning. But this is a whole continuum that the war against women is being waged.

So on this anniversary of Roe versus Wade, we want to affirm the principles of Roe versus Wade; we
want to affirm the fact that we will fight for an independent judiciary in terms of the decisions related to
women, related to privacy; and we will also continue to fight for the programs that improve the maternity
and child health to enable women to plan their families; and also, that when their children are born, we're
going to make sure they have the right schools, the right help they need to move on. If we're talking
about a culture of life, it begins right here and now.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          63
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                             Internal Link EXT – Spillover
Abortion rights in the U.S. and abroad are interconnected – the quest for better rights protection
must be fought on all cylinders

Senator Clinton et al, 03 [PARTICIPANTS: SENATOR BARBARA BOXER (D-CA); SENATOR
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY); SENATOR BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-MD);
REPRESENTATIVE DIANA DEGETTE (D-CO) ―CONGRESSIONAL PRO-CHOICE CAUCUS
NEWS CONFERENCE,‖ Federal News Service, 1-22, p. Nexis]

Now I think what we're trying to say today is that we have made real progress over the last 10 years in
recognizing the importance of the right of privacy, and we've also seen the decline in the number of
abortions. I think that's great news, because, along with Senator Mikulski, I believe abortion should be
legal, safe and rare. My husband first started talking about that in 1992. That has been the hallmark, and
under a pro-choice president, we saw the rate of abortions going down. So we were doing something
right in this country, because, for all kinds of reasons, women were making choices that were right for
themselves.

Now I'm concerned, though, that this effort on the part of this administration to turn the clock back
not only affects American women but affects women around the world. The reinstitution of the
global gag rule, the continuing effort to deny family planning funds for impoverished women in
nations around the world, is a terrible signal to send. It will not help the women who are most
vulnerable. It will not prevent back-door, back-alley abortions. It will instead increase once again the
injury and death that flows from the lack of access to contraception and the lack of access to legal and
safe abortions.

So we have a lot at stake in this. And I know there are many women who have grown up with Roe
v. Wade and cannot imagine that they could be living in a place that would deny them access to family
planning; that they could have a government, like we do now, that takes information off of websites about
contraception; or that they could see the end of their fundamental right of privacy. But this -- make no
mistake about it -- is the agenda of this administration and their allies in Congress, and we want to
sound the alarm.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                  64
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                         Hyde Amendment AFF

                                    Modeling Impact – Africa
Maternal Mortality and numbers of unsafe abortions high in Africa.
Denise Grady, June 1, 2009, Journalist for the New York Times (The Deadly Toll of Abortion by
Amateurs, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html?_r=2&ref=health) Accessed June 22
2009
   BEREGA, Tanzania — A handwritten ledger at the hospital tells a grim story. For the month of January, 17
   of the 31 minor surgical procedures here were done to repair the results of ―incomplete abortions.‖ A few
   may have been miscarriages, but most were botched operations by untrained, clumsy hands.Abortion is
   illegal in Tanzania (except to save the mother’s life or health), so women and girls turn to amateurs, who may
   dose them with herbs or other concoctions, pummel their bellies or insert objects vaginally. Infections,
   bleeding and punctures of the uterus or bowel can result, and can be fatal. Doctors treating women after these
   bungled attempts sometimes have no choice but to remove the uterus.
   Pregnancy and childbirth are among the greatest dangers that women face in Africa, which has the world’s
   highest rates of maternal mortality — at least 100 times those in developed countries. Abortion accounts for a
   significant part of the death toll.
   Maternal mortality is high in Tanzania: for every 100,000 births, 950 women die. In the United States, the
   figure is 11, and it is even lower in other developed countries. But Tanzania’s record is neither the best nor
   the worst in Africa. Many other countries have similar statistics; quite a few do better and a handful do
   markedly worse.
   Eighty percent of Tanzanians live in rural areas, and the hospital in Berega — miles from paved roads and
   electric poles — is a typical rural hospital, struggling to deal with the same problems faced by hospitals and
   clinics in much of the country. Abortion is a constant worry.
   Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13
   percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the
   World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. According to
   Unicef, unsafe abortions cause 4 percent of deaths among pregnant women in Africa, 6 percent in Asia and
   12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.
   Reliable figures on abortion in Tanzania are hard to come by, but the World Health Organization reports that
   its region, Eastern Africa, has the world’s second-highest rate of unsafe abortions (only South America is
   higher). And Africa as a whole has the highest proportion of teenagers — 25 percent — among women
   having unsafe abortions.

Contraceptives solve, their use proportionally decreases the amount of abortion related
deaths
Denise Grady, June 1, 2009, Journalist for the New York Times (The Deadly Toll of Abortion by
Amateurs, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html?_r=2&ref=health) Accessed June 22
2009
In most countries the rates of abortion, whether legal or illegal — and abortion-related deaths — tend to decrease
when the use of birth control increases. But only about a quarter of Tanzanians use contraception. In South Africa,
the rate of contraception use is 60 percent, and in Kenya 39 percent. Both have lower rates of maternal mortality
than does Tanzania. South Africa also allows abortion on request. But in other African nations like Sierra Leone and
Nigeria, abortion is not available on request, and the figures on contraceptive use are even lower than Tanzania’s
and maternal mortality is higher. Nonprofit groups are working with the Tanzanian government to provide family
planning, but the country is vast, and the widely distributed rural populations makes many people extremely hard to
reach.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                              65
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                     Hyde Amendment AFF

                            ___**AT: Common Neg Args
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                      66
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                             Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                        2AC UQ Wall
Obama recently repealed the Gag Rule – triggered all their perception links
Laser, 6-16-09. Rachel, BA Harvard, Graduated UChicago Law and was on the Review Board for their
Law Journal. “Common Ground Rules,” http://rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/16/common-ground-
rules.
   Don't go beyond the agreement you've got. Shortly after the Come Let Us Reason Together group debuted its common ground
   governing agenda, which included an abortion policy, President Obama repealed the controversial Mexico City policy or
   "global gag rule." This repeal, which freed up funds for birth control to go to poor women in
   developing countries, arguably fit into our agreement, which already embraced increasing access to birth control for low-
   income American women. Except it didn't. We had never discussed the Mexico City policy repeal as a group, and this policy
   had always been highly politically charged and embroiled in the abortion debates.
   Before we had time to raise it, reporters called Third Way to inquire whether the groups' common ground abortion approach included
   the repeal. Though it was totally in our right to try to persuade the group to support the repeal, we   absolutely could not
   presume to speak for the group about so loaded an issue.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                   67
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                          Hyde Amendment AFF

                   Abortion Access Good – Decreases Abortions
The alternative to the Hyde amendment is unsafe abortions
Gresens( NOW Publis Policy intern; sources also included the National Abortion Federation, Protect the Women, and
the 9/15/06 action sheet of the Protect Medicaid Campaign) 10/9/06
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/10-09-06hyde.html
   October marks the 30th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, the legislative doctrine used to control the
   reproductive lives and limit the health care options of poor women. Passed by Congress every year since
   1976, the current version (of the Hyde Amendment) denies federal coverage for abortion, except in
   cases of incest, rape or life endangerment, but without any exception to preserve the woman's health.
   The National Organization for Women fought the Hyde Amendment when it was introduced, and
   continues to do so, decrying the class-based system of health care that this amendment exacerbates.
   The Hyde Amendment routinely denies access to safe and legal abortion for women,
   disproportionately women of color, who depend on government health coverage. According to NOW
   President Kim Gandy, "For 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has denied poor women their
   constitutional right to abortion as a health care option, and for 30 years it has marginalized abortion
   care instead of recognizing it as a safe, legal and vital part of all women's health care. Thirty years of
   this repression and discrimination have caused untold suffering and death; the Hyde Amendment
   must be repealed." The Hyde Amendment denies federal funding for abortions that do not fit its narrow
   criteria, and places the financial burden on already-tight state Medicaid budgets, in effect encouraging states
   not to expand abortion coverage. Currently, more than half of the states provide no additional funding,
   according to the National Abortion Federation, which notes that only South Dakota provides less coverage
   than the Hyde Amendment, even refusing funding for abortion services in cases of incest and rape. And, no
   matter how expansive or restrictive the state laws are, women seeking federal funding for pregnancy
   termination are often obstructed by misinformation and administrative barriers that prevent them from
   receiving timely access to the abortion procedure. Hyde Policy is Counter-Productive, Harmful
   Because it creates a barrier to women's access to abortion services, a right that women with financial
   means are able to utilize, the Hyde amendment is unjustly harmful to the health of poor and low-
   income women by burdening access to otherwise safe and legal medical procedures. The risk of
   complication increases the later an induced abortion is performed, so administrative delays imposed
   on women decrease the safety of abortion procedures by forcing women to wait until later in
   pregnancy to receive necessary funding. Furthermore, women who cannot pay for abortion services
   may be forced to choose a self-induced or illegal, life-threatening abortion. For those low-income
   women who do not seek such desperate measures, the amendment effectively forces them to carry
   unwanted pregnancies to term. Since the amendment's enactment, the Guttmacher Institute has found that
   20-35 percent of women eligible under Medicaid who would choose abortion have carried their pregnancies
   to term due to lack of personal financial means and the absence of state funding. The right to reproductive
   health care necessitates that women have equal access to all care, including abortion, regardless of
   their economic means or the specific circumstances of their pregnancies. Since 12 million women of
   reproductive age are covered under Medicaid, the current Hyde Amendment compromises millions of
   women's right to abortion access and routinely puts their health and lives at risk. Furthermore, the
   Amendment specifically targets women of low economic status, effectively blocking their
   Constitutional right to reproductive options and invading their privacy. As a result, the Amendment
   further politicizes abortion care, instead of recognizing it as a fundamental component of reproductive and
   family planning health care. In order to achieve complete reproductive equality that has been constitutionally
   guaranteed to all women for more than three decades, NOW urges that the Hyde Amendment be repealed.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                  68
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                         Hyde Amendment AFF

