10 U.S.C. § 1093

Performance of abortions: restrictions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Restriction on Use of Funds.—Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.(b)Restriction on Use of Facilities.—No medical treatment facility or other facility of the Department of Defense may be used to perform an abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.(Added Pub. L. 98–525, title XIV, § 1401(e)(5)(A), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2617; amended Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title VII, § 738(a), (b)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 383; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title VII, § 704, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1800.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in subsec. (a) of this section were contained in the following appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 98–473, title I, § 101(h) [title VIII, § 8044], Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1904, 1931.

Pub. L. 98–212, title VII, § 751, Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1447.

Pub. L. 97–377, title I, § 101(c) [title VII, § 755], Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1833, 1860.

Pub. L. 97–114, title VII, § 757, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1588.

Pub. L. 96–527, title VII, § 760, Dec. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 3091.

Pub. L. 96–154, title VII, § 762, Dec. 21, 1979, 93 Stat. 1162.

Pub. L. 95–457, title VIII, § 863, Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1254.

Amendments

2013—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–239 inserted “or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest” before period at end.

1996—Pub. L. 104–106, § 738(b)(1), amended section catchline generally, substituting “Performance of abortions: restrictions” for “Restrictions on use of funds for abortions”.

Pub. L. 104–106, § 738(a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted subsec. heading, and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1985, see section 1404 of Pub. L. 98–525, set out as a note under section 520b of this title.

Executive DocumentsPrivately Funded Abortions at Military Hospitals

Memorandum of the President of the United States, Jan. 22, 1993, 58 F.R. 6439, provided:

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

Section 1093 of title 10 of the United States Code prohibits the use of Department of Defense (“DOD”) funds to perform abortions except where the life of a woman would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. By memoranda of December 21, 1987, and June 21, 1988, DOD has gone beyond what I am informed are the requirements of the statute and has banned all abortions at U.S. military facilities, even where the procedure is privately funded. This ban is unwarranted. Accordingly, I hereby direct that you reverse the ban immediately and permit abortion services to be provided, if paid for entirely with non-DOD funds and in accordance with other relevant DOD policies and procedures.

You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

William J. Clinton.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Maureen M. Britell v. United States, 372 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Maureen M. Britell v. United States, 372 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “The district court ruled that 10 U.S.C. § 1093 (a) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution under a rational-basis review because its ban on funding abortions could not be justified on the basis of the state’s interest in…”

Britell v. United States, 318 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “In accordance with federal law, see 10 U.S.C. § 1093 (a) (reprinted in the appendix); 32 C.”

Britell v. United States, 150 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D. Mass. 2001). · cites it 6× “” 10 U.S.C. § 1093 (a). Further, regulations governing CHAMPUS specifically provide: Covered abortion services are limited to medical services and supplies only.”

Britell v. United States, 204 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D. Mass. 2002). · cites it 3× “But a statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1093 (a), analogous to the one at issue in McRae , 7 prohibits the program from using funds “to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.”

Doe v. United States, 372 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “however, TRICARE de-dined to authorize payment, based on the statutory and regulatory prohibitions against paying for abortions unless the life of the mother is at risk, 10 U.S.C. § 1093 (a) and 32 C.F.R. § 199.”

Auth. of the Dep't of Def. to Use Appropriations for Travel by Serv. Members & Dependents to Obtain Abortions (OLC 2022). · cites it 10× “By statute, “[f]unds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest,” 10 U.S.C. §…”

Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2005). “” 10 U.S.C. § 1093 (a). The regulation implementing this statutory prohibition declares: The statute under which CHAMPUS operates prohibits payment for abortions with one single exception — where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.”

Reconsidering the Application of the Hyde Amendment to the Provision of Transp. for Women Seeking Abortions (OLC 2025). “These programs include, for example, the Department of Defense, see 10 U.S.C. § 1093 ; the Department of Justice, see Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Pub.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.