Abortion: Legislative Control

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy (Roe v. Wade), and that a State may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right by regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating that decision (Doe v. Bolton). However, the issue of a woman's right to an abortion is far from settled. This report discusses the various legislative actions undertaken since 1973 to either nullify these rulings or hinder their effectuation.

CONTENTS SUMMARY ISSUE DEFINITION BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Constitutional Amendments Bills that Seek to Prohibit Abortion by Statute Hyde-Type Amendments to Appropriations Bills Substantive Legislation LEG1 SLATION FOR ADDITIONAL READING ABORTION: LEGISLATIVE CONTROL I n 1973 t h e U.S. Supreme C o u r t h e l d c h a t t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o t e c t s a woman's d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r o r n o t t o t e r m i n a t e h e r p r e g n a n c y , R o e v . ,&W 4 1 0 U.S. 1 1 3 , and t h a t a S t a t e may n o t u n d u l y b u r d e n t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h a t f u n d a m e n t d l r i g h t by r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t p r o h i b i t o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y 1 i m i t a c c e s s t o t h e means of e f f e c t u a t i n g t h a t d e c i s i o n , D o e v. B o l t o n , 4 1 0 U.S. 179. But r a t h e r t h a n s e t t l i n g t h e i s s u e , t h e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g s h a v e k i n d l e d h e a t e d d e b a t e and p r e c i p i t a t e d a v a r i e t y of g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i o n s a t t h e n a t i o n a l , S t a t e and l o c a l l e v e l s d e s i g n e d e i t h e r t o n u l l i f y t h e r u l i n g s o r hinder t h e i r effectuation. These governmental r e g u l a t i o n s have, i n t u r n , spawned f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n i n which r e s u l t i n g j u d i c i a l r e f i n e m e n t s i n t h e l a w h a v e b e e n no more s u c c e s s f u l i n dampening t h e c o n t r o v e r s y . Thus, a s t h e p r e v i o u s C o n g r e s s e s h a v e b e e n , t h e 1 0 0 t h c o n t i n u e s t o be a f o r u m f o r p r o p o s e d l e g i s l a t i o n and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments aimed a t l i m i t i n g o r p r o h i b i t i n g t h e p r a c t i c e of a b o r t i o n . W i t h i n t h z d e c a d e a f t e r R o e v . W a d e was d e c i d e d a l m o s t 500 b i l l s r e l a t i n g t o a b o r t i o n i n some way were i n t r o d u c e d i n C o n g r e s s . The g r e a t e r number of t h e s e p r o p o s a l s have s o u g h t t o r e s t r i c t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of a b o r t i o n s , a l t h o u g h a few m e a s u r e s h a v e been i n t r o d u c e d s e e k i n g t o make a b o r t i o n s more w i d e l y a v a i l a b l e . C o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments p r o p o s e d s i n c e 1 9 7 3 r e l a t i n g t o a b o r t i o n h a v e g e n e r a l l y f a l l e n i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s : the "State's rights" or State o p t i o n t y p e o f amendment and t h e s o - c a l l e d r i g h t t o l i f e , o r human l i f e amendinent, p r o p o s a l . S . J . R e s 3 , a p r o p o s e d amendment s t a t i n g t h a t "a r i g h t t o a b o r t i o n i s n o t s e c u r e d by t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n , " was d e b a t e d on t h e S e n a t e f l o o r d u r i n g t h e 9 8 t h C o n g r e s s , b u t was d e f e a t e d i n J u n e of 1983. B i l l s chaL have s o u g h t t o p r o h i b i t a b o r t i o n by s t a t u t e i n c l u d e S. 158 ( 9 7 t h C o n g r e s s ) , which would h a v e d e c l a r e d a s a c o n g r e s s i o n a l f i n d i n g of t a c t t h a t human l i f e b e g i n s a t c o n c e p t i o n and would h a v e a l l o w e d S