                    Abortion Access Good – Decreases Abortions
Banning Abortion causes women to take part in unsafe abortions putting themselves at risk.
Richard P. Cincotta and Barbara B. Crane 2001 Journalists for Science Magazine “The Mexico City Policy and U.S.
Family Planning Assistance” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/294/5542/525.pdf Accesed:
6/22/2009 Science Magazine UNT Library
Opponents of the policy assert that,in USAID-program countries where abortion is permitted under a
wider range of circumstances than the policy permits (including India, Bangladesh, South Africa, Ghana,
Jordan, Russia, and other former Soviet states), the Mexico City policy forces the most competent and
affordable private family planning providers to close their abortion services or become ineligible for
USAID funding. In these situations, opponents argue, the policy compels women seeking an induced
abortion to use government services that often offer lower quality of care, or to use private providers
not supported by USAID, who, after inducing abortion, are often unable to follow up with family
planning counseling and an adequate choice of contraceptives. Opponents allege that where trained
abortion providers are unavailable, women may resort to employing unsafe providers or to self-
induced abortion. Opponents also contend that, in all USAID-program countries, the policy creates an
atmosphere of fear and over cautiousness that discourages NGOs from providing post-abortion care
(treating botched and septic abortions), and stifles research, discussion, and dissemination of data
concerned with unsafe abortion. The policy’s opponents also charge that the Mexico City policy
guidelines on counseling and referrals are ambiguous and unworkable in the countries where abortion is
permitted under a wide range of circumstances and therefore put women’s lives at risk. According to
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, these restrictions “violate basic medical ethics
by jeopardizing a health care provider’s ability to recommend appropriate medical care”
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                          69
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                 Abortion Access Good – Equal Access
The Hyde Amendment only makes abortion more expensive, not illegal – the question isn’t
WHETHER abortion is good or bad – the question is who, given abortion’s legality, should be
allowed – the status quo blocks access based on affluence
Stanley K. Henshaw and Lynn S. Wallisch Aug., 1984 (Stanley Henshaw joined the Guttmacher Institute as a Senior
Research Associate in 1979 and is currently a Senior Fellow with the Institute. Dr. Henshaw has authored or co-authored over 60 articles and
publications on abortion utilization in the United States and internationally, abortion policies and services, teenage pregnancy, unintended
pregnancy and family planning. With colleagues at Guttmacher, he conducted two cross-national studies of family planning services and
teenage reproductive behavior. Dr. Henshaw has served as expert witness in numerous legal proceedings involving abortion restrictions. For six
years, he served as member of the board of directors of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) and received the Christopher Tietze
Humanitarian Award from that organization, and in 2005, he joined the board of directors of the Abortion Access Project. Dr. Henshaw holds a
Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2134898?seq=2&Search=yes&term=abortion&term=medicaid&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch
%3FQuery%3Dabortion%2Bmedicaid%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3D%2522abortion%2522%2B%2522medicaid%2522%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&it
em=9&ttl=1875&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle, accessed June 23, “The Medicaid Cutoff
and Abortion Services for the Poor”)

In 1977, Medicaid-eligible patients experience no delay in obtaining abortions compared with other women, even when demographic
differences are considered. However, in 1982, they were significantly delayed; on average, the Medicaid-eligible women who were delayed had
                               Fifty percent of patients eligible for Medicaid in 1982 had abortions at
abortions 2-3 weeks later than the others.
10 weeks of gestation or later, compared with 37 percent in 1977. Medicaid-eligible women who were interviewed in
depth had abortions about a week later than the other women. Increased delays occurred both between their first suspicion on pregnancy and
their pregnancy test and between their decision to have an abortion and the procedure. Among      the women who had abortions at
10 weeks or later, both the Medicaid-eligible women who delayed their pregnancy test and those who delayed the actual abortion
procedure more often attributed the delay to financial problems than did women who were not eligible
for Medicaid. In all, 42% of Medicaid-eligible women and 10 percent of the ineligible women said that
they delayed their pregnancy test or the abortion for financial reasons. An estimated 22 percent of
the Medicaid-eligible women who had second –trimester abortions would have had first-trimester
abortion if there had been no finance-related delay. Such delays are potential health hazards, because the risk of
complications following an induced abortion is increased if the procedure is done later in gestation. The low –income women interviewed said
that they needed about 11 days to get the money together for their abortions; the other women required only five days, on average.
Twenty-two percent of the Medicaid-eligible women, compared with only four percent of the other
patients, needed more than two weeks to raise the money. Medicaid-eligible patients were more
likely to pay for their abortions either wholly or partly out of their daily living expenses than were
other women (44% and 29%, respectively); they were also more dependent on gifts and loans from friends. The women eligible
for Medicaid in 1982 were far more likely than other patients to say that they had had to let bills go unpaid or to buy less food or clothing than
                                                consequences judged to be relatively serious were
they had expected to purchase in order to pay for the abortion. In all,
cited by 58% of the Medicaid-eligible women, compared with only 26 percent of the others.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                       70
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                              Hyde Amendment AFF

                              Abortion Access Good – Multiple

Poor Women Die without Funding For Abortion
SHARON SMITH, April 23, 2004(SHARON SMITH is a columnist for Socialist Worker and author of
Women's Liberation and Socialism, a new collection of essays that will be published by Haymarket
Books.)( “Abortion is every woman's right”) June 22, 2009 http://socialistworker.org/2004-
1/496/496_06_Abortion.shtml
   Reproductive freedom is also about abortion rights for poor women. Even when abortion is illegal,
   wealthy women have--and have always had--the money and private doctors to obtain abortions,
   while poor women face the choice of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term or risking their
   lives with unsafe, illegal abortions. Large numbers of poor and working-class women die when
   abortion is illegal. According to the World Health Organization, 78,000 women around the world
   die from unsafe abortions every year. And in the U.S., before abortion was made legal in 1973,
   large numbers of women died from complications from abortion. In New York City, Black women
   made up 50 percent of all women who died after an illegal abortion, while Puerto Rican women
   were 44 percent. Since the 1970s, many of the same states that denied Medicaid funding for poor
   women's abortions have been perfectly willing to sterilize them, free of charge. These are the
   reasons why reproductive rights--the right to choose whether and when to have children--is not
   just a women's issue. It is also a class issue, a racial issue and an issue of global justice.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                              71
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                     Hyde Amendment AFF

                             Abortion Access Bad – Nietzsche

Bearing children is necessary because of the possibility of the child being great. Abortion
destroys the essence and possibility of the uber mensch

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE 1883-1885 THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA
18. Old and Young Women
WHY stealest thou along so furtively in the twilight,
thustra? And what hidest thou so carefully under thy mantle?
Is it a treasure that hath been given thee? Or a child that
nath been born thee? Or goest thou thyself on a thief s errand,
thou friend of the evil? Verily, my brother, said Zarathustra, it is a treasure that hath been given me: it is a
little truth which I carry.
But it is naughty, like a young child; and if I hold not its
mouth, it screameth too loudly. As I went on my way alone today, at the hour when the tun declineth, there
met me an old woman, and she spake thus
unto my soul : "Much hath Zarathustra spoken also to us women, but
never spake he unto us concerning woman." And I answered her: "Concerning woman, one should only
talk unto men." "Talk also unto me of woman," said she; "I am old enough to forget it presently." And I
obliged the old woman and spake thus unto her: Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in
woman liath one solution it is called pregnancy.
OLD AND YOUNG WOMEN 69
Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child.
But what is woman for man? Two different things wanteth the true man: danger and
diversion. Therefore wanteth he woman, as the most danger ous plaything. * Man shall be trained for war,
and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly. Too sweet fruits these the warrior liketh not.
Therefore liketh he woman; bitter is even the sweetest woman. Better than man doth woman understand
children, but man is more childish than woman. In the true man there is a child hidden: it wanteth to play.
Up then, ye women, and discover the child in man! A plaything let woman be, pure and fine like the
precious stone, illumined with the virtues of a world not yet come. Let the beam of a star shine in your
love! Let your hope say: "May I bear the Superman!" In your love let there be valour! With your love shall
ye assail him who inspireth you with fear! In your love be your honour! Little doth woman understand
otherwise about honour. But let this be your honour: always to love more than ye are loved, and never be
the second. Let man fear woman when she loveth: then maketh she every sacrifice, and everything else
she regardeth as worthless. Let man fear woman when she hateth : for man in his inner most soul is
merely evil; woman, however, is mean. Whom hateth woman most? Thus spake the iron to the loadstone:
"I hate thee most, because thou attractest, but art too weak to draw unto thee." The happiness of man is,
"I will." The happiness of woman is, "He will."
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                         72
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

