How do restrictions on access to abortion care disproportionately affect low-income women?
All women should have access to reproductive-health care, regardless of their economic status; however, discriminatory restrictions on public funding make abortion services an unavailable choice for many low-income women. Banning public funding for certain services limits reproductive-health options for those who rely on the government for their health care. These policies put women's health in danger and allow politicians to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.
Current State Laws
33 states and the District of Columbia restrict low-income women’s access to abortion: AL, AR, CO, DC, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WI, WY. (Six of these states fund abortion services for low-income women in extremely limited circumstances beyond federal restrictions: IN, IA, MS, UT, VA, WI.)
17 states fund abortion services for low-income women beyond federal restrictions: AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA, WV.
Current Federal Laws
Several federal laws, most notably the Hyde amendment, bar access to abortion care for most low-income women who rely on the federal government for their health care, with exceptions only to preserve the woman’s life or if the pregnancy results from rape or incest. Women affected by these bans include recipients of Medicaid, Medicare, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Indian Health Service clients.
The Affordable Care Act affects abortion coverage in private insurance plans in an unprecedented manner. Abortion-coverage restrictions in the law, known as the Nelson provisions (after the law’s sponsor), require plans participating in health-insurance exchanges to segregate monies used for abortion services from all other funds and also require those purchasing a plan with abortion coverage to make separate premium payments. These restrictions compel both individuals and insurance companies to incur increased administrative burdens and could jeopardize insurers’ willingness to offer full reproductive-health coverage, affecting low-and middle-income women’s access to care.
2012 Enacted State Legislation
1 state enacted 2 measures restricting low-income women's access to abortion: CO.
2012 Federal Action
In 2012, Congress extended all current-law funding bans on abortion services for low-income women, including the ban prohibiting the District of Columbia from using its own local revenue to provide abortion care to its low-income residents.
2012 Notable Developments
In Iowa, 41 anti-choice lawmakers petitioned the Iowa Department of Human Services to issue emergency rules eliminating abortion funding in all cases except life endangerment. This action followed on the heels of intense debate during the previous fiscal year when anti-choice forces failed to accomplish the same goal through legislative means. Federal Medicaid law bars public funds for abortion except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest, but it requires states to meet this minimum standard of coverage. The governor’s administration rejected the request, citing this federal law.
In Virginia, an anti-choice lawmaker introduced legislation to eliminate state Medicaid funding for abortion for low-income women whose pregnancies were diagnosed with severe fetal anomalies. (Virginia is one of the six states that fund abortion services in extremely limited circumstances beyond the federal Hyde restrictions.) The bill passed the House but died in a Senate committee.
Despite the fact that Florida state law already bars public funding for abortion care in the state’s Medicaid program, anti-choice legislators sent to the ballot an initiative that would amend the Florida constitution to prohibit state funds for abortion services or for health-benefits plans that include abortion coverage. In November, Floridians rejected the measure at the ballot box.
View a map of all states with Restrictions on Low-Income Women's Access to Abortion .