c a t e s , a c c o r d i n g t o i t s s p o n s o r s , t o e n a c t l a w s p r o t e c t i n g human l i f e . A m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f S. 1 5 8 , S. 1 7 4 1 , was p l a c e d on t h e S e n a t e c a l e n d a r b u t n e v e r a c t e d upon. A s i m i l a r b i l l was H.R. 6 1 8 , i n t r o d u c e d d u r i n g t h e 9 8 t h C o n g r e s s . H.R. 618 was n o t moved o u t of c o m m i t t e e . s i n c e R o e v. W d Congress has a t t a c h e d . a b o r t i o n f u n d i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s t o numerous a p p r o p r i a t i o n s b i l l s . The g r e a t e s t f o c u s h a s b e e n on r e s t r i c t i n g Medicaid a b o r t i o n s under t h e annual a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h and Human S e r v i c e s . The s e r i e s of r e s t r i c t i o n s i s p o p u l a r l y known a s t h e Hyde Amendments. ' I n addition t o funding l i m i t a t i o n s contained in appropriations b i l l s , s i n c e 1970 a b o r t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n s h a v e been a t t a c h e d t o s u b s t a n t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g P.L. 91-572, P.L. 93-45, P.L. 95-355, P.L. 95-555, P.L. 96-76, and P.L. 97-35. ISSUE DEFINITION I n 1973 t h e U.S. Supreme Court h e l d t h a t t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o t e c t s a woman's d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r o r n o t t o t e r m i n a t e h e r p r e g n a n c y , R o e v . , Wand t h a t a S t a t e may n o t unduly burden t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h a t f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t by r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t p r o h i b i t o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y l i m i t a c c e s s t o t h e means of e f f e c t u a t i n g t h a t d e c i s i o n , Doe v. B o l t o n . The i s s u e o f a woman's r i g h t t o an a b o r t i o n , however, i s f a r from s e t t l e d . S i n c e 1973, t h e r e h a v e been F e d e r a l and S t a t e l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n s d e s i g n e d e i t h e r t o n u l l i f y the rulings or hinder t h e i r effectuation. Subsequent l i t i g a t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g t h i s l e g i s l a ~ i o nh a s l e d t o f u r t h e r j u d i c i a l r e f i n e m e n t s . The 1 0 0 t h C o n g r e s s , a s i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s have b e e n , c o n t i n u e s t o be a forum f o r p r o p o s e d l e g i s l a t i o n and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments aimed a t l i m i t i n g o r p r o h i b i t i n g t h e p r a c t i c e of a b o r t i o n . BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS A s a r e s u l t o f t h e 1973 Supreme Court d e c i s i o n v. W a d e , t h e r e h a s been a c o n s i d e r a b l e i n c r e a s e i n l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n r e g a r d i n g a b o r t i o n . W i t h i n 10 y e a r s a f t e r Roe v. W a d e was d e c i d e d a l m o s t 500 b i l l s r e l a t i n g t o In contrast, there a b o r t i o n i n some way were i n t r o d u c e d i n C o n g r e s s . were o n l y 1 0 b i l l s on t h e s u b j e c t i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e e n t i r e d e c a d e preceding t h e decision. By f a r t h e g r e a t e r number o f t h e s e p r o p o s a l s have s o u g h t t o r e s t r i c t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of a b o r t i o n s , a l t h o u g h a few m e a s u r e s h a v e been i n t r o d u c e d s e e k i n g t o make a b o r t i o n s more w i d e l y a v a i l a b l e . P r o p o n e n t s of m o r e r e s t r i c t i v e a b o r t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n have employed a v a r i e t y of l e g i s l a t i v e i n i t i a t i v e s t o a c h i e v e t h i s e n d , w i t h v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of s u c c e s s . T h e s e v a r i o u s t y p e s of l e g i s l a t i v e m e a s u r e s a r e d e s c r i b e d below. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Amendments S i n c e 1 9 7 3 , a s e r i e s of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments h a v e been introduced i n each Congress i n an attempt t o o v e r r u l e t h e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n ER v. Wade. These amendments have g e n e r a l l y f a l l e n i n t o two categories: The " ~ t a t e ' s r i g h t s " o r S t a t e o p t i o n t y p e of amendment and t h e s o - c a l l e d r i g h t t o l i f e , o r human l i f e amendment, p r o p o s a l . The " S t a t e s ' r i g h t s " amendment would r e s u l t i n a b o r t i o n s t a n d a r d s t h a t would v a r y from S t a t e t o S t a t e . Some S t a t e s might p r o h i b i t a b o r t i o n s e n t i r e l y ; o t h e r s c o u l d h a v e no r e s t r i c t i o n s a t a l l . I n e f f e c t , s u c h an amendment would r e s t o r e t o t h e S t a t e s t h e same c o n t r o l o v e r a b o r t i o n r i g h t s t h a t e x i s t e d p r i o r t o t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Roe v. W a d e . T h i s o p t i o n i s n o t a s popubar a s i t once was. I n t h e 9 7 t h C o n g r e s s , S.J.Res. 110, t h e "Human L i f e F e d e r a l i s m Amendment," was i n t r o d u c e d on S e p t . 21, 1981, by S e n a t o r Hatch. It provided: "A r i g h t t o a b o r t i o n i s n o t s e c u r e d by t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n . The C o n g r e s s and t h e s e v e r a l S t a t e s have t h e c o n c u r r e n t power t o r e s t r i c t and p r o h i b i t a b o r t i o n s , p r o v i d e d , t h a t a law of a r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n a law o f Congress s h a l l govern." State which is more I n t h e 9 8 t h C 0 n g r e s s . a s i m i l a r p r o p o s a l , S.J.Res. 3 , was i n t r o d u c e d , s u b c o m m i t t e e h e a r i n g s were h e l d , and t h e f u l l J u d i c i a r y Committee v o t e d As 9-9 t o s e n d t h e amendment t o t h e S e n a t e f l o o r w i t h o u t recommendations. r e p o r t e d , S . J . R e s . 3 i n c l u d e d an amendment i n t r o d u c e d by S e n a t o r E a g l e t o n t h a t e l i m i n a t e d t h e e n f o r c e m e n t l a n g u a g e and d e c l a r e d s i m p l y , "A r i g h t t o a b o r t i o n i s n o t s e c u r e d by t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n . " By a d o p t i n g S e n a t o r E a g l e t o n ' s s u g g e s t i o n , t h e s u b c o m m i t t e e e s t a b l i s h e d i t s i n t e n t t o remove F e d e r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s from t h e p o l i c y m a k i n g p r o c e s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a b o r t i o n and r e i n s t a t e S t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s a s t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r s f o r t h i s s e n s i t i v e issue. S.J.Kes. 3 was c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e S e n a t e on J u n e 27 and 28, 1983. N o t a b l y , t h i s was t h e f i r s t t i m e i n h i s t o r y t h a t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment on a b o r t i o n was a c t u a l l y d e b a t e d on t h e S e n a t e f l o o r . During t h e d e b a t e , S e n a t o r Hatch managed t h e p r o p o s a l , and S e n a t o r Packwood l e d t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment. S e n a t o r Hatch emphasized t h a t S.J.Res. 3 would r e t u r n t h e m a t t e r o f r e g u l a t i o n of a b o r t i o n t o t h e In S t a t e s and r e s t o r e t h e s t a t u s quo e x i s t i n g p r i o r t o & v. W a d e . s h o r t , S.J.Res. 3 would o v e r r u l e t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s 1 9 7 3 d e c i s i o n w h i c h e s s e n t i a l l y had n a t i o n a l i z e d t h e m a t t e r o f r e g u l a t i n g t h e p r a c t i c e o f abortion. S e n a t o r Helms