              Abortion Access Good – AT: Life Begins @ Conception
No sign of life appears at conception. Therefore, abortion is NOT taking away a
human life because the embryo has not formed.
Dan Burke, Apr 20, 2006 (“Life doesn’t start at conception, but after says Cardinal Martini in
dialoguewith bio-ethicist”) http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6536, date acc: 6-23-09
Italian Vatican analyst Sandro Magister is releasing a long dialogue Cardinal Martini sustained with Ignazio Marino,
famous Italian bio-ethicist, and director of the Center of transplants of the Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia,
about abortion, in-vitro fecundation and contraception And the answer is: “not immediatly with
conception, but after” said Cardinal Martini, about when life starts,                                 “with the consequences that derive
from it,” added Magister. The long dialogue between the two men will be released in the next issue of the weekly “L’espresso,” a
center-left weekly tomorrow, it will be made available by Sandro Magister in his website in English The Jesuit Cardinal, now 79, a
great specialist of Holy Scriptures, and former Archbishop of Milan from 1979 to 2002, lives today in Jerusalem, where he resumed
his biblical studies. During the pontificate of John Paul II, Cardinal Martini was known to be the preeminent representante of the
“progressive” opposition. The same opinion continues to be circulate about him regarding the new pope. On the issues tackled in
the dialogue, Cardinal Martini seldom expressed his views, even during the heated debate in his country about allowing artificial
fecundation. He questionned the Church’s official position who is intransigent in defending “each human life from conception to
naturla death, with no exception.
Precisely, Cardinal Martini approves the use of “ovocites at the state of two pronucleus.” According to
him and Professor Marino, at this stage following fecundation, “no singular and definite sign of
human life appears, it’s not an embryo yet and therefore it can be manipulated with no
formal moral objection.” On euthanasia, he says “We can never approve of it,” but he adds we shouldn’t
“condemn persons that carries out such an act on the demand of persons reduced and by pure altruistic feelings.”
He advocates for the same respect for persons who follow their consciences in these extreme cases.”


The Idea that life begins at conception is logically flawed.
STEVE KANGAS 08(”Bachelor of Arts, Russian Studies University of California - Santa Cruz”)
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm
    One of the most common pro-life claims is that "life begins at conception." Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement, there is
    actually a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human      life began only once: at the dawn of
    humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every
    sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular
    activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there
                 correct question is not "When does human life begin?" but "When does
    nonetheless.) The
    personhood begin?" Pro-life advocates claim that personhood begins when the sperm and egg join to form a zygote. The zygote
    is genetically unique and complete and will be the grandparent of every other cell this person will ever have. The fact that the zygote is
    the first entity to have all 46 chromosomes of a future person seems -- at first -- to be good evidence of personhood. But consider the
                                                                    contain all 46 human chromosomes,
    counter-examples. There are many entities which are genetically complete, which
    which we nonetheless do not recognize as persons: ancient fossils, blood samples, hair cuttings,
    fingernail clippings, even skin cultures grown in burn centers. This is proof that genetic
    completeness, in and of itself, does not constitute personhood. The pro-lifer would then object -- entirely
    correctly -- that none of the above examples have the potential to grow into a person. Left alone, the zygote will naturally become a
    person. Please note that this is a switch of argument: the pro-life advocate is no longer claiming that genetic completeness is a sign of
    personhood, but that the potential to become a person is a sign of personhood. The zygote, of course, has a long way to go before
    becoming a functional person; it has none of the limbs, none of the organs, none of the central nervous system, none of the circulatory
    or respiratory systems; it is a single cell that contains the genetic blueprint of a future person. The pro-choice argument continues that
                                                 if A has the potential to become B, then it follows that
    a potential person is not an actual person. In other words,
    A is not B. An acorn is not an oak tree. You cannot climb the limbs of an acorn, build a tree-house
    in an acorn, or rest in the shade of an acorn. And you certainly are not chopping down a mighty
    oak tree by removing an acorn from the ground.<CONTINUED>
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                       73
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                              Hyde Amendment AFF

            Abortion Access Good – AT: Life Begins @ Conception
  <CONTINUED>
   Pro-life advocates attack this argument in three ways. The first is to publicize how quickly the embryo reaches its potential of a
  recognizably human form. Photographs of 8 to 12-week fetuses are crucial to their demonstrations. They emphasize -- with great
                                                                                                           What
  exaggeration -- that the central nervous system begins working at 20 days, the heart at 24 days, and brainwaves at 43 days.
  they don't tell you is that these are simply the first cells to maneuver themselves into place, and it
  will take months to construct these organs. Normally it takes until the 5th month of pregnancy
  before all the organs (except the brain and central nervous system) are completed, and by this time 99% of all
  abortions have already been performed. The brain and central nervous system are the fetus' most complex and longest
  running construction job, and will not be completed until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy. Interestingly, it is not until the 7th or 8th
  month of pregnancy that construction is complete enough for a fetus to survive premature birth. Although pro-life literature leaves the
  impression that the 8-week old fetus is marvelously complete, the fact is that it would die immediately upon premature birth, precisely
  due to its lack of completeness.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                 74
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                        Hyde Amendment AFF

                                          AT: Abortion PIC
Doesn’t solve any of our reproductive rights advantages

Doesn’t avoid the link – DHHS defines contraception as abortion.
Christina Page 7/16/ 2008 Journalist for Huffington Post “HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion”
 (http://newstrust.net/stories/23333 6/23/09)
In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday
released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order
to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of
Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws
prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services. In the
"Definitions" section of the HHS proposal it states, Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of
pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation's pregnancy experts, the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal,
however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling
data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there's no test to determine
if a woman's egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove
she's not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS' new science.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          75
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                          AT: Agent CPs

Doesn‟t solve eugenics – our use of the judiciary constrains biopower – the judiciary prevents the
state from establishing one ideology – highlighting the contrast of values is crucial to prevent
disciplinary power

Mendietta, Professor at SUNY at Stony Brook, 02 [Eduardo, ―To make live and to let die’ –Foucault on
Racism,‖ 4-25, http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/emendieta/articles/foucault.pdf]

Nonetheless, let me just offer the following synoptic overview of the lectures. The lectures dealt with:
First and foremost a retrospective look at what Foucault had been doing over the last five years, since he
had been elected to the College de France. This retrospective look sought to cull the conceptual elements
of the approach that have been used in works like the Archeology of Knowledge, and Discipline und
Punish. In the first two lectures, published in the 1980 volume edited by Colin Gordon,
Knowledge/Power, Foucault lays out his understanding of the relationship between archeology,
genealogy, and subjugated knowledges, on the one hand, and legitimate, official, and erudite forms of
knowledge on the other. Foucault also distinguished between two paradigms or forms of understanding
power. On one side we have what he calls the economicist form of power that attributes to the
sovereign a legitimate right that this then can exert upon subjects as a form of contract. The key
words of this representation of power are: right, law, and jurisprudence. This is the juridical idea of
power. On the other side we have what Foucault calls a disciplinary form of power, which is above
all anti-sovereign, and anti-judicial. It is a form of control that exerts force by normalizing, and
creating the conditions of surveillance that lead to subjects‟ docility. It is a form of power that is
diffused and does not act on individuals, but determines a horizon of action. It does not discipline, but
normalizes. It does not operate on juridical rules, or rights, but on norms and standards that refer
to a social technology. It is a power that emerges with the development of the human sciences, and in
particular the sciences of normalization. In this way, this power is not centralized, but diffused, not
owned, but anonymous, not exerted, but relayed and lived.




                                                                                                 2
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                76
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                       Hyde Amendment AFF

                                              AT: Coercion
The ‘incentives’ structure of the Hyde Amendment is government coercion
Tovah Miller November 2008 (graduated from William Smith in 2008 with a major in Religious Studies
and a minor in Sociology and Women’s Studies )(“Where do Morals and Politics Fit into Harris v.
McRae?”)June 26, 2009 http://www.publicaffairsjournal.com/?q=node/40
   The “incentives” that Congress established are, in fact, coercion, as there is no other option for
   women on Medicaid. By condoning the “incentives” that the Hyde Amendment and Congress
   present, the Court clearly established their personal views on abortion. Their collective interest in
   “protecting potential life” overshadows their interest in protecting the rights of women, no
   matter their economic status, to choose between a “purposeful termination of potential life” or
   childbirth. The Court is well aware that without federal funding, paying for a safe abortion is not
   an option for women on Medicaid.


Blocking abortion access means taxing the rest of society to help support raising the child
Joshua Stiffler 10/18/02 (“Abortion Good”)
http://media.www.deltacollegian.com/media/storage/paper320/news/2002/10/18/Opinion/Abortion.Is.Good-301031.shtml
   People are either for it or against it, abortion. We have all seen abortion clinics being picketed by
   right wing Christians and other hardcore lifers. Others have gone as far as bombing abortion
   clinics and even murdering doctors who carry out the procedures. If they truly follow religion,
   wouldn't they let God take care of these so-called "sinners"? Is an eye-for-an-eye in the Bible, I
   don't remember seeing it.
   Why do these people feel like they have to make decisions for everybody else? If they really
   wanted to do "good," wouldn't they just pray for the departing souls of these "unplanned
   mistakes"?
   And we have all heard the gruesome stories about how the baby is vacuumed out limb-by-limb,
   some with their little heart still beating. Let's think about it; if the baby is born to a mother who
   does not want it or can't afford to give it the nourishment it needs, why make society pay for this
   child?
   If the mother can't afford the baby, and she collects welfare or any other government aid, that is
   you, me, and every taxpayer in America paying for her mistake. When all that is needed is a $200-
   $250 operation at a local clinic, or getting a bottle of RU-486 from their doctor. At least I don't
   have to pay for it. And maybe while she is there she can pick up some condoms or get some
   education about how to not become pregnant in the future. If the Christian lifers want to save the
   children so badly, let them pay or pray for these kids, because I sure as hell don't want to.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                                                       77
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                                              Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                                            AT: Coercion
The Hyde Amendment is discriminatory and should be repealed to put the moral and religious choice
into the hands of the people directly affected by it.
ACLU 7/24/04 (American Civil Liberties Union, “Public Funding for Abortion”,
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/lowincome/16393res20040721.html, acc. 6/22/09)
   What is the Hyde Amendment? Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the
   comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through
   Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the
   federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a
   pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. Most states have
   followed the federal government's lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only seventeen states fund
   abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services.
   (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts
   interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for
   reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT,
   IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).2 Thirty-two of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-
   income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by
   federal Medicaid law.3 (A handful of these states pay as well in cases of fetal impairment or when the pregnancy threatens
   "severe" health problems, but none provides reimbursement for all medically necessary abortions for low-income women.) Finally,
   one state (SD) fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only
   for lifesaving abortions. Additional provisions adopted by Congress may further burden access to abortion services for Medicaid recipients, even those in
    states with nondiscriminatory funding. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, for example, permits health maintenance organizations (HMOs) serving Medicaid recipients to refuse to

