Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton announced at a Planned Parenthood rally that, if elected president, she would put an end to the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is not a law, but an amendment added to every appropriations bill since 1976, and it bans federal Medicaid funding of abortions. It’s estimated that the Hyde Amendment has saved over a million lives. Naturally, Planned Parenthood is eager to see it overturned, as they can’t be satisfied with the half a billion dollars they already receive in taxpayer funding each year. So Hillary’s announcement was certainly applauded by Planned Parenthood — but they weren’t the only ones. The abortion lobby was excited about the possible ending of the Hyde Amendment, too.

Christina Cauterucci wrote about how important ending Hyde is at Slate’s Double X blog…

If Clinton makes the Hyde Amendment a 2016 campaign issue, it will be a long-overdue step toward addressing the intersection between economic insecurity and reproductive health. Studies show that poor women take up to three weeks longer than other women to secure an abortion, in part because she needs time to come up with the money. But the further along the fetus, the more expensive her abortion will be and the more likely she is to experience health complications. Hyde has influenced new health programs, too. Poor women have long been used as poker chips in political debates over abortion, and lawmakers have used their power to stymie women’s health care access as a way to prove their anti-choice chops.

Think Progress argued that taxpayers approve:

There’s also some evidence it will resonate with voters. Recent polling has confirmed that voters see abortion access as an economic issue for women. According to one poll conducted by Hart Research, about 86 percent of voters agree that “politicians should not be allowed to deny a woman’s health coverage for abortion because she is poor.”

The National Organization for Women tweeted their support, and asked for people to sign a petition supporting it:

NARAL’s a fan, too:

And of course, Ilyse Hogue had to show her support:

Unfortunately for these abortion apologists, Americans don’t want taxpayer-funded abortion.

Last year, a Marist poll funded by the Knights of Columbus found that 7 out of 10 Americans opposed taxpayer funding for abortion. This included millennials, who opposed it 71% to 28%, and women, who opposed it 69% to 28%. Less than 1 in 10 Americans strongly supported taxpayer-funded abortion.

But that’s the Knights of Columbus, abortion advocates might say. They’re a biased source. Well, that wasn’t the only poll that came up with these kind of results. A Quinnipiac poll also found that a majority of Americans disapprove of taxpayer-funder abortion. Quinnipiac found that women opposed taxpayer-funded abortions, 68% to 26%, and even low-income Americans (for whom abortion advocates so often say they speak) opposed it, 68% to 26%.

So, yet again, we can see that the abortion lobby is on the opposite side of the American people. If they had their way, they would force Americans to fund abortions against their will, all the while claiming that it’s what we want.

What, exactly is pro “choice” about that?

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton announced at a Planned Parenthood rally that, if elected president, she would put an end to the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is not a law, but an amendment added to every appropriations bill since 1976, and it bans federal Medicaid funding of abortions. It’s estimated that the Hyde Amendment has saved over a million lives. Naturally, Planned Parenthood is eager to see it overturned, as they can’t be satisfied with the half a billion dollars they already receive in taxpayer funding each year. So Hillary’s announcement was certainly applauded by Planned Parenthood — but they weren’t the only ones. The abortion lobby was excited about the possible ending of the Hyde Amendment, too.

Christina Cauterucci wrote about how important ending Hyde is at Slate’s Double X blog…

If Clinton makes the Hyde Amendment a 2016 campaign issue, it will be a long-overdue step toward addressing the intersection between economic insecurity and reproductive health. Studies show that poor women take up to three weeks longer than other women to secure an abortion, in part because she needs time to come up with the money. But the further along the fetus, the more expensive her abortion will be and the more likely she is to experience health complications. Hyde has influenced new health programs, too. Poor women have long been used as poker chips in political debates over abortion, and lawmakers have used their power to stymie women’s health care access as a way to prove their anti-choice chops.

Think Progress argued that taxpayers approve:

There’s also some evidence it will resonate with voters. Recent polling has confirmed that voters see abortion access as an economic issue for women. According to one poll conducted by Hart Research, about 86 percent of voters agree that “politicians should not be allowed to deny a woman’s health coverage for abortion because she is poor.”

The National Organization for Women tweeted their support, and asked for people to sign a petition supporting it:

NARAL’s a fan, too:

And of course, Ilyse Hogue had to show her support:

Unfortunately for these abortion apologists, Americans don’t want taxpayer-funded abortion.

Last year, a Marist poll funded by the Knights of Columbus found that 7 out of 10 Americans opposed taxpayer funding for abortion. This included millennials, who opposed it 71% to 28%, and women, who opposed it 69% to 28%. Less than 1 in 10 Americans strongly supported taxpayer-funded abortion.

But that’s the Knights of Columbus, abortion advocates might say. They’re a biased source. Well, that wasn’t the only poll that came up with these kind of results. A Quinnipiac poll also found that a majority of Americans disapprove of taxpayer-funder abortion. Quinnipiac found that women opposed taxpayer-funded abortions, 68% to 26%, and even low-income Americans (for whom abortion advocates so often say they speak) opposed it, 68% to 26%.

So, yet again, we can see that the abortion lobby is on the opposite side of the American people. If they had their way, they would force Americans to fund abortions against their will, all the while claiming that it’s what we want.

What, exactly is pro “choice” about that?