opposed t h e measure b e c a u s e h e f e l t t h a t i t d i d n o t go f a r enough, and t h e r e f o r e d e c i d e d t o r e g i s t e r h i s o b j e c t i o n by v o t i n g " p r e s e n t .It S e n a t o r Packwood opposed S.J.Res. 3 for different reasons. He was i n t e n t upon p r e s e r v i n g t h e Supreme c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Roe v. W a d e and a r g u e d t h a t t h i s r u l i n g d i d n o t a l l o w f o r a b o r t i o n on He a l s o r e f e r r e d t o t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s i n City demand. of Akron, A s h c r o f t , and Simopoulos, i n which t h e C o u r t r e a f f i r m e d i t s h o l d i n g and r a t i o n a l e i n R o e v. Wade. I n a d d i t i o n , S e n a t o r Packwood t o o k i s s u e w i t h S e n a t o r H a t c h ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t S.J.Res. 3 would s i m p l y r e v e r s e v . W a d e and i t s progeny and r e t u r n t h e m a t t e r of r e g u l a t i n g a b o r t i o n to the States. S.J.Res. 3 r e q u i r e d a t w o - t h i r d s v o t e o r 67 t o p a s s t h e S e n a t e s i n c e s u p e r - m a j o r i t i e s of b o t h Houses of Congress must a p p r o v e a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment b e f o r e i t c a n be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e S t a t e s . On J u n e 28 i n a r o l l c a l l v o t e of 50-49 t h e measure was d e f e a t e d , w i t h S e n a t o r Helms v o t i n g 1I p r e s e n t .I' [ F o r a r e v i e w o f t h e f u l l d e b a t e on S.J.Res. 3 , s e e 129 C o n g r e s s i o n a l Record: S9076, e t s e q . , d a i l y e d . , J u n e 2 7 , 1983; 129 C o n g r e s s i o n a l Record: S9265, e t s e q . , d a i l y e d . , J u n e 28, 1983.1 I n t h e s e c o n d c a t e g o r y o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments, t h e t y p i c a l " r i g h t t o l i f e " o r "human l i f e 1 ' amendment would c r e a t e a new r i g h t i n t h e unborn ( p e r s o n h o o d ) which t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s ' d e c l a r e d i s n o t g u a r a n t e e d i n the Constitution. P r e s e n t l y , t h e F i f t h and t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendments p r o h i b i t o n l y t h e F e d e r a l and S t a t e g o v e r n m e n t s from d e p r i v i n g anyone of l i f e w i t h o u t d u e p r o c e s s of law. Some " r i g h t t o l i f e " amendments would a l s o e x t e n d t h e prohibition t o include private individuals a s well. The p r o p o s e d amendments u t i l i z e a v a r i e t y of t e r m s t o d e f i n e t h e t i m e t h e r i g h t attaches : IIconception," "moment o f f e r t i l i z a t i o n , " " a t a n y s t a t e o f b i o l o g i c a l development." Some " r i g h e t o l i f e " amendments p e r m i t m e d i c a l p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r e d t o p r e v e n t t h e d e a t h of t h e m o t h e r ; o t h e r s p r o v i d e no exceptions. B i l l s t h a t Seek t o P r o h i b i t A b o r t i o n by S t a t u t e A s an apparent a l t e r n a t i v e to the thus f a r unsuccessful e f f o r t s t o a c h i e v e c o n g r e s s i o n a l p a s s a g e of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment t o p r o h i b i t o r l i m i t t h e p r a c t i c e o f a b o r t i o n , o p p o n e n t s o f a b o r t i o n have i n t r o d u c e d a v a r i e t y o f b i l l s d e s i g n e d t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e same o b j e c t i v e w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o t h e complex p r o c e s s o f amending t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . Authority f o r s u c h a c t i o n i s s a i d t o emanate from S e c t i o n 5 of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment, which empowers t h e Congress t o e n f o r c e t h e due p r o c e s s and e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n g u a r a n t e e s of t h e amendment "by