                                                                                               even in states with
    cover counseling or referral for services, such as abortion, to which the HMO objects on moral or religious grounds. As a result,

    nondiscriminatory funding, women seeking abortions may face obstacles in even finding a
    provider. Who else is affected by the funding bans? By the early 1980s, Congress had passed restrictions similar to the Hyde
    Amendment affecting programs on which an estimated twenty million women rely for their health care or insurance. In addition
    to poor women on Medicaid, those denied access to federally funded abortion include Native
    Americans, federal employees and their dependents, Peace Corps volunteers, low-income
    residents of Washington, DC, federal prisoners, military personnel and their dependents, and
    disabled women who rely on Medicare. New health initiatives are likewise being burdened by the legacy of the Hyde Amendment. The
    Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a program providing expanded health insurance for children aged 19 or younger, includes a ban on the use of federal funds for
    abortions unless the pregnancy endangers the teenager's life or results from rape or incest. Why is it important that Congress repeal the Hyde Amendment and other bans on

                  The Hyde Amendment and other bans should be repealed because they are discriminatory and
    abortion funding?

    harm women's health. If a woman chooses to carry to term, Medicaid (and other federal insurance
    programs) offer her assistance for the necessary medical care. But if the same woman needs to
    end her pregnancy, Medicaid (and other federal insurance programs) will not provide coverage for her
    abortion, even if continuing the pregnancy will harm her health. The government should not
    discriminate in this way. It should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to
    carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she
    seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors. With
    these bans, the federal government turns its back on women who need abortions for their health. (continues…)
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                                                   78
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                                          Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                                       AT: Coercion
   (continues…) Women with cancer, diabetes, or heart conditions, or whose pregnancies
   otherwise threaten their health, are denied coverage for abortions. Only if a woman would otherwise die,
   or if her pregnancy results from rape or incest, is an abortion covered. The bans thus put many women's health in jeopardy. Does
   Medicaid pay for other reproductive health care? Yes.         Medicaid offers comprehensive reproductive health
   care, including family planning, prenatal care, and services related to childbirth. By singling out
   abortion for exclusion, politicians have attempted to impose their own choices on poor women.
   How have women on Medicaid paid for abortions since the Hyde Amendment? Federal funding restrictions have left
   some women on Medicaid little choice but to use money they need for food, rent, clothing, or
   other necessities to pay for an abortion. One study showed that nearly 60% of women on
   Medicaid were often forced to divert money that would otherwise be used to pay their daily
   and monthly expenses, such as rent, utility bills, food and clothing for themselves and their
   children. Some even resorted to pawning household goods to come up with the necessary cash.4 Many Medicaid-eligible women delay their abortions, increasing their
   medical risks, while they scrape funds together. Other women have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term or

   to seek illegal abortions. Studies have shown that from 18 to 35 percent of Medicaid-eligible
   women who want abortions, but who live in states that do not provide funding for abortion,
   have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term.5 Will it cost taxpayers money to fund abortions? No.
   Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs
   of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources
   from other services.6 What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion? Our tax dollars fund
   many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral
   or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on
   abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on
   government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding
   compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back
   where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision



Anti-abortion groups rely on government coercion and right wing takeover
SHARON SMITH, April 23, 2004(SHARON SMITH is a columnist for Socialist Worker and author of
Women's Liberation and Socialism, a new collection of essays that will be published by Haymarket
Books.)( “Abortion is every woman's right”) June 22, 2009 http://socialistworker.org/2004-
1/496/496_06_Abortion.shtml
   RIGHT-WING organizations with names such as the Moral Majority are neither morally superior,
   nor are they anywhere near the majority. They represent an extremely well-funded minority--
   with "friends" in high places, like Congress and the White House. To be sure, these right-wingers--
   including George W. Bush--couch their opposition to abortion with pious phrases praising "the
   sanctity of life" and the "sanctity of marriage." But they are hypocrites. Newt Gingrich, for
   example--a leading spokesperson for "the sanctity of marriage"--is now on his third. Their crusade
   is political, not moral. Morality is personal. Those who oppose abortion should be able to follow
   their own consciences--and at the same time allow other people to follow theirs. No one in the
   pro-choice movement has ever suggested that anyone personally opposed to abortion should be
   forced to have one. Yet the goal of the anti-abortion crusade is to impose--by law--a very
   conservative set of moral values on the rest of the population.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                          79
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                       AT: Congress CP
The perm solves best, increasing dialogue, coordination and efficiency
Katzmann in 97
[Robert, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Courts and Congress, p. 106]
   Communication between courts and Congress will not eliminate ten¬sions rooted in different
   institutional roles. But, at the very least, it can break down those groundless fears and suspicions that distance spawns. The
    multiplicity of circumstances and the interplay of a host of variables affecting judicial-congressional interaction suggest the peril of
    prescrib¬ing absolute rules governing communication-a series of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots." Rather than promulgate strict
    rules, the better course may be to weigh the advantages and disadvantages, costs and benefits, of different types of communication
                                                  presumption in favor of expanding contact under
    and to monitor and assess the effects of such exchanges. The
    appropriate conditions and continuing discussion among judges and legislators could have the
    practical effect of promoting not only the good faith upon which governance depends, but also
    the effective workings of government the Founders envisioned.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                           80
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                  Hyde Amendment AFF

                          AT: Constitutional Amendment CP
An amendment will be circumvented unless all judicial avenues have first been tried. Only the
permutation guarantees solvency.
Strauss, Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago, 2k1
*David, “The Irrelevance of Constitutional Amendments,” Harvard Law Review, March 2001, l/n]

It does not follow that, owing to some kind of historical necessity, formal amendments cannot ever
cause important changes. Rather the point is that the formal amendment process will be the means of
significant change only in certain limited circumstances that hardly ever occur in a mature society. In
particular, three conditions must be present for the amendment process to make a difference.

 [*1464] First, a formal supermajoritarian amendment process is unlikely to be an important means of
change unless the other usual means of change, such as legislation and judicial interpretation, are
unavailable for some reason. 13 If other means of change are available, they will probably have effected
the change to a significant degree before a supermajority can be assembled to amend the Constitution.

Second, a formal amendment process is likely to make a difference only when the supermajority that
adopts the amendment is a temporary one that was assembled even though society had not
fundamentally changed. Deep, enduring changes in society will find some way to establish themselves
with or without a formal amendment - if not through legislation or changes in the composition of the
courts, then through changes in private behavior. The formal amendment process will have its most
significant effect when the supermajority sentiment does not persist.

Finally, for an amendment to matter, it must be unusually difficult to evade. An amendment that
specifies a precise rule, for example, is more likely to have an effect than one that establishes only a
relatively vague norm. If its text is at all imprecise, an amendment that is adopted at the high-water
mark of public sentiment will be prone to narrow construction or outright evasion once public
sentiment recedes, as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were.

If all these circumstances occur together, a temporary supermajority's ability to adopt a formal
amendment might bring about a permanent change that would not have occurred without the formal
amendment. But this confluence of conditions is unlikely to happen very often. I suggest below one
instance in which it might have happened - the Twenty-second Amendment, which limits presidents to
two terms. Even that example is not entirely clear. But that may be the only occasion since the early
days of the Republic when the formal amendment process seems to have made a substantial difference.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                        81
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                         AT: Constitutional Amendment CP
There is no solvency for the CP without the perm – amendments are only effective if
consensus already exists.
Strauss, Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago, 2k1
*David, “The Irrelevance of Constitutional Amendments,” Harvard Law Review, March 2001, l/n+

There is great appeal to the idea that the written Constitution is the authentic voice of the People on
matters of fundamental principle. [*1505] But however true this idea was for the original Constitution
and its early amendments, it presents a misleading picture of the constitutional development of the
mature Republic. The fundamental changes in the constitutional order have occurred by means other
than the amendment process. They have occurred without amendments, despite the rejection of
amendments, or in ways that made amendments only incidentally important.

Formal amendments do help to settle matters that have to be settled one way or another. In addition,
formal amendments serve the function of mopping up pockets of resistance to a national consensus,
making what otherwise would be merely a dominant rule into the universal rule. But except for these
two limited functions - which the system might have found other ways to accomplish even in the
absence of a formal amendment process - our constitutional order would look little different if a
formal amendment process did not exist.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                             82
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                    Hyde Amendment AFF

                             AT: Constitutional Amendment
The NEG is in a double bind, either the amendment is popular in which case there is no
reason that the plan would cost the SCOTUS capital or it isn’t popular and the amendment
will be circumvented.
Strauss, Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago, 2k1
*David, “The Irrelevance of Constitutional Amendments,” Harvard Law Review, March 2001, l/n+

As a result, by the time an Article V supermajority is galvanized into action, chances are good that
much of society has already changed by one of these other means. And if a formal amendment
process were unavailable, society would find another way to enforce the change it has determined to
make - by legislation and judicial interpretation, or by alterations in social understandings and private
sector behavior. The change might not be accomplished as neatly or as decisively; outliers might not be
brought into line as quickly, for example. But relatively speaking, that is a detail. Those other
institutions - not supermajoritarian constitutional amendments - will be the truly important means of
constitutional change. This explains why, when [*1463] society has changed enough to produce a
supermajority in favor of a formal amendment, the amendment is probably unnecessary.

