Yesterday Today Tomorrow

Inseong J Kim: Hello, this is Inseong Kim from Yesterday Today Tomorrow, and we have a special guest, Caitlan Connors, Political Director in Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. Thank you so much for being with us. Thank you.

Caitlan Connors: Yes, thank you so much. I really appreciate your time today.

Inseong J Kim: Many people are a little bit shocked about the Hyde Amendment issue today, so please explain to us what it is and what is happening.

Caitlan Connors: Absolutely. Right now in Washington, DC, there's an ongoing debate over healthcare, which is, of course, a very important issue. But one thing in particular that we as a pro-life movement are completely inflexible on is the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is very important. It goes back to 1973. Congressman Henry Hyde is the namesake there. The Hyde Amendment simply protects taxpayers from funding abortions.

This has been a long-standing amendment, something that certainly the Republican Party has held the line on for many, many years. So it is a non-negotiable for the pro-life movement. In fact, it really is the bare minimum of what we as pro-lifers should demand from our representation in Washington. So we have been fighting for this amendment to, of course, be included in any sort of healthcare package.

But really, voters demand it, pro-life voters, and even voters who are in the middle on abortion still don't want their taxpayer dollars to be funding abortion. This is a very middle-of-the-road kind of policy that we're talking about here. So it's incredibly important that Republicans hold the line on the Hyde Amendment. The Democrats have been for many, many years trying to erode it and force the taxpayer to pay for abortion, and we are holding the line on this.

Inseong J Kim: Since 1973, have we funded abortion with taxpayer dollars?

Caitlan Connors: What we're dealing with now in the current healthcare debate is the Obamacare subsidies being extended. Unfortunately, when Obamacare passed, we had a handful of pro-life Democrats who actually changed their position, apparently, on their pro-life stance to allow for essentially an accounting gimmick. They made it seem like the taxpayers would be protected from funding abortions, but in reality, they were not.

We saw then, back in 2010, when Obamacare unfortunately passed without any sort of protections for the taxpayer in funding abortion, that there was a political price to pay. Many and most of those Democrats who voted the wrong way and eradicated Hyde under Obamacare lost their election because pro-lifers are very, very firm on the bare minimum that their taxpayer dollars should not be funding abortion.

That has been a pillar of the GOP and certainly of the pro-life movement and, once again, really the bare minimum of what we ask our elected representation to uphold in Washington. So the debate we're having right now is to make sure that any future healthcare plan does include protections for taxpayers.

Inseong J Kim: If they don't use tax money—most of the government income is from the tax—where does Planned Parenthood get funding from? What kind of money do they use?

Caitlan Connors: Well, Planned Parenthood has benefited off of our tax dollars for many, many years. Going back to the fall or to the summer, we looked at the Big Beautiful Bill, as it's called, where we were successful in being able to defund abortion providers for one fiscal year. So that is something, again, that the pro-life movement has fought for many, many years, to try to defund abortion providers.

This is our first time that we've been able to do that at the federal level. Many states have been able to do that individually through their own state programs. Just recently, again, over the summer, we had the Supreme Court rule in the Medina case, which was a case coming out of South Carolina. In South Carolina, they said we don't want our tax dollars to fund abortions through our Medicaid program. The Supreme Court upheld that they had the right as the state to exclude abortion providers from benefiting from their Medicaid program.

So we've made a lot of progress in terms of being able to defend the taxpayer from paying for abortion. But you're right that over the years, Planned Parenthood certainly has received tax dollars through various different programs. It's not just through Obamacare. There are many funding streams that exist at both the federal and state level where they're able to benefit off of tax dollars. So we have long since been looking for ways to make sure that entities like Planned Parenthood and abortion providers are not benefiting from our tax dollars.

Inseong J Kim: What is the difference that new information about what President Trump did recently about this Hyde Amendment?

Caitlan Connors: Yes, the comment on being flexible on the Hyde Amendment is contrary to the president's own position and commitment to this issue previously. He has said before and pledged repeatedly to make the Hyde Amendment permanent law, including in healthcare coverage. One of his very first actions after taking office last year was prioritizing the reversal of those Biden-Hyde violations.

So the president has previously been firm on this issue about the Hyde Amendment, protecting it and protecting taxpayer dollars. This recent comment about flexibility has certainly created a bit of a storm. I think what we've already seen on Capitol Hill is that most of our pro-life representation, both House and Senate, understand that the Hyde Amendment is a non-negotiable.

When you look at the state level as well, and different advocates from across the country, we are all unified in saying that caving on the Hyde Amendment is dead on arrival, non-negotiable, and any healthcare plan that calls for caving on Hyde is not going to get any support. In fact, the opposite from the pro-life movement.

So we do unfortunately have a list of House members who did vote for a plan that did not have Hyde protections in them. And what we know, going back to the Obamacare debate in 2010, is that there are political consequences when you abandon your base, when you abandon the pro-life movement, especially on something as fundamental as taxpayer funding.

