PRIMER: How Medicaid Expansion Entrenches Anti-Family Policies
Requirements imposed by the Biden Administration and the federal government mean that states considering an embrace of Medicaid expansion could end up using their taxpayer dollars to fund a series of anti-family and pro-abortion policies.
Funds Transgender Therapies
- States that embrace Medicaid expansion will also end up having to cover gender transition treatments for their beneficiaries.
- In 2016, the Obama Administration issued a final rule implementing Section 1557 of Obamacare that prohibited “any [insurer] which receives federal financial assistance”—including state Medicaid programs—from “implement[ing] a categorical coverage exclusion or limitation for all health services related to gender transition.”
- While the Trump Administration issued regulations in June 2020 repealing the 2016 Obama regulations quoted above, the Biden Administration has already worked to undo President Trump’s actions.
- The Biden Administration announced in May that it would enforce the Section 1557 provisions of Obamacare to include “discrimination on the basis of gender identity.” This announcement means the Biden Administration will force state Medicaid programs to cover gender transition treatments, just as the Obama Administration did.
Could Directly Fund Abortions
- President Biden’s budget proposed deleting the Hyde Amendment, which over the past 45 years has prohibited taxpayer funding of abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
- Because the Hyde Amendment consists of a “rider” to annual appropriations legislation, Congress must renew this provision every fiscal year to maintain pro-life protections.
- If the Democratically-controlled Congress abides by President Biden’s wishes and removes the Hyde Amendment protections from appropriations legislation, states would be forced to fund abortion-on-demand in their Medicaid programs.
- Existing precedents in several federal circuit courts, via cases such as Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan v. Engler, indicate that “states must fund abortions for which federal funds are available.”
- If President Biden and Democrats in Congress have their way and the Hyde Amendment protections are not renewed, conservative states that decide to expand Medicaid would be forced to cover all abortions.
Funds Planned Parenthood
- Medicaid expansion would also provide additional revenue to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.
- Even if Hyde Amendment restrictions on direct funding of abortion remain in place, expansion beneficiaries could choose Planned Parenthood clinics for other services—the revenue from which would indirectly subsidize abortions that Planned Parenthood performs.
- States that embrace Medicaid expansion will have little ability to prevent beneficiaries from obtaining care at Planned Parenthood clinics.
- The Obama Administration blocked states from excluding Planned Parenthood from a list of approved Medicaid providers—and the Biden Administration would likely take the same action.
Medicaid expansion does not just represent an economically unsustainable entitlement that places able-bodied adults ahead of individuals with disabilities and the most vulnerable. It will also ensure state and federal taxpayers fund procedures that many conservatives find morally objectionable and antithetical to their religious teachings
Related Posts
Policy Brief: An Introduction to Making America Healthy Again
This connection among what people eat, how food is grown, how patients are treated as they develop chronic disease, and how taxpayer resources are used to fuel these seemingly disparate industries is at the heart of a bipartisan movement to reverse the collapse of the American people’s health. The time to make America healthy again has arrived.
Primer: Refuting the Leftist Anti-Impoundment Narrative
Impoundment is constitutional and enjoys a long history of usage. Further, the restoration of impoundment—and the inherent understanding that appropriations are permissive ceilings and not mandatory floors—diminishes partisan political warfare and returns the federal government back to a healthier era where tension was vested more in separate branches of government and less in partisan differences and the courts.