One cannot, however, just say simplistically that any set of political forces strong enough to bring about
a constitutional amendment is strong enough to change society in some other way, because that is not
always true. A supermajority might act, and adopt an amendment, even if society has not
fundamentally changed. An amendment might represent a momentary high-water mark of popular
sentiment on a question, or an effective effort by an interest group at the height of its power to secure
its position. 11 At a later time, many people, even a majority, might decide that the amendment was a
mistake - but there it is, entrenched in the Constitution.

On these occasions the formal amendment will be relatively insignificant for a different reason. When
there is no lasting social consensus behind a textual amendment, the change in the text of the
Constitution is unlikely to make a lasting difference - at least if it seeks to affect society in an important
way - unless society changes in the way that the amendment envisions. Until that happens, the
amendment is likely to be evaded, or interpreted in a way that blunts its effectiveness. This is, in a
sense, the other side of the fact that a mature society has a variety of institutions, in addition to the text
of the Constitution, that can affect how the society operates. Those institutions can change society
without changing the Constitution; but they can also keep society basically the same - perhaps with
some struggle, but still basically the same - even if the text of the Constitution changes. This was, most
notoriously, the story of the Fourteenth and, especially, the Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth
Amendment was somewhat effective in the short run, but within a generation it had been reduced to
a nullity in the South. 12
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                       83
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                              Hyde Amendment AFF

                            AT: CPs – Medicaid S Deficit
Medicaid funding is very critical.
ADA „03 (American Dental Association) Insurance: Medicare & Medicaid 06/23/2009
UNT Library
http://www.ada.org/public/manage/insurance/medicare.asp

  Medicaid is facing a funding crisis for the following reasons: Costs associated with the program
  (particularly prescription drug costs) continue to rise. During more lucrative years, some states
  looked to Medicaid as a way to expand health coverage for the working poor and others
  without access to health insurance, expanding eligibility criteria. During economic downturns
  more individuals become eligible thereby increasing demands for funding and services. The
  growing population of people in need of long-term care is another reason for the Medicaid
  funding crisis. As a result of the funding crisis, several critical health programs are being
  reduced or eliminated, provider reimbursement rates are being frozen, and program eligibility is
  also being adjusted. Dental benefits have been a target, 17 states are reducing or eliminating
  adult dental benefits in 2002-2003 (as of February 2003).

Abortion is included in Medicaid and is important due to reproductive rights
PPAC (Planned Parenthood Action Center) 06/2009 Medicaid and Reproductive Rights
06/23/2009 UNT Library
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nyc/images/NewYorkCity/Medicaid_CV.pdf

  Medicaid and all public insurance programs are the first step in providing health insurance to
  women and their families, men and adolescents. More and more working people are uninsured
  and constitute the vast majority of those who are currently covered by Medicaid. We need to
  make sure that applying and maintaining coverage is as easy as possible for all people. First,
  Medicaid is the largest payer of insurance services in New York State. Medicaid pays for 52% of
  all births and covers about 15% of all women of reproductive age. Second, reproductive health
  services are an essential part of staying healthy. Every woman and adolescent should have
  coverage for birth control, STI screening and treatment, HIV counseling and testing and abortion
  services. No woman should have to forgo preventive care like Pap smears, mammograms,
  contraception and care for their children. This is particularly true for women and families who
  have limited means and can't afford to miss ongoing preventive care and urgent care when
  needed.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          84
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                 AT: Gag Rule Removal S
Hyde Amendment is key – outweighs other restrictions
Stevens 5/8/07 (Allison Stevens, Washington Bureau Chief, “Do Low-Income Women Have a Right to
Choose?”, The American Prospect,
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=do_lowincome_women_have_a_right_to_choose, acc.
6/22/09)
   In March, a 14-year-old girl in foster care walked into a reproductive health clinic in Washington,
   D.C., seeking an abortion. She was HIV-positive, on dialysis because of kidney failure, and recently
   had spent time in a psychiatric ward after trying to commit suicide. Even though the girl could not
   afford the abortion she so badly wanted, she was able to get it thanks to funds provided by
   private donors. But for millions of other low-income girls and women seeking abortions, the
   money hasn't been there. That is the intended result of a 31-year-old law known as the Hyde
   Amendment, which bars the federal government from funding most abortions through
   Medicaid. Over the past three decades, states have followed suit: Currently, 33 states ban the use
   of state funds for abortion except in limited circumstances. This obscure law poses the single
   greatest barrier to abortion, reproductive rights advocates say. At an average cost of $370 at 10
   weeks gestation (not including attendant expenses related to transportation, accommodation,
   and child care), abortion is often too expensive for low-income women. More than 7 million
   women of reproductive age are enrolled in Medicaid, and the average salary for a family of
   three is $930 a month, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That leaves little extra for
   anything other than basic necessities like rent, utilities, food, child care, and transportation.
   Finding the money to cover an unplanned expense like an abortion can be an insurmountable
   task. It is impossible to count the number of girls and women who have proceeded with
   unwanted pregnancies since the ban was enacted three decades ago, but studies conclude that
   between 18 and 35 percent of women on Medicaid who would have had abortions if government
   funding were available -- at least 64,000 women a year, according to a conservative estimate --
   instead carried their pregnancies to term. The 64,000 figure does not account for women who live
   in states that do cover abortion but who do not qualify for Medicaid or cannot afford related
   expenses like transportation and child care. In terms of sheer numbers, the impact of the ban is
   far greater than that caused by other restrictions, such as parental consent requirements,
   mandatory waiting periods and counseling laws, according to Heather Boonstra, a senior public
   policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                        85
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                               AT: Politics – Plan Popular
Midterm elections served as a referendum on reproductive rights – plan immensely popular
Pollock, 1-28-2k7
[Lisa N., Patriot News (Harrisbury Pennsylvania), l/n]
Thirty-four years after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade remains a powerful
reminder that Americans don't want politicians interfering in our private, family health care decisions.

In the recent midterm elections, voters nationwide rejected extremist policies and politicians -- and
defeated dangerous abortion bans and restrictions that threatened women and teens' health and
safety.

On behalf of the millions of women, men and teens Planned Parenthood serves every year, we urge
elected representatives to champion a prevention-first health care agenda that ensures that all people
have access to the information and services we need to stay healthy, put prevention first and plan
healthy, wanted pregnancies.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                            86
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                   Hyde Amendment AFF

                                 AT: Politics – Plan Popular
Abortion restrictions soundly defeated throughout the nation – plan’s popular
Daily News, 2k6
[Lenore Skenazy, November 12, l/n]
If the law is upheld, a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy even for medical reasons could be
forced to have a type of abortion that's less safe. That's right. She'd still have the abortion, but her own
health, or even (talk about ironic!) her fertility, could be imperiled. The law takes medical decisions
hitherto made by a patient and her doctor and hands them over to politicians.

Which is precisely where America does not wish them to be, as Tuesday's results attest.

In South Dakota, please recall, the voters had a chance to outlaw all abortions, except to save a
woman's life. They declined this opportunity.

In California and Oregon, referendums would have forced teens to notify their parents before they
could get an abortion. The voters decided these curbs weren't necessary.

And in Pennsylvania, Sen. Rick Santorum (R), the very man who sponsored the partial-birth abortion
bill, got the boot. But not before his law passed.

The federal district courts struck it down for two reasons:

First, because the term "partial-birth" does not exist in medical literature - it's just a political
catchphrase. Doctors don't know exactly what it refers to. Without strict guidelines, some worried that
performing almost any second- or third-trimester abortion would be breaking the law. And so it had a
chilling effect.

Second, as discussed, there was no exception for the health of the mother. If this was an oversight, it
seems like a rather big one. If it wasn't an oversight, that's worse. It would mean that Congress and the
President really didn't care about women.

Voters do. What they don't care for are laws, and lawmakers, ready to thwart a woman's right to an
abortion that is legal and, above all, safe.

Let's hope the men (and lone woman) on the Supreme Court take heed.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          87
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                    AT: Politics – Plan Avoids Partisan Debate
Democrats will avoid partisan debate, and transform the debate resulting from the decision
to energize family planning legislation meant to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions
Murrary, 1-21-2k7
[Shailagh, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 21, A05, l/n]
Eager to avoid a resumption of the culture wars, the new Democratic leaders are trying to tiptoe
around the abortion issue by promoting legislation to encourage birth control and assist women who
decide to proceed with unwanted pregnancies.

Democrats acknowledge that they alienated many social conservatives and churchgoing voters during
years of combat with Republicans over the explosive issue of reproductive rights, and they want to
change their emphasis to woo some of those voters back into the fold.

On the opening day of the 110th Congress on Jan. 4, for instance, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid
(D-Nev.), an abortion foe, introduced a bill to increase funding for family planning and to improve access
to emergency contraception. The measure has been endorsed by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a
champion of abortion rights, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), a leading Democratic presidential
prospect.