a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . " One s u c h b i l l , S. 158, i n t r o d u c e d d u r i n g t h e 9 7 t h C o n g r e s s , would have d e c l a r e d a s a c o n g r e s s i o n a l f i n d i n g of f a c t t h a t human l i f e b e g i n s a t c o n c e p t i o n , and would, i t was c o n t e n d e d by i t s s p o n s o r s , a l l o w S t a t e s t o e n a c t l a w s p r o t e c t i n g human l i f e , i n c l u d i n g f e t u s e s . I t would a l s o make i t more d i f f i c u l t t o t e s t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f S t a t e l a w s p r o h i b i t i n g a b o r t i o n s by w i t h d r a w i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e l o w e r F e d e r a l c o u r t s t o A n a p p e a l t o t h e U.S. Supreme C o u r t from t h e review t h e s e S t a t e laws. d e c i s i o n of a s t a t e ' s h i g h e s t c o u r t would s t i l l be a l l o w e d , i n some i n s t a n c e s on a n e x p e d i t e d b a s i s . ~ e a r i n g s h e l d on S. 158 were marked by c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t human l i f e b e g i n s a t c o n c e p t i o n , which c o n t r a d i c t s t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s s p e c i f i c h o l d i n g i n Roe v. W a d e , and o v e r t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f lower F e d e r a l c o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r s u i t s c h a l l e n g i n g S t a t e laws e n a c t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e F e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n . The s u b c o r m i t t e e a p p r o v e d a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f S. 1 5 8 , s n d t h a t b i l l , S. 1 7 4 1 , was p l a c e d on t h e S e n a t e c a l e n d a r b u t was n e v e r a c t e d upon. D u r i n g t h e 9 8 t h C o n g r e s s , R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Hyde i n t r o d u c e d a s i m i l a r 618, t h a t c o n t a i n e d a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s . The b i l l would h a v e b i l l , H.R. p r o h i b i t e d F e d e r a l i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of a b o r t i o n , e x c e p t when t h e l i f e of t h e mother would be e n d a n g e r e d i f t h e c h i l d w e r e c a r r i e d t o term, and i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of i t s p r o s c r i p t i o n : ( 1 ) p e r f o r m a n c e o f a n a b o r t i o n by a F e d e r a l a g e n c y ; ( 2 ) u s e of a p p r o p r i a t e d f u n d s t o p e r f o r m o r r e i m b u r s e o r r e f e r f o r a b o r t i o n ; ( 3 ) p r o m o t i o n o r a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of a b o r t i o n a b r o a d ; ( 4 ) c o n t r a c t i n g f o r i n s u r a n c e which pays o r r e i m b u r s e s f o r a b o r t i o n s ; ( 5 ) d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t an i n d i v i d u a l on t h e b a s i s o f t h a t p e r s o n ' s o p p o s i t i o n t o a b o r t i o n ; and ( 6 ) t h e w i t h h o l d i n g from a h a n d i c a p p e d i n f a n t of n u t r i t i o n a l s u s t e n a n c e o r m e d i c a l o r s u r g i c a l t r e a t m e n t by a n i n s t i t u t i o n receiving Federal assistance. The b i l l a l s o p r o v i d e d f o r e x p e d i t e d Supreme C o u r t r e v i e w of S t a t e l a w s r e s t r i c t i n g a b o r t i o n s o r i n f a n t i c i d e whenever s u c h laws have been i n v a l i d a t e d by a l o w e r c o u r t . A d i s c h a r g e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d Mar. 2 3 , 1983, i n a n e f f o r t t o move t h e b i l l o u t of c o m m i t t e e , b u t no a d d i t i o n a l a c t i o n was t a k e n i n t h e 9 8 t h C o n g r e s s . Hyde-Type Amendments t o A p p r o p r i a t i o n Bills S i n c e R o e v. Wade C o n g r e s s h a s a t t a c h e d a b o r t i o n f u n d i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s t o numerous a p p r o p r i a t i o n s b i l l s . Although t h e F o r e i g n A s