I'm a big fan of jamming the right legislation right down the GOPs throat. The 15 billion jobs bill, the deficit reduction fig-leaf, the two new nuclear plants aren't going to get the job done.

This is important if the proposed expansion will actually reach the people who need it. 20 years ago, you couldn't have a 401K fund or IRA and still qualify (not if it was of any significant amount). Someone living with family, or even having unrelated roommates could also easily fail the means test since total household income was examined. If you were living with anyone else, you had to provide pay stubs from them, an asset statement, list of bank accounts, etc.

It was first passed in 1976 and first put into effect in the budget in 1980.  It's language does NOT state any broad philosophy about the use of federal funds being prohibited across the board in everything the federal government funds. The language just says that in in this program funds may not be used to pay for abortions except for incest etc.  

Indeed, initially the language was just added into the budget in the section dealing with Medicaid.

Later on,  the budgetary restriction was added to the sections appropriating funds for other programs like Veterans care.  Then later it was the mitiary and military hospitals. In 2002 the budgetary language was added to the section of the appropriations bill for the Federal Health Benefits Program.

The langeage states that no funds in this part of the provision shall be expended except for the rape, incest , life of the mother exceptions.

These program specific provisions must be inserted every year into the budget.  And yes the programs have grown but I must dispute with you that this actual creates a constant philosophy that NO FEDERAL  FUNDS may ever be used.

Each year the ability to change or delete the language is possible on a program by program basis or in a general lack of any just restrictive language in the budget.

I don't think it is a good position for anyone who cares about abortion rights to claim that there a general Federal prohibition as though it always existed and will continue to exist.  It must be reauthorized every year program by program.

Bill Clinton did not  put the Hyde amendment into the budget he submitted to Congress.  He made the Approriations committee, ( which has always been headed by someone antichoice ) put it into the budget as a rider.

Barack Obama did not follow that model to the detriment of the prochoice community and the women of America. He included the Hyde amendment himself in the budget he sent to Congress.  Then he told Katie Couric on national TV that the Hyde amendment was "federal tradition" Like it was something sacred.

By acceding to the idea that it's federal tradition, as you seem to be doing as well,
 he empowers the anti choice people to go for further restrictions.  There is enormous damage to treating it as settled legislated law.

While the Medicaid Hyde language was statutory, what controls Medicare though was a letter from Donna Shalala in 1998 changing her initial analysis that Medicare's trust fund structure did not make it part of the federal budget. That letter was then incorporated into the 1999 Omnibus Reconcilation Bill.

Every one of these is disputable and changable. It doesn't have to stay that way and Congress could decide to say that Medicare is not covered by the restrictive language. Or the administrtion could send out another opinion saying that the Medicare Trust fund is not part of this restriction.  

Are any of these politically doable...really hard now. We need more Democratic women in Caongress.  But you get nowhere by conceding the matter up front.

That was the mistake the choice community made when the health care bill began.  They decided not to fight Hyde at the request of the administration.  And of course Capps amendment is not the compromise postion but has been thrown overboard.

As to the effect of Medicaid, given that the large majority of the women who don;t have insurance are at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, the vast number who would have gone into the exchanges initially would be under this Medicaid extesnsion.  Tens of millions of women.

Still allowing the exchanges could mean that eventually employer provided plans would enter the exchanges where Stupak could hold sway.