The purpose of the Hyde Amendment, according to its supporters, has been to prevent the use of federal tax money in funding abortions. To anyone pro-life, this should sound like a step in the right direction. If the Hyde Amendment achieves what some have purported it does, then surely many could feel some comfort in the knowledge that their tax dollars are not supporting abortions. However, a look at the real effect of the Amendment reveals that it is less about the pro-life cause but perhaps more about political posturing.

Ron Paul, former presidential candidate, remarked in a recent interview with Fox News that, since its inception, the Hyde Amendment has merely been “symbolic”. What Paul refers to here is that fact that the Amendment merely prevents the direct funding of abortion. So, for instance, in the case that congress appropriates federal funds to Planned Parenthood (the leading provider of abortions), taxpayer dollars must only be used directly for non-abortive care. However, the obvious result is that resources are freed up to support abortive procedures vis-à-vis federal funding for non-abortive care. The simple truth of the matter is that federal funding can indirectly support abortion under the Hyde Amendment.

Why would one suggest that the Hyde Amendment, then, is more about political posturing than the pro-life cause? First, it is a well known political strategy that in order to win the majority, a politician must attempt to remain moderate in the eyes of voters, or in the “middle”. In this way, the politician appears discerning, thoughtful, and most of all tolerant of different views. This would appear to be the principle at work behind the Hyde Amendment. By supporting it, a politician is able to provide funding to organizations which a more liberal voter might support while claiming not to provide funding for abortions, a point that a conservative voter could find endearing.

What then should a conservative or pro-life individual do? Perhaps we should consider this scenario: if we were not talking about our tax money but instead our own private savings, and we wanted to support a pro-life cause, or in the least not support something which undermines it, would we feel comfortable donating a portion of our savings to an organization that provides abortion even with the stipulation that your money does not directly fund abortion? If we intend to further the pro-life cause, we should hold our politicians accountable; we should not allow them to hold up legislation that is merely “symbolic” while in fact using taxpayer dollars in a way that is unconscionable. What we must call for is legislation that effectively prevents taxpayer dollars from supporting abortion directly or indirectly; we should demand that no federal funds be supplied to organizations that offer abortions like Planned Parenthood.