[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            AN ACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF THE HYDE AMENDMENT

                                 ______


                           HON. NITA M. LOWEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 7, 1994

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I note that in response to litigation 
pending in Federal courts across the Nation, Representative Hyde came 
to the floor to define his own personal views of the meaning of both 
the fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 Hyde amendment. According to 
Representative Hyde, nothing in the Hyde amendment prohibits States 
from enacting reporting requirements for rape and incest victims even 
if those State requirements foreclose the ability of women to obtain 
abortion under Medicaid. Indeed, my colleague goes further to make the 
claim that the Hyde amendment imposes no affirmative obligations on the 
States--in his view it is a permission rather than a mandatory 
requirement.
  While my colleague is certainly entitled to his own view, I think it 
is important to clarify that his comments are not reflective of the 
language of the amendment itself, law in this area, nor the intent of 
Congress. In numerous decisions handed down over the last 15 years, 
Federal courts have found that States are mandated to provide 
reimbursement through their Medicaid programs for all medically 
necessary services for which Federal funding is available. Therefore, 
beginning in 1994, funds for abortion must be made available when a 
women's life in endangered and when the pregnancy is the result of rape 
or incest. This has been the law since last year's Hyde 
amendment became law. As Justice Scalia recently noted when denying a 
stay in a case from Louisiana, the premise underlying court decisions 
on this question has been:

       That Title XIX requires States participating in the 
     Medicaid program to fund abortions--at least ``medically 
     necessary ones''--unless federal funding for those procedures 
     is proscribed by the Hyde Amendment.

  Justice Scalia continued;

     [t]he Courts of Appeals to address this question have 
     uniformly supported that premise. We have already denied 
     certiorari in two of those cases, and it is in my view a 
     certainty that four Justices will not be found to vote for 
     certiorari on the Title XIX question unless and until a 
     conflict in the Circuits appears.

  As we enact this year's version of the Hyde amendment, I presume as 
always that we are enacting language which comports with holdings of 
the Federal courts in this area.
  Moreover, in contrast with versions of the Hyde amendment passed in 
some prior years, there is nothing in the language of either this 
year's or last year's Hyde amendment that allows States to enact second 
physician certification requirements or reporting requirements for rape 
and incest victims, particularly ones that inhibit the availability of 
funding for victims of these brutal crimes. For fiscal year 1994, 
Representative Hyde proposed versions of the Hyde amendment that would 
have allowed reporting requirements but these were defeated on 
procedural motions to adopted by this House. Sexual crimes including 
rape and incest are among the most underreported crimes in the country 
and State reporting requirements would make it impossible for many rape 
and incest victims to obtain both Medicaid funding for abortions and 
thus the necessary medical care they need. The actions of this House 
make very clear what was done. I want to ensure that there is no 
question at all about that.

                          ____________________