So as a political organization that SBA is, we are investing $82 million into this midterm election. And what we have to have is a base that is willing to go out and vote, because it's already hard in a midterm. There's always the motivation factor, getting your voters out to the polls to actually go and vote. That intensity gap is very real.

And so when you suppress the base by not upholding even the most basic of principles on the life issue, they're mostly inclined to stay home. What we're trying to do as a pro-life political organization is keep the voters from staying home, going out and electing pro-life members of the House and Senate and at the state level as well. So we have to have our elected representation doing their part and holding the line on Hyde.

Inseong J Kim: I think we still have a lot of people who are still not educated enough to understand. As of 2025, the Hyde Amendment, authored by the GOP Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois in 1976, has saved more than 2.6 million lives. Now we are changing this, so just be patient with me, I'm trying to understand. So we reversed Roe v. Wade on the federal level, which means we are banning it at the federal level. So is that tax from the state tax we're talking about because it all went to the state on the decision that should be made? Supporting is supposed to be by state as well, isn't it? Is the federal government still funding Planned Parenthood?

Caitlan Connors: Let me start with the Dobbs decision that came down in 2022, and that was the reversal of Roe v. Wade. What the Dobbs decision said is that our elected representation now has the ability to enact policy on abortion. Previously, the Supreme Court from the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 said that states or federal government cannot enact policies prohibiting abortion.

So with the Dobbs decision, we finally were at a point where both the states and the federal government were able to enact policy on abortion. Now, that did not say that now the new law is that life is protected at this point in pregnancy or anything like that. It merely said now this can be an actual political debate and states and the federal government can decide on what they think the policy should be. So basically, we got a blank slate with the Dobbs decision.

Many states, about half of our states, have gone on to enact pro-life policies. So many of our more Republican-leaning states, of course, are more pro-life and they have protections in place either throughout pregnancy, when a heartbeat can be detected, there are a couple states that have a 12-week limitation on abortion, and each of those states has a slightly different law on what their abortion policy is.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, we don't have any protections for the unborn. There is no federal law that says abortion is prohibited after a heartbeat, after the halfway point in pregnancy, after a baby can feel pain, in late term, there's no restriction on abortion at the federal level. So the Dobbs decision did not pass a law on any sort of limitation on abortion. Rather, it said that our elected representation can from this point on make those laws.

So on top of having the debate on when should we limit abortion then—of course, we would like to see abortion be unthinkable in our country—but now this is all up for debate. And there are other parts of the abortion question, other policies that are affected by the Dobbs decision, but also just the general debate on whether taxpayers should have to fund abortions or abortion providers, whether we have an ongoing conversation about abortion drugs, which is a great topic but for probably another time because that's a whole other thing. But there are many, many policies related to abortion that now our elected representation must consider and debate.

The Hyde Amendment has been part of the conversation since 1973, when Henry Hyde helped pass this amendment. And that is simply a protection for the taxpayer saying that our federal tax dollars may not be used to fund abortions. So when we're talking about our current situation with healthcare and figuring out how do we continue now that Obamacare subsidies have concluded, they have lapsed and they have to either be renewed or a new plan must be brought into place, where is the question of taxpayer-funded abortion?

This has been a long-standing policy from the Republicans that any sort of healthcare plan should have the Hyde Amendment within it and that the taxpayer should be protected. For many years now, unfortunately, Democrats have insisted that the Hyde Amendment is not something that we need. One, they would support taxpayer-funded abortions, but two, have maintained that there are, under Obamacare, essentially an accounting gimmick. That's the best way to really describe it, that makes it appear that the taxpayer is not on the hook for funding abortions, but in reality they are.

The Democrat Party platform on the issue of abortion generally is to have no restrictions on abortion, meaning in terms of a gestational limit, or that taxpayers should be free from funding it, that conscience protection rights, all up and down the board. When you look at different issues that are affected by the question of abortion, the Democrat Party platform is for no restrictions.

So we're in an era right now where Congress is desperately looking for a solution on healthcare. And the Republican Party has long had this position, and certainly the pro-life movement is immovable, that the taxpayer should not fund abortion or abortion providers. So that's where we are right now. That is what the Hyde Amendment does, it protects the taxpayer. And what we as a pro-life movement are saying is that no healthcare plan whatsoever will get the support of the pro-life movement if it does not have the Hyde Amendment within it.

Inseong J Kim: Appearing in the Washington Watch, Tony Perkins, Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, said, "I'm not flexible on the value of every single child. Every single child is valuable. There aren't some children that are disposable or some children that are valuable. Every child is valuable." And I believe there are many Americans who support that, but I think we haven't opened the full conversation to everyone to process this issue of valuing every child's life.

Caitlan Connors: Well, we had the decision of Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country for about 50 years. And for 50 years, that affects multiple generations of thinking that abortion is not just morally acceptable but also a legal right. And so it's going to take more than a couple of years to change the hearts and minds of Americans. I think already we've seen a lot of progress. We have seen certainly states enact laws that protect life.