These and other initiatives are a far cry from previous Democratic efforts that drew strong
conservative opposition, including funding for abortions for women in the military serving overseas and
U.N. family-planning programs in Third World countries.

"There are few more divisive issues in America today than abortion, but there is an opportunity to
find common ground if we are willing to join together and seize it," Reid said recently. "The rate of
unintended pregnancies is unacceptably high." Legislation such as his, he added, "can reduce the
number of unintended pregnancies and the resulting abortions in America today."
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          88
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                    AT: Politics – Plan Avoids Partisan Debate
Democrats and Republicans will not use abortion as a “wedge issue” in the new term
Mulligan, 2k7
[John E., The Providence Journal, January 23, Pg. A-01, l/n]
Despite the stronger hand of abortion-rights supporters in the new Congress, however, the rollback of
existing restrictions on abortion is not among the early priorities of the new Democratic leadership.

"The climate has changed" on abortion since last year's elections, with both supporters and opponents
of abortion rights less likely to use it as "a wedge issue" to appeal to their political base, said Rep.
Patrick J. Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat.

Therefore, said Kennedy, the new Congress is unlikely to repeal one of the most durable
accomplishments of the antiabortion movement, a ban on the use of federal subsidies for abortion
through such programs as Medicaid. "I believe that Nancy Pelosi is determined to be a speaker for the
middle" of the political spectrum, Kennedy said. He noted that the California Democrat now presides
over a partisan majority in large part because politically moderate Democrats defeated Republicans last
fall.

By the same token, efforts to restrict abortion further appear highly unlikely to succeed in this
Congress, according to Kennedy, Whitehouse, Sen. Jack Reed, and Rep. James R. Langevin.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                        89
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                          AT: Politics – Plan  Cooperation
Plan will breed more cooperation on initiatives rather than partisanship
Murrary, 1-21-2k7
[Shailagh, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 21, A05, l/n]
In the House, Reps. Tim Ryan (Ohio), a Democrat who opposes abortion, and Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), a
member of the Democratic leadership who supports abortion rights, are backing measures to make
contraception easier to obtain, while providing aid to women who proceed with unintended
pregnancies. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) helped smooth the path for the Ryan-DeLauro bill,
and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the fourth-ranking House Democrat, is a cosponsor. "This is something
that Democrats are really into," Emanuel said.

At least four similar bills are circulating. Antiabortion Democrats who are reluctant to promote
contraception use are backing a more limited effort to help pregnant women and single mothers.

"You're going to see a change in the tone of the debate, and a move toward more solutions, rather
than the divisiveness," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion
rights group that signed on early to the prevention agenda. "What we're going to see in this Congress is
some problem-solving."
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                        90
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                         AT: Politics – Plan  Cooperation
The plan leads to more cooperation with people on both sides of the debate to lower the
number of unintended pregnancies
Murrary, 1-21-2k7
[Shailagh, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 21, A05, l/n]
Democrats hope their proposals for preventing unwanted pregnancies will become a bridge within the
party and even across the aisle to some Republicans, a way to reconcile moral reservations with legal
rights.

Third Way, a moderate Democratic policy group, coined the term "abortion grays" to define the nearly
two-thirds of voters who hold mixed views on the subject. Rachel Laser, Third Way's abortion expert,
has counseled numerous Democratic candidates and lawmakers on prevention rhetoric. In a poll the
group commissioned last summer, 69 percent of voters said they supported the goal of reducing the
number of abortions "while still preserving the basic right to have one."

And yet Democrats have been reluctant even to mention abortion in recent years. Laser reviewed
Senate Web sites and found that Democratic members used the word fewer than 350 times, while
Republicans raised the issue 1,900 times. Democrats "also are prone to make conflicting statements
about abortion or to couple their pro-choice voting records with a statement professing their personal
opposition to abortion," one of her Third Way memos said. "This comes across as defensive, confusing
and disingenuous."

The Reid bill, sponsored in the House by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), would increase funds for
family-planning services, ensure contraception equity in health insurance plans and improve access to
emergency contraception. The Ryan-DeLauro legislation would expand access to contraception, fund
sex-education programs, improve health-care access for low-income women and children, and extend
adoption tax credits.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                        91
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                         AT: Politics – Plan  Cooperation
Plan allows Democrats to advance legislation in Congress to reduce unwanted pregnancies
which helps them attract abortion “gray” voters
Murrary, 1-21-2k7
   [Shailagh, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 21, A05, l/n]
During the past decade of Republican rule, Congress became a battleground for opposing forces in the
abortion debate. Nearly 150 bills and amendments have been offered with the aim of restricting the
procedure. Democrats and pro-abortion-rights Republicans blocked most of those measures, but in
the process they alienated a vital group of voters -- religious moderates who support, in principle, the
Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide but who are morally squeamish
about terminating pregnancies.

Now Democrats are seeking to reach these "abortion grays" through their own legislative proposals,
all focused on preventing unwanted pregnancies. The initiatives, including several in development for
more than a year, represent an attempt to broaden the discussion beyond the traditional framework
of whether abortion should be legal. By recasting their approach, Democrats hope to appeal to
"grays" in suburban areas and Midwestern towns who have voted Republican in recent elections.

"We believe deeply that we can do better than we're doing in our country when it comes to
preventing unintended pregnancies and helping to support mothers and children," Clinton said in
announcing her support for Reid's initiative.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          92
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                                    AT: State Courts CP
State court decisions face a unique risk of immediate overrule – federal decisions are more
durable
Kozlowski, Visiting Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, 2003 [Mark, The
Myth of the Imperial Judiciary: Why the Right is Wrong About Courts¸ p. 122-123]

   This has remained a frequent theme among liberal commentators. Thus, the law professor Robert
   Shapiro has written recently that "[a]t a time when federal courts generally take a narrow view of
   individual rights--a far cry from the expansive vision of the 1960s and '70s-state courts have
   provided a significant alternative avenue for relief!'" But Shapiro is also well aware of the
   substantial limits faced by a strategy of rights expansion based on state courts. He notes first
   that, to a far greater extent than federal court decisions, state supreme court decisions are
   subject to being overruled by constitutional amendment:

   The cumbersome amendment process written into the U.S. Constitution makes that document
   relatively impervious to change. In more than two hundred years, the Constitution has been
   amended only twenty-seven times. State constitutions, in contrast, are much more subject to
   revision. They have, on average, been amended more than one hundred times each-some far
   more than that.... If people are outraged by a decision granting a right under a state
   constitution, their response might be to try to change the constitution. When the Hawaii
   supreme court indicated that it might recognize a right to same-sex marriage, for example, the
   voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to ban such unions. 3o

   The facts on the ease with which state constitutions may be amended are stunning. "In forty-
   four states, only a simple majority vote in a referendum is required to ratify proposed
   amendments. . . . In addition, in eighteen states voters can propose constitutional
   amendments directly, with thirteen permitting ratification of those proposals by a simple
   majority of those voting on the measure." 31 Kermit Hall has summarized what state
   constitutional pliability has meant over the course of our history:

   There have been 239 separate constitutional conventions, and since the beginning of the
   republic there has never been a three-year period in which at least one state constitutional
   convention or, more recently, a constitutional revision commission has not met. Since 1776 the
   fifty states have operated under no fewer than 146 constitutions and thirty-one of the fifty
   states have had two or more constitutions. Eighteen states have had four or more
   constitutions, with Louisiana topping the list with eleven.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                    93
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                           Hyde Amendment AFF

                                          AT: State Courts CP

Federal courts are better agents for change – state judges face retribution for controversial
decisions, making them ineffective agents for controversial decisions
Kozlowski, Visiting Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, 2003 [Mark, The
Myth of the Imperial Judiciary: Why the Right is Wrong About Courts¸ p. 122-123]

But perhaps most significant of all is the fact that state judges enjoy less insulation from politics than
their federal counterparts. Unlike federal judges, who are appointed for life, most state judges are
subject to regular electoral review. State judges associated with controversial rulings have found
themselves the victims of retribution. A particularly spectacular purge came in California in 1986 when voters
removed three state supreme court justices, largely because of decisions overturning death sentences. It is hard
for a state judge to miss the message: unpopular rulings may cost you your job. In the words of Otto Kaus, a
former justice on the California Supreme Court, for a state judge to try to ignore the political con -sequences of a
                                                                 38
decision is like trying to ignore "a crocodile in your bathtub."
As we discuss in more detail in chapter 6, since 87 percent of state judges face some form of election, this
is a very potent obstacle indeed. It is be-coming even more so lately, as judicial elections are coming
to resemble more and more elections generally, complete with big money contributors and attack
ads. It suffices for now to say that to the extent that judges are subject to the same incentives as legislators with
respect to attaining and continuing in office, they will likely feel correspondingly less inclined to advance
the interests of politically unpopular minorities.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                    94
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                           Hyde Amendment AFF

                                          AT: State Courts CP
NO SOLVENCY and TURN – States do not act as one collective unit – states have opened and
restricted access to abortion following case –forcing one size fits all states policy change jacks
that right
Segers and Byrnes in 95
[Mary C. Segers. Professor of Political Science and Department Chair at Rutgers University and TIMOTHY A. BYRNES
is Professor of Political Science at Colgate University, Abortion Politics in American States, p. 247]