s i s t a n c e Act o f 1973, P.L. 93-189, was t h e f i r s t s u c h e n a c t m e n t , t h e g r e a t e s t f o c u s h a s been on r e s t r i c t i n g Medicaid a b o r t i o n s u n d e r t h e a n n u a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e Department of H e a l t h and Human S e r v i c e s (HHS) ( f o r m e r l y H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n , and W e l f a r e o r HEW). The f o l l o w i n g s e r i e s o f r e s t r i c t i o n s i s p o p u l a r l y r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Hyde Amendments. The f i r s t v e r s i o n of t h e Hyde amendment was a t t a c h e d t o t h e FY77 A s o r i g i n a l l y o f f e r e d by ~ a b o r / H E W A p p r o p r i a t i o n A c t , P.L. 94-439. R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Hyde, t h e p r o p o s a l would have p r o h i b i t e d t h e f u n d i n g of A compromise amendment o f f e r e d by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e C o n t e a l l abortions. was e v e n t u a l l y a g r e e d t o , p r o v i d i n g t h a t : "None o f t h e f u n d s c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s Act s h a l l be u s e d t o p e r f o r m a b o r t i o n s e x c e p t where t h e l i f e o f t h e m o t h e r would b e endangered i f t h e f e t u s were c a r r i e d t o t e r m . " I n s u b s e q u e n t y e a r s t h e Hyde amendments w e r e sometimes reworded t o i n c l u d e e x c e p t i o n s f o r r a p e and i n c e s t o r l o n g l a s t i n g p h y s i c a l h e a l t h s i n c e t h e 97th Congress t h e language h a s damage t o t h e m o t h e r . been i d e n t i c a l t o t h e o r i g i n a l e n a c t m e n t , a l l o w i n g o n l y a n e x c e p t i o n t o p r e s e r v e t h e l i f e of t h e m o t h e r . o ow ever, The Hyde amendment p r o c e s s h a s n o t been l i m i t e d t o t h e a n n u a l ~ a b o r / H H a~p p r o p r i a t i o n . B e g i n n i n g w i t h P.L. 95-457, t h e Department o f D e f e n s e a p p r o p r i a t i o n a c t s have c o n t a i n e d Hyde-type a b o r t i o n l i m i t a t i o n s . N o t a b l y , t h i s r e c u r r i n g p r o h i b i t i o n was e v e n t u a l l y c o d i f i e d and made permanent by P .L. 98-525, t h e Department o f D e f e n s e A u t h o r i z a t i o n Act of 1984. B e g i n n i n g w i t h P.L. 96-93, t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia A p p r o p r i a t i o n s Acts have c o n t a i n e d r e s t r i c t i v e a b o r t i o n p r o v i s i o n s . In recent years t h e r e h a v e been e f f o r t s t o expand t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s t o D i s t r i c t f u n d s a s well a s t h e Federal funds appropriated. Thus f a r t h e s e e f f o r t s h a v e f a i 1ed. I n 1981, t h e Hyde amendment p r o c e s s was e x t e n d e d t o embrace t h e T r e a s u r y / P o s t a l S e r v i c e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s A c t , p r o h i b i t i n g t h e u s e of F e d e r a l Employee H e a l t h B e n e f i t s t o pay f o r a b o r t i o n s . T h i s p r o v i s i o n h a s been re-enacted i n each subsequent year. T h e l a t e s t e x t e n s i o n o f t h e Hyde amendment p r o c e s s p r o h i b i t s D e p a r ~ m e n t of J u s t i c e f u n d i n g of a b o r t i o n s e x c e p t where t h e l i f e o f t h e m o t h e r i s e n d a n g e r e d , o r i n c a s e s of r a p e . F i r s t enacted a s p a r t of t h e FY87 C o n t i n u i n g R e s o l u t i o n , P.L. 99-591, t h i s p r o v i s i o n h a s been r e - e n a c t e d a s p a r t o f t h e FY88 s p e n d i n g b i l l , P.L. 100-202. Substantive Legislation In addition to funding limitations contained in appropriations bills, since 1970 abortion restrictions have been attached to substantive legislation. P.L. 91-572, the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970, bars the use of funds for programs in which abortion is a method of family planning. P.L. 