We have seen, unfortunately, in situations like with the abortion drugs, meaning the pills that can be taken to terminate a pregnancy, we have seen that women are suffering. Some women have suffered physical complications as well as emotional ones, of course. And I think we're seeing really tangible ways how abortion is damaging. Of course, to the unborn child as it always has been, but also very damaging to women.

I think in the world that we are in now, where we have more information than we ever have before, we can see things with our own eyes. I think that the hearts and minds of Americans are noticing that abortion is not the solution to problems as it's been sold to us. It is not a way for women to, quote-unquote, "have it all."

The abortion industry has long since profited off of women in a very vulnerable and scared state, thinking that abortion is their only option. And that is what they told them: "Abortion is your only option if you want to have any kind of a life, if you want to have any kind of a career, if you want to maintain your relationships. Have this abortion and then all this will be behind you."

Well, we know the reality is that that's not what happens, that women have the wound of abortion throughout their whole life. And so the abortion industry has lied and profited off of that lie for many, many years. I think the American people are starting to see that. I think we also have such an incredible increase in technology that we not only do we know biologically that life begins at conception, but we can see that baby on an ultrasound.

And not only do we see kind of shapes that resemble a baby, we have 4K ultrasounds now where you essentially get a picture of a real-life photo of that unborn baby still in the womb. You can pick out their traits and see, "Oh, they have mom's nose and they have dad's eyes." It is undeniable, the humanity of the unborn child. And technology and medicine only evolves more and more to prove that time and time again.

So we know that science is on our side. We know that people in our country are seeing the real effects of abortion, how it harms women. And so I think it will not change overnight, because as I said at the beginning, we've had Roe for 50 years. We've had 50 years of that being ingrained into the culture of this country. So it won't happen overnight that people change their entire opinion on abortion. But it is evolving, and I think we will see even in the near future people changing hearts and minds on this issue and realizing that women deserve better than abortion.

Inseong J Kim: Yes, absolutely. Even I heard that woman who had a miscarriage having so much hard time and their wound is forever as a mom. So how much more wound can be for the woman, especially when it happened they are in the vulnerable age that without really comprehending what is happening really in their lives. So definitely older generation has to step in, fully understand what it is and educate our community. I think that's really important at this time.

Caitlan Connors: Absolutely. It requires one-on-one conversations and being willing to speak about this issue and not shying away from it because it can be unpalatable sometimes. The reality of abortion is a harsh one, and the younger generation needs to know about it as well. And I think we're seeing a lot of hope with younger people in this country who have grown up being able to see their siblings on an ultrasound before they ever met them, who have grown up maybe going to that doctor's appointment with their mom and getting to hear their little brother or sister's heartbeat at the doctor's office.

I think we have come to a point where the humanity of the unborn child is so undeniable and something that is just understood at a deep level for this generation coming up. So I have a lot of hope for the younger generation in realizing the humanity of the unborn and fighting to protect the unborn and their mothers.

Inseong J Kim: Yes, I think it's about time for us to really realize what's the consequence of having an abortion, not just in a family setting and not just extended family setting, but in the nationally what the ramification of that. I think there are some other countries outside America experiencing the ramification of the decline of the population in an irreversible rate. And what is that mean in—I think we have to process on a national security level—that as a government is there to protect people and they're there to chosen to support and protect and guide them to prosper their lives, not the other way around.

So it's a matter of understanding of this issue that how important that our tax dollars are not funding of this absolutely horrible medical practice that hurts not just mom but also father and also grandparents. I met so many different situations and so many different people, and I think it hurts the society. And it's groaning, but they cannot talk about it. So thank you so much for what you do. I think it's critical for us to really realize the hardworking people's tax dollars funding to destroy their own child. I think that has to revisit and rethink about as a society, as a country and as a leaders, that we should step out of denial or misunderstanding. All of this misinformation has to be cleared up. What do you think?

Caitlan Connors: Yes, I think you're absolutely right. I think the bare minimum we should be asking for as the pro-life movement is making sure our hard-earned tax dollars don't fund abortions. And so I know that's the fight that we have on our hands. It's not just pro-lifers who believe that. Even pro-choice voters agree that they don't want their tax dollars being spent on abortion. And so I think we know firmly that the Hyde Amendment must be a part of any healthcare plan moving forward. The pro-life movement demands it, voters demand it, and we will see come these midterms if our elected representation does the right thing on Hyde, how that turns out. We want to support those who are supporting Hyde and protecting life.

Inseong J Kim: Thank you so much, Caitlan Connors, for being with us and thank you so much for what you do. Thank you.

Caitlan Connors: Thank you. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it.

Inseong J Kim: And thank you for listening to Yesterday Today Tomorrow. Please share our program to family and friends, and we'll be back next week. Thank you.