Pro-Life Group Calls for ACA Grant Protections
A pro-life organization comprising nearly 100 members is urging Congress to clarify that specific provisions must be included if they opt to extend grants to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Led by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, this coalition contends that Democratic lawmakers “cleverly” structured the ACA to allow tax provisions from the late 1970s to bypass protections from Hyde’s amendments. They argue that coverage of elective abortions under ACA insurance plans is funded through cost-sharing reduction payments and premium tax credits, which are likely to expire this year.
In early July, a Republican spending package was passed, which restricts federal Medicaid payments for businesses that offer abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother’s life. However, this progress could be undermined if Americans are compelled to fund abortion services through the ACA, which is often referred to as “Obamacare,” according to the 88 pro-life groups that signed the SBA letter to Congress.
SBA President Marjorie Dannenfelser expressed, “Americans clearly don’t want to participate in businesses that subsidize abortion violence.” Surveys suggest that about 60% of voters, including many Democrats and independents, oppose using taxpayer funds for abortion services.
The coalition is emphasizing the need for Congress members to take action to prevent taxpayer dollars from being funneled into insurance programs that cover elective abortions, which they view as a critical concern.
When the ACA was enacted, Section 1303 aimed to prevent federal funds from being used for abortions not covered by Hyde exemptions. The regulations mandated that any ACA health insurance company offering elective abortion coverage must collect individual private payments to ensure federal funds were not used for that purpose.
Nonetheless, guidance from the Obama administration allowed for individual abortion premium payments to be linked with other payments, effectively blurring the lines between abortion and non-abortion related coverage.
Critics argue this practice risks indirectly using taxpayer money to support elective abortions, while also keeping pro-life consumers uninformed about the nature of their health insurance plans.
A 2014 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report examined adherence to Section 1303 among 18 insurers that provided non-Hyde exempt abortion coverage. It found no direct evidence that federal money was used for abortions, although one insurer did not fully comply with the ACA’s requirement for alternative payments specifically for abortion coverage.
The GAO also identified over 1,000 health plans nationwide offering non-Hyde exempt abortions, with many of them having a high enrollment rate, around 87% across all ACA health plans.
During President Trump’s first term, he sought to enforce stricter regulations regarding these payments, but those were rescinded by the Biden administration.
Dannenfelser cautioned, “We’ve made significant strides against abortion funding, but if Americans are still obligated to fund it through Obamacare, all that progress could reverse. Obamacare represents the largest instance of taxpayer-funded abortions since Roe v. Wade.” She cautioned against extending the ACA grants under the current framework.
Fox News Digital attempted to reach out to several pro-choice organizations regarding a letter advocating for Hyde-specific protections in ACA expansion.
Liz McCamman Taylor, a senior policy advisor at the Center for Reproductive Rights, responded to the coalition’s claims, indicating that while they advocate for wider access to abortion services, the reality remains that many people already face limitations under current laws.
She remarked, “This is an attempt to dictate state decisions about what they can and cannot provide to their citizens,” emphasizing that claims to “leave abortion to the state” are misleading.