93-45, the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973, prohibits judges or public officials from ordering recipients of Federal funds to perform abortions or sterilization procedures if doing so is contrary to a recipientas religious beliefs or moral convictions. Additionally, discrimination against personnel for participation o r lack of participation in abortion or sterilization procedures is prohibited. The Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, P.L. 93-355, prohibits lawyers in federally funded legal aid programs from providing legal assistance for procuring non-therapeutic abortions and prohibits legal aid in proceedings to compel an individual or an institution to perform an abortion, assist in an abortion, or provide facilities for an abortion. P.L. 95-555, the Pregnancy Disability Amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, provides that employers are not required to pay health insurance benefits for abortion except to save the life of the mother, but does not preclude employers from providing abortion benefits if they choose to do so. The Public Health Service Act Amendments of 1979, P.L. 96-76, bars recipients of Federal funds from denying admission or otherwise discriminating against any applicant for training or study because of the applicant's rsluctance or willingness to counsel, suggest, recommend, assist, or participate in performing abortion or sterilization contrary to or consistent with the applicant's religious beliefs or moral convictions. Finally, Title IX of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, P.L. 97-35, relating to Health Services and Facilities, permits grants or payments only to programs that do not provide abortions, abortion counseling or referral, or subcontract with or make payments to any person providing services, except counseling for a pregnant adolescent if the adolescent and her parents or guardian request such referral. CRS- 7 LEGISLATION I n t h e 100th Congress, a s i n p a s t Congresses, s e v e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments w i t h r e s p e c t t o a b o r t i o n h a v e b e e n i n t r o d u c e d . I n t h e House, t h e y i n c l u d e H.J.Res. 2 0 , 2 1 , 3 5 , 5 9 , 6 8 , 8 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 3 a n d 1 0 4 ; i n t h e S e n a t e , S . J . R e s . 2 7 , 2 9 , 3 1 , 3 2 a n d 36. N o t a b l y , a number o f s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e f u n d i n g o f a b o r t i o n s e r v i c e s h a v e b e e n i n t r o d u c e d i n b o t h t h e House a n d t h e S e n a t e . These measures are an a t t e m p t t o c o d i f y t h e F e d e r a l a b o r t i o n f u n d i n g p r o h i b i t i o n s w h i c h h a v e b e e n a t t a c h e d t o numerous a p p r o p r i a t i o n s b i l l s i n past Congresses. H.K. 7 2 0 , i n t r o d u c e d by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e D o r n a n , H.R. 1 7 2 9 , i n t r o d u c e d by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Hyde, a n d S. 3 8 1 , i n t r o d u c e d by S e n a t o r Humphrey, a l l c o n t a i n p r o h i b i t i o n s on t h e u s e of any a p p r o p r i a t e d f u n d s t o perform abortions. H . R . 1 5 5 2 , i n c r o d u c e d by R e p r e s e n r a t i v e Dornan a n d S. 2 7 4 , i n t r o d u c e d by S e n a t o r Humphrey, would p r o h i b i t a b o r t i o n s i n F e d e r a l p e n a l a n d correctional institutions. S . 2 6 7 , i n t r o d u c e d by S e n a t o r Humphrey, would p r o h i b i t t h e u s e o f Legal S e r v i c e s Corporation funds f o r l e g a l procedures o r l i t i g a t i o n relating t o abortion. I n a d d i t i o n , s e v e r a l b i l l s s e e k t o amend t h e I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e Code H.R. 7 8 6 , i n t r o d u c e d by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e B l i l e y , with respect t o abortion. would d e n y a t a x p a y e r ' s p e r s o n a l e x e m p t i o n d e d u c t i o n f o r a c h i l d who l i v e s H.R. 1591, i n t r o d u c e d by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e temporarily a f t e r an abortion. D o r n a n , would d e n y t h e d e d u c t i o n o f m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d f o r c e r t a i n abortions. F i n a l l y , H . R . 