The first and clearest conclusion we can draw from reviewing our representative sample of cases is
that the politics and law of abortion in America differ tremendously from state to state. In clear,
emphatic detail, the case studies reveal the different policies that states have adopted toward abortion and the
very different processes that have produced those policies. Most obviously, some states have tried to restrict
access to abortion after Webster and Casey and others have not. Louisiana and Pennsylvania, to cite the two
clearest examples, took the Supreme Court's decisions as invitations to curtail sharply the availability of abortion in
their borders. Washington and Maryland, in contrast, took the decisions as portents of the future and acted to
insulate women in their states from further erosions of federal abortion rights in the future. In whatever
direction a given state moved, it is indisputable that states now have more freedom to regulate _abortion than
they had before 1989 and that states are acting on this freedom to frame policies that fit most
comfortably with their particular historical, social, and political circumstances.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                        95
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF


                                         AT: States CP
Federal government is key – it provides Medicaid funding to the states – the states can’t fund
due to budget crises
National Abortion Federation 2005 Public Funding for Abortion: Medicaid and the
Hyde Amendment “Medicaid Spending”
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
   Medicaid is the largest form of aid to the states from the federal government, comprising 43%
   of all federal grants. As the national economy has worsened, state tax revenue has lessened and
   health care costs have continued to rise. This resulted in more people eligible for Medicaid. This
   has placed pressure on states to control Medicaid costs, typically the second-largest budget
   expenditure. The federal government is also looking at scaling back Medicaid funding, and the
   Bush administration has proposed to reduce Medicaid spending by $35 billion over the next ten
   years. These cuts will especially impact women.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                        96
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                               Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                  AT: Sub Silentio CP
Your counterplan is too tricky – lower courts are still duty bound to follow precedent that
hasn’t been explicitly overruled, which means your counterplan can’t solve
Texas Supreme Court, 05
*“Cheryl J. Hopwood, et al. v. State of Texas, et al., No. 94-50569 and 94-50664,”
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/hopwood/dissent.htm]
   [A]bsent clear indications from the Supreme Court itself, lower courts should not lightly assume
   that a prior decision has been overruled sub silentio merely because its reasoning and result
   appear inconsistent with later cases. As [the district court] pointed out . . . the Court issued a reminder to this effect
   only a few years ago in Rodriquez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989):
   "If a precedent of [the Supreme] Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on
   reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case
   which directly controls, leaving to [the Supreme] Court the prerogative of overruling its own
   decisions." Id. at 484-85, 109 S.Ct. at 1921-22; see also id. at 486, 109 S.Ct. at 1923 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (describing ant
   icipatory overruling as "an indefensible brand of judicial activism") . . . In these circumstances, our role as an inferior court
   counsels restraint, even if the result otherwise appears inescapable.

Empirically proven – U.S. v. Carolina and Griggs
People for the American Way, 05
*“Committee Hearing Reinforces Case that Terrence Boyle is Unfit for Promotion to the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals,” http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_525.pdf]
   While it would certainly be proper for a judge to cite Griggs as the source of a commitment to upholding disparate impact analysis, it
                                          United States v. North Carolina – the very case Senator
   was an odd choice for Boyle. That is because in
   Feingold asked about – Boyle held that that the Supreme Court had actually overruled Griggs
   sub silentio (silently).Recognizing that this is not only an incorrect reading of the Supreme Court’s
   disparate impact cases, but also that it is odd to suggest that the Supreme Court could or would
   overrule its own precedent sub silentio, Senator Feinstein asked Boyle to elaborate on this claim. In his answer, Boyle
   contradicted and greatly watered down his statement in United States v. North Carolina, now claiming that his opinion merely stated
   that “the Supreme Court itself has limited its holding in Griggs through its own subsequent opinions.”43 Despite his attempt to make it
   seem as though this was his intent all along, saying the Court “limited its holding” is a far cry from the actual language of his opinion,
   which stated flatly that “the Supreme Court has overruled Griggs sub silentio.”44 Citing his allegiance to Griggs as proof that he will
   uphold disparate impact analysis was not only an odd choice, but one that also offered little reassurance to those seeking to ensure
   disparate impact analysis would be recognized properly by Boyle on the Fourth Circuit.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                         97
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

                                                   AT: Sub Silentio CP
Empirically proven sub silentio delays a party’s day in court
Supreme Court of Alabama, 04
*“In re: Katie Lowery et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc., et al.,”
http://www.bradleyarant.com/publications_opinions.cfm?ID=3316]
    Without a specific request to overrule prior precedent in a setting where no argument can be
    made that the precedent has already been overruled sub silentio by previous decisions, a court
    taking such action sua sponte cuts off an adverse party’s right to have the court consider the
    important subordinate question—assuming the precedent was wrongly decided, whether stare
    decisis requires adherence to it. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 703 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“We
    have not been asked by respondent to overrule Feres [v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950)], and so need not resolve whether
    considerations of stare decisis should induce us, despite the plain error of the case, to leave bad enough alone.”). Therefore, I must
    concur in the result.


This is deadly in the context of health operations – this turns the counterplan
Caminker, Prof of Law at UCLA, 94
*“Why Must Inferior Courts Obey Superior Court Precedents?” April, 1994, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 817, p. Lexis+
In certain contexts, an immediate victory is crucial; delay undercuts or even completely erases the
benefits of victory, as in suits brought by a person dying of AIDS seeking reinstatement to employment
or by a person seeking to run for office challenging a statute precluding late entry of candidates.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                   98
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                          Hyde Amendment AFF

                         AT: T – „For People Living in Poverty‟
Hyde Amendment disproportionately targets poor and minority women
Gresens( NOW Publis Policy intern; sources also included the National Abortion Federation, Protect the
Women, and the 9/15/06 action sheet of the Protect Medicaid Campaign) 10/9/06
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/10-09-06hyde.html
   October marks the 30th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, the legislative doctrine used to control the
   reproductive lives and limit the health care options of poor women. Passed by Congress every year since
   1976, the current version (of the Hyde Amendment) denies federal coverage for abortion, except in
   cases of incest, rape or life endangerment, but without any exception to preserve the woman's health.
   The National Organization for Women fought the Hyde Amendment when it was introduced, and
   continues to do so, decrying the class-based system of health care that this amendment exacerbates.
   The Hyde Amendment routinely denies access to safe and legal abortion for women,
   disproportionately women of color, who depend on government health coverage. According to NOW
   President Kim Gandy, "For 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has denied poor women their
   constitutional right to abortion as a health care option, and for 30 years it has marginalized abortion
   care instead of recognizing it as a safe, legal and vital part of all women's health care. Thirty years of
   this repression and discrimination have caused untold suffering and death; the Hyde Amendment
   must be repealed." The Hyde Amendment denies federal funding for abortions that do not fit its narrow
   criteria, and places the financial burden on already-tight state Medicaid budgets, in effect encouraging states
   not to expand abortion coverage. Currently, more than half of the states provide no additional funding,
   according to the National Abortion Federation, which notes that only South Dakota provides less coverage
   than the Hyde Amendment, even refusing funding for abortion services in cases of incest and rape. And, no
   matter how expansive or restrictive the state laws are, women seeking federal funding for pregnancy
   termination are often obstructed by misinformation and administrative barriers that prevent them from
   receiving timely access to the abortion procedure. Hyde Policy is Counter-Productive, Harmful
   Because it creates a barrier to women's access to abortion services, a right that women with financial
   means are able to utilize, the Hyde amendment is unjustly harmful to the health of poor and low-
   income women by burdening access to otherwise safe and legal medical procedures. The risk of
   complication increases the later an induced abortion is performed, so administrative delays imposed
   on women decrease the safety of abortion procedures by forcing women to wait until later in
   pregnancy to receive necessary funding. Furthermore, women who cannot pay for abortion services
   may be forced to choose a self-induced or illegal, life-threatening abortion. For those low-income
   women who do not seek such desperate measures, the amendment effectively forces them to carry
   unwanted pregnancies to term. Since the amendment's enactment, the Guttmacher Institute has found that
   20-35 percent of women eligible under Medicaid who would choose abortion have carried their pregnancies
   to term due to lack of personal financial means and the absence of state funding. The right to reproductive
   health care necessitates that women have equal access to all care, including abortion, regardless of
   their economic means or the specific circumstances of their pregnancies. Since 12 million women of
   reproductive age are covered under Medicaid, the current Hyde Amendment compromises millions of
   women's right to abortion access and routinely puts their health and lives at risk. Furthermore, the
   Amendment specifically targets women of low economic status, effectively blocking their
   Constitutional right to reproductive options and invading their privacy. As a result, the Amendment
   further politicizes abortion care, instead of recognizing it as a fundamental component of reproductive and
   family planning health care. In order to achieve complete reproductive equality that has been constitutionally
   guaranteed to all women for more than three decades, NOW urges that the Hyde Amendment be repealed.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                          99
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                 Hyde Amendment AFF

                       AT: T – „For People Living in Poverty‟
Hyde amendment targets the poor
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, 1/N/A/04. (Latinas and Abortion Access, National
Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, http://www.latinainstitute.org/pdf/AbortionIssueBrief.pdf,
Accessed 6/22/09)
   The Hyde Amendment, which passed in 1977, prohibits the use of all federal funds for abortion
   services, making it impossible for millions of low income women to access abortions. Currently,
   federal funding for abortion is only available in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. These
   restrictions have had a long lasting, chilling effect on the ability of Latinas to access abortion.
   While a handful of states use their own funds to provide abortions for low-income women, the
   majority do not. The first women reported to have died as a direct result of the Hyde Amendment
   was Rosie Jimenez, a young Latina who resorted to an unsafe abortion because she did not have
   the means to pay for the procedure. Without health insurance and without federal funding for
   abortions, Latinas consistently face reduced access to abortion services. To this day, Latinas are
   disproportionately affected by economic limitations on access to abortions and other
   reproductive health systems.

