While there is no federal funding for abortion, the Trump administration has backed a rule that would forbid federal funding from going to clinics that provide or refer abortion services. In many cases, women rely on such clinics for medical services other than abortion, so if federal funding is cut, then these women might have to do without such things as pre-natal care and gynecological exams. As such, the rule presents a practical and moral quandary. To be specific, clinics that need federal funding will have to chose between reducing (or eliminating) services they cannot fund or eliminating abortion services and referrals.
On the one hand, opponents of abortion can make the argument that the defenders of abortion are in the wrong here: if the clinics would simply stop offering abortions and referrals, then they could receive the federal money they need to offer non-abortion services to women. As the anti-abortion folks see it, abortion is wrong and thus this option would be the morally best choice. If the abortion defenders refuse, the anti-abortion folks can say “look what you made us do” when the federal government refuses to provide funds to these clinics. On this view, the abortion defenders would bear the moral blame for the harm done to women by the denial of funding. This is because they are willing to allow this harm so that the clinics can still offer abortion services and referrals.
On the other hand, the defenders of abortion can make the argument that the anti-abortion folks are in the wrong. The anti-abortion folks are effectively holding the well-being of women (and babies) who need the other services hostage to their demand that the clinics not offer abortion services or referrals. As such, any harm done to the women (and babies) would fall upon the anti-abortion folks who insist that it is better that the women (and babies) suffer than that the clinics provide abortion services or referrals.
In sum, the anti-abortion folks would presumably say “the blame lies on the abortion defenders; if they simply stopped offering abortion services and referrals, the clinics could have the funding.” In contrast, the abortion defenders would presumably say “any blame lies on the anti-abortion folks; federal funding already cannot be used for abortion and they are just hurting women by pushing this rule.” On the face of it, the abortion defenders seem to have the better moral position on this issue: the anti-abortion folks already have a ban on federal funding for abortion, this expanded rule is morally greedy and hurts women whether the clinic choses to accept funds or elects to continue to provide abortion services and referrals. Interestingly, this could very well be a feature of the rule rather than a bug.
From the standpoint of an anti-abortion person who is a fiscal conservative, this rule creates a win-win situation. If a clinic accepts federal money, it would no longer be able to offer abortion services or referrals. If a clinic declines the money, this reduces the federal money being spent (assuming, however unlikely, that it is not simply spent elsewhere).
Anti-abortion folks who do not care about women or are hostile to them would also be quite pleased by this rule. If a clinic accepts money, then women who need or want abortions will have a harder time getting them, thus they will be harmed. If the clinic rejects the money, then it will have less funding and will be less able to provide services, thus harming women in various ways, including unwanted pregnancies that could end in abortions.
While one would like to think that harming women (and babies) would be an unintended consequence of this rule, it seems reasonable to think that this is an intended consequence. That is, the rule is not really about the ethics of abortion (since federal funding cannot go to that anyway) but about cutting ever deeper into federal support for the health of women and babies.