FACT SHEET
End Congressional Interference with D.C.
Residents’ Rights
Oppose Efforts to Prohibit the District from Using its Locally-Raised Funds for Abortion
Services
APRIL 2012
The District of Columbia abortion ban flies in the face of home rule, usurps the prerogatives
of the local D.C. government, and tramples the rights of D.C. residents. Despite the
egregious restrictions placed on federal coverage of abortion for low-income women, officials
in all 50 states are free to independently
assess the health care needs of their citizens
and to cover abortions in their state
Every time we make ourselves an
Medicaid plans. However, in all but four
exception to the Home Rule Act that we
years since 1989, Congress has restricted
ourselves enacted, we violate the most
the District’s ability to use its own locallycherished principles of this country.
raised revenue to cover abortion services.
Oppose the ban in the 2012 House Financial
— D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
Services and General Government
Appropriations bill.
As is the case in other jurisdictions, the District of Columbia government is best
positioned to determine the health needs of its residents. Clearly, a lack of public funding
for abortion services puts an additional financial burden on already-impoverished families,
forcing a woman to choose between paying out-of-pocket for an abortion or paying for other
necessities for her family. Each day, local and national hotlines receive calls from D.C.
residents who need help paying for abortion care. Many of these callers already have
children at home and hold more than one job in an effort to make ends meet. Other women
seeking assistance have medical conditions that mean continuing a pregnancy would pose a
substantial risk to their health. However, if the condition is not deemed “life-threatening”
by Medicaid, a woman must pay for the procedure with her own funds or go without the
care she needs.
Lack of public funding for abortion services causes women to delay abortions in order to
raise the necessary funds. This delay can exacerbate both the costs and health risks of the
procedure because, although abortion remains an extremely safe procedure, the risk of
complications increases later in gestation.
Lifting the D.C. ban would not affect the dangerous and discriminatory bans that already
severely restrict federal funding of abortion. The Hyde amendment would continue to be in
effect in all 50 states, as well as the District.
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 650 | Washington, DC 20009
202.986.2600 | www.NationalPartnership.org
The restriction violates the spirit of the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Harris v.
McRae. That ruling upheld the right of Congress to restrict the use of federal funds to
provide abortion care to low-income women, but clearly asserted that using state funds to
provide abortion services for low-income women is a state, not a federal, decision.
Supporters of Home Rule should oppose the ban on principle, regardless of their position
on abortion. During congressional debate over the ban in the early 1990s, several antichoice supporters of home rule for the District joined with pro-choice members of Congress
to advance the position that D.C. citizens should be allowed to make their own choices, as
do the 50 states. Rep. James Bilbray, a self-defined pro-life member of Congress,
commented, "I think that we have decided in this House that they have home rule for
things that we like, but they do not have home rule for what we do not like."
History
Since 1980, Hyde amendment language contained in the appropriations bill for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education has restricted the use
of federal Medicaid funds for abortion care except in the case of rape, incest or life
endangerment. During much of the 1980s, the D.C. government was able to use locallyraised funds to pay for abortions for residents.
The passage of P.L. 100-462, the FY 1989 D.C. Appropriations Act, marked the first
successful attempt to extend abortion restrictions to the use of locally-raised District of
Columbia funds. During fiscal years 1994 and 1995, Congress voted to lift the ban on
locally-raised revenue and approved a prohibition that applied only to federal monies. In
1995, an anti-choice majority reinstated the ban on the use of locally-raised revenues in the
District for FY 1996 funding except in cases of life, rape or incest.
In 2009, Congress once again voted to remove the ban on D.C. using its own funds to
provide abortion care for its low-income citizens. However, as part of negotiations on the
Continuing Resolution to continue funding the government for 2011, the ban was
reinstated.
The National Partnership for Women & Families is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group dedicated to promoting fairness in the workplace, access to quality health care and
policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family. More information is available at www.NationalPartnership.org.
© 2012 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES | FACT SHEET | END INTERFERENCE WITH D.C. RESIDENTS’ RIGHTS
2