{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010078878177037686, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017090271691498685, 'mean_word_length': 4.960835509138382, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Public Funding of Abortion Services: Comparative Developments in the United States and Australia

Attempts by anti-abortionists to eliminate public funding for abortion services were recently made in Australia and in the US; these attempts were successful in the US and unsuccessful in Australia. The attempts to restrict funding for abortion were described and 3 possible explanations of why the outcomes differed in these countries were offered. In the US legislation passed in 1965 created Medicaid a joint federal and state health program to provide health care for the poor. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruling in the Roe v. Wade case decriminalized abortion and declared that women had a right to abortion. It was generally interpreted that Medicaid should pay for medically indicated abortions. Most states complied with this interpretation till the mid 1970s. Between 1976-1981 a series of amendments referred to as Hyde Amendments were passed by Congress. These amendments gradually restricted the use of public funds for abortion services to cases where the life of the mother was endangered or to cases involving rape or incest. In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that states participating in Medicaid programs were not required to pay for medically required abortions. These restrictions place great hardships on poor women who seek abortions in the US. In Australia the federal government administers a national health insurance scheme and also subsidizes private health companies. Abortions are included in the medical benefits schedule. In 1979 an effort was made in Parliament to restrict funding for pregnancy termination. The effort was defeated by a 65 to 47 vote. These differences in outcome may reflect 1) a rebound effect in the US due to the abrupt way in which abortion was legalized in 1972 compared to the gradual liberalization of abortion law in Australia or 2) the fact that the restriction of abortion funds in the US affected only the lower socioeconomic class while in Australia a restriction on funding would have affected a broad spectrum of the society. On the other hand these differences in outcome may simply be a product of differing legislative procedures and further efforts in Australia to restrict funding may be forthcoming and successful.