DDO Olympic Debate: That the Hyde Amendment Ought to be Repealed

To start out, let's go over the definition of the Hyde Amendment as shown above: "The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except to save the life of the mother, or if the pregnacy arises from incest or rape (though this has not always been the case). Contrary to popular belief, the Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law, but rather it is an amendment that has been added to appropriation bills since 1976. "What this means is that, for the most part, the federal government is not in the business of funding abortions, unless there is either incest, rape, or to prevent the mother from dying. In this debate, I will demonstrate the Hyde Amendment does not need to be repealed, and in fact comforms both to the desires of pro-lifers, but also pro-choice and Americans at large. Contention 1 - Public opinion supports the Hyde Amendment When looking at the issue of abortion, what seems to be a difficult issue is actually easy to explain. Polling has consistently shown both a public skepticism of abortion's morality, but a general acceptance of early-trimester abortions. The issue is divisive - 47% of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong, but 61% support first-trimester abortion. [1] One thing everyone seems to agree on, however, is taxpayer funding of abortion. 68% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, including 51% of pro-choice people; only 29% support taxpayer funded abortion. [2] Why is this so? Well, it is pretty simple. Obviously pro-life people oppose taxpayer funded abortion. But the pro-choice argument also does. This is because it rests upon a solid moral argument - that people have the right to control their own bodies, and that government should not be involved in such a personal decision. It makes sense, then, that a majority of people who support abortion rights would oppose government funding abortion - if it is none of government's business, government should not be either banning (one extreme) or funding (the other extreme) abortion. If government is sudenly involved in abortion, the entire pro-choice argument collapses and we are left with the fact that government, now involved in abortion, can regulate it. This is something pro-choice Americans do not want, and so since they are consistent in their view on this issue, they oppose all government involvement in abortion - including funding. Like most abortion laws, there are exceptions. The Hyde Amendment recognizes this. Rape and incest are horrific crimes and even most pro-lifers would agree abortion should be legal in those instances, because the mother did not consent. Similarly, the life of the mother is also a scenario where federal funds can pay for abortion; this is the only instance abortion is actually healthcare, and so it can be covered by federal healthcare funds. Contention 2 - The Hyde Amendment conforms to the spirit and letter of Roe v. WadePerhaps the most controversial court decision of all time, Roe v. Wade is also among the most misunderstood. Roe v. Wade established a general constitutional right to an abortion, prior to fetal viability. This right stems from the idea of a "right to privacy" - that governemnt cannot be involved in such personal matters as abortion. [3] The Hyde Amendment conforms both to the letter and spirit of Roe v. Wade. By ensuring government stays out of the abortion business, it ensures the decision is left to women and women alone. Such a personal decision should not be restricted or funded by government. It is up to the woman to decide, and unless there is an exceptional circumstance, the government will not intervene. References: 1. . http://www.gallup.com...2. . http://thefederalist.com...3. . https://en.wikipedia.org...