719, i n t r o d u c e d by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e D o r n a n , a n d S. 2 6 4 , i n t r o d u c e d by S e n a t o r Humphrey, would d e n y tax-exempt status to o r g a n i z a t i o n s which d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y perform o r f i n a n c e a b o r t i o n s . 1729, t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s Pro-Life B i l l of Of p a r t i c u l a r n o t e i s H . R . 1 9 8 7 , i n t r o d u c e d by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Hyde a n d e n d o r s e d b y P r e s i d e n t R e a g a n . T h e m e a s u r e would p e r m a n e n t l y ban t h e u s e o f F e d e r a l f u n d s t o p e r f o r m a b o r t i o n s , e x c e p t w h e r e t h e l i f e o f t h e m o t h e r would b e e n d a n g e r e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t would d e n y F e d e r a l f a m i l y p l a n n i n g f u n d s u n d e r t i t l e X o f t h e P u b l i c H e a l t h S e r v i c e Act t o o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t p r o v i d e a b o r t i o n s o r abortion referrals. A t t h e c l o s e o f t h e f i r s t s e s s i o n of t h e 1 0 0 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 3 r e g u l a r a p p r o p r i a t i o n s were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e FY88 C o n t i n u i n g R e s o l u t i o n , P.L. 100-202. A b o r t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n s were a p p l i e d t o f u n d s f o r t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h a n d Human S e r v i c e s , J u d i c i a r y , T r e a s u r y f P o s t a l S e r v i c e , D i s t r i c t of Columbia, F o r e i g n A s s i s t a n c e and t h e Legal S e r v i c e s C o r p o r a t i o n . FOR ADD1 TIONAL READING E r s t r e i c h e r , Samuel. C o n g r e s s i o n a l power a n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s : R e f l e c t i o n s on p r o p o s e d himan l i f e l e g i s l a t i o n . 68 V i r g i n i a law r e v i e w , 1982: 33-458. G a l e b a c h , Scephen H. 1 9 8 1 : 5-33. A human life statute. 7 Human l i f e r e v i e w , W i n t e r The f e t u s a s a p a t i e n t : Emerging r i g h t s a s a p e r s o n ? Lenow, J e t t r e y , L. 4 A m e r i c a n l a w j o u r n a l of l a w & m e d i c i n e , S p r i n g 1983: 1-29. The n e e d t o r e t h i n k M a r t y n , Ken. T e c h n o l o g i c a l a d v a n c e s a n d R l v . : -W a b o r t i o n law. 29 U.C.L.A. l a w r e v i e w , June-August 1982: 1194-1215. M i l b y , T.H. The new b i o l o g y a n d t h e q u e s t i o n of p e r s o n h o o d : I m p l i c a t i o n s for abortion. 9 American j o u r n a l o f l a w & m e d i c i n e , S p r i n g 1983: 31-41. Mohr, A b o r t i o n i n America: The o r i g i n s a n d e v o l u t i o n o f James C. n a t i o n a l p o l i c y , 1800-1900. Oxford, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , I n c . , 1978. The new n a t i o n a l dilemma: Live b i r t h s from Khoden, Nancy K . a b o r t i o n s . 72 Georgetown l a w r e v i e w , J u n e 1985: 1451-1509. U.S. L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s . C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e . h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , 1973-1986, b y Marsha C e r n y . 1 9 8 6 . 45 p. CRS R e p o r t 86-2317 LTR ----- A b o r t i o n : J u d i c i a l c o n t r o l [ b y ] Karen J . Lewis. (Updated r e g u l a r l y ) CRS I s s u e B r i e f 88006 ----- C o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y t o e n a c t a human c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of S . 1 5 8 [ b y ] K a r e n J . R o s e n b e r g . W a s h i n g t o n , Apr. 1 7 , 1981. late Abortion: An [Washington] - [Washington] 1988. l i f e statute; a Lewis a n d Morton