Hyde Amendment does not Allow Abortions for Low-income Women
ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, 7-21-2004 “Public Funding for Abortion”
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/ lowincome/16393res 20040721.html 6-23-2009
   Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the
   comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal
   government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban,
   which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates
   abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life
   is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.



The Hyde Amendment Denies Low-income Women Necessary Health Care
NAF, National Abortion Federation, 2006 “Public Funding for Abortion: Medicaid and the Hyde
Amendment” http://www.prochoice. org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html 6-23-2009
  The Hyde Amendment marginalizes and stigmatizes abortion care rather than
  recognizing it as an essential component of women's health, and denies low-income
  women basic reproductive health care. The Hyde Amendment is reauthorized each year
  under appropriations bills for the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human
  Services. The current restrictive version of the Hyde Amendment does not provide coverage
  for abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities, or health exceptions apart from life-
  threatening conditions. Removing funding restrictions for abortion care is an integral step
  in ensuring that abortion remains safe, legal, and accessible. American women have
  had the legal right to choose abortion for more than thirty years. To achieve reproductive
  equality for all women, restrictive barriers such as the Hyde Amendment must be
  removed.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                        100
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

                                AT: T – „For People Living in Poverty‟
The Hyde Amendment is unfair towards poorer women
David S. Cohen Jan. 5, 2009 (The writer is an associate professor at the Drexel University Earle Mack School of Law and a board
member of the Women's Medical Fund in Philadelphia. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/resu
lts/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6823157479&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T68231
57484&cisb=22_T6823157483&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=10; June 23, 2009; editorial response)


Your article is an excellent reminder of the struggles facing poor women who seek basic reproductive health care in this country.   Because
of a law called the Hyde Amendment, which was first enacted in 1976 and renewed each year since, women on Medicaid are
not covered for the cost of an abortion. Unlike other basic health needs for men and women, this procedure, which nearly
one-third of all women in the United States will have by the end of their reproductive years, is specifically carved out of coverage. For poor
women in Washington Heights, paying $30 for a risky and illegal drug is much more realistic than paying
several hundred dollars (or much more) for a legal abortion out of their own pockets. If President-elect Barack
Obama is serious about improving the health of poor women, one of his first agenda items should be the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. In
the meantime, poor women will, at best, turn to private assistance through local abortion funds, or, at worst, turn to risky medicine that is the
modern equivalent of the back-alley abortion. Philadelphia,


Abortion is expensive
Melanie Zurek Silvia Henriquez Jan. 6, 2009 (executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6823157479&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVA
NCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6823157484&cisb=22_T6823157483&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=10, June 23)
In your article, abortion is called ''safe, legal and inexpensive.'' While this common procedure is safe and is mostly legal, despite aggressive
regulation, it is not inexpensive. An abortion at 10 weeks' gestation costs $523 on average, often out of pocket. To
term this ''inexpensive,'' especially in the current economy, is ludicrous. Many women struggle to raise the money for an abortion as their
                Sixty-seven percent of poor women having an abortion report that they would have
pregnancy progresses.
preferred to have an earlier procedure. Regarding abortion's ''widespread availability,'' that is perhaps true for some in New
York, but not for all women. Self-induced abortion does raise questions about women's experience, but glossing over the challenges of gaining
access to abortion services does nothing to answer these questions. It neither reflects the reality of abortion delivery nor the reality of women's
lives. Cambridge, Mass.,
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                   101
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                           Hyde Amendment AFF

                                 AT: T – „Substantially‟
Medicaid is the number one program affected by the Hyde Amendment – effects 7mn ppl
Heather D. Boonstra, 2007, ( “The Heart of the Matter: Public Funding of Abortion for Women in the
United States,” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/1/gpr100112.html/ Vol. 10) 6/23/2009
Guttmacher Policy Review, UNT Library, Winter 2007
   This year marks the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court
   decision that provided constitutional protection for abortion. In its 7-2 ruling, the
   Supreme Court recognized a woman’s constitutional right to decide, in consultation with
   her physician, whether to terminate a pregnancy. This year also marks the 30th
   anniversary of the implementation of the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding
   for abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances. Named after longtime Rep. Henry
   Hyde (R-IL), who retired in 2006, the measure primarily affects Medicaid, the joint
   federal-state program that finances the provision of health services to eligible Americans
   deemed too poor to afford care on their own. More than seven million women of
   reproductive age—12% of all U.S. women in that age-group—are enrolled in the
   Medicaid program. Medicaid enrollees are the poorest of poor Americans. For a woman
   to qualify, she must have an income below the very low eligibility ceiling set by her state.
   State income eligibility ceilings range as low as 18% of the federal poverty level in
   Arkansas and average 65% of poverty. That average translates to an annual income of
   $11,160, or roughly $930 per month for a family of three. Nearly four in 10 poor women
   of reproductive age are covered under Medicaid (related article, page 24). Most of these
   women are either pregnant or already a parent, as childless adults are typically ineligible
   at any income. As the average cost of an abortion at 10 weeks' gestation is $370, a poor
   woman with children who decides to have an abortion is likely to have very little left to
   survive on that month.
      Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                                                                        102
      Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                                                                Hyde Amendment AFF

                                     AT: Women Still Have Abortion Access
The Hyde Amendment effectively denies access –
Marshall, Thurgood. Served as a judge on the supreme court. 1980. (Dissenting Opinion.
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=50)
      The consequences of today’s opinion—consequences to which the Court seems oblivious—are not difficult to predict.     Pregnant women
      denied the funding necessary to procure abortions will be restricted to two alternatives. First, they can
      carry the fetus to term—even though that route may result in severe injury or death to the mother, the fetus, or both. If that course
      appears intolerable, they can resort to self-induced abortions or attempt to obtain illegal abortions—not because
      bearing a child would be inconvenient, but because it is necessary in order to protect their health. {Footnote: Of course, some poor
      women will attempt to raise the funds necessary to obtain a lawful abortion. A court recently found
      that those who were fortunate enough to do so had to resort to "not paying rent or utility bills, pawning
      household goods, diverting food and clothing money, or journeying to another state to obtain lower
      rates or fraudulently use a relative’s insurance policy…. Some patients were driven to theft." Women’s
      Health Services, Inc. v. Maher, 482 F. Supp. 725.} The result will not be to protect what the Court describes as "the legitimate governmental
      objective of protecting potential life," but to ensure the destruction of both fetal and maternal life. "There is another world ’out there,’ the
      existence of which the Court …either chooses to ignore or fears to recognize." Beal v. Doe (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). In my view, it is only by
      blinding itself to that other world that the Court can reach the result it announces today. Ultimately, the result reached today may be traced to the
      Court’s unwillingness to apply the constraints of the Constitution to decisions involving the expenditure of governmental funds. In today’s decision
      …theCourt suggests that a withholding of funding imposes no real obstacle to a woman deciding
      whether to exercise her constitutionally protected procreative choice, even though the Government is
      prepared to fund all other medically necessary expenses, including the expenses of childbirth. The Court
      perceives this result as simply a distinction between a "limitation on governmental power" and "an affirmative funding obligation." For a poor
      person attempting to exercise her "right" to freedom of choice, the difference is imperceptible. As my Brother BRENNAN has shown [in his]
      dissenting opinion, the differential distribution of incentives—which the Court concedes is present here, see ante at 325—can have precisely the
      same effect as an outright prohibition. It is no more sufficient an answer here than it was in Roe v. Wade to say that "’the appropriate forum’" for
      the resolution of sensitive policy choices is the legislature.
Mean Green Workshops 2009                                                               103
Cholera/Rubaie Lab                                                       Hyde Amendment AFF

                                        AT: Zizek
Abortion is part of a moral stance for the woman too choose. The idea that abortion is
immoral is old-fashioned and medieval.

Slavoj Zizek 03/30/2009 (“WHEN STRAIGHT MEANS WEIRD AND
PSYCHOSIS IS NORMAL”)
http://www.lacan.com/ripley.html

Although the novel was written in the mid-50ies, one can claim that Highsmith
foreshadows today's therapeutic rewriting of ethical into "Recommendations"
which one should not follow too blindly. "Thou shalt not commit adultery -
except if it is emotionally sincere and serves the goal of your profound
self-realization..." Or: "Thou shalt not divorce - except when your marriage
in fact breaks down, when it is experienced as an unbearable emotional burden
that frustrates your full life" - in short, except when the prohibition to
divorce would have regained its full meaning (since who would divorce when
his/her marriage still blossoms?). No wonder that people today prefer Dalai
Lama to the Pope. Even those who "respect" the Pope's moral stance, usually
accompany this admiration with the qualification that he nonetheless remains
hopelessly old-fashioned, medieval even, sticking to old dogmas, out of touch
with the demands of new times: how can one today ignore contraception,
divorce, abortion? Are this not simply facts of our life? How can the Pope
deny the right abortion even to a nun who got pregnant through rape (as he
effectively did in the case of the raped nuns during the war in Bosnia)? Is
it not clear that, even when one is in principle against abortion, one should
in such an extreme case bend the principle and consent to a compromise? What
we encounter here is an exemplary case of today's ideology of "realism": we
live in the era of the
end of great ideological projects, let's be realists, let's give up immature
utopian illusions - the dream of the Welfare State is over, one should come
to terms with the global market... One can now understand why Dalai-Lama is
much more appropriate for our postmodern permissive times: he presents us
with a vague feel-good spiritualism without any SPECIFIC obligations: anyone,
even the most decadent Hollywood star, can follow him while continuing his
money-grabbing promiscuous life style.

								
To top