Senate Defeats Sexist Restrictions in Health Care Bill

Opponents of women's reproductive rights in both houses of the Congress are again attempting to legislate their personal moral values unto a nation that is supposedly "the land of the free and the home of the brave." On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, the Senate voted 54-45 to table an amendment, effectively killing said amendment, which included language that would prohibit any federal subsidizing of abortions-even if women wish to purchase coverage for reproductive procedures, such as abortions, with their own, private money. With seven Senate Democrats voting with 38 Republicans against killing the amendment, Maine's Senators-both Republican and both female-Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins-voted with the Democrats to table said amendment to the health care reform bill (CNN).

If approved, the Senate's health care bill would vary from the House's bill, passed in November, with more limiting language "that prevents any health plan receiving federal subsidies from offering coverage for abortion" (CNN). As is usually the case with those most adamantly against women's reproductive rights, the fact that Senators Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who introduced the abortion amendment to the senate, are both male and, therefore, without uteruses is not lost on this writer, nor should it be ignored by readers. These anti-choice lawmakers wanted the Senate's language to preclude federal moneys being allocated for abortion with exceptions being made only for cases involving rape (According to law enforcement, approximately half of all rapes remain unreported to the proper authorities because most often the rapist is a friend, boyfriend, relative, or spouse of the victim.), incest, or if there is a threat to the mother's life.

Senator Orrin Hatch maintained that the Senate version of the abortion language is ambiguous enough to allow the use of federal funds to support health insurance plans that would cover abortion. According to CNN, Hatch said, "Taxpayers should not be called upon to pay for abortion." Apparently, Hatch is completely unconcerned with taxpayers' being called upon to pay for unwanted babies via the welfare system, social services, public schools, law enforcement, and the court and penal systems. Sen. Hatch and fellow legislators seemingly so focused on the waste of taxpayer money should first add up the cost on both sides of the abortion argument and see which total comes to the greatest amount.

Moreover, the federal government has never had a problem allocating taxpayer moneys to subsidize bailouts for Wall Street, banks, and the car industry. The US government is also unopposed to using taxpayer funds for birth control pills and other forms of birth control for its citizens and costly health care for unwilling mothers and unwanted babies.

As Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) astutely puts it, "Why are women being singled out here? It's so unfair." Boxer further added that there is not one medical procedure for males that cannot be purchased with private funds. While Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) argued that the real purpose of the amendment was to deny women covered by government-funded health care their right, as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, to obtain an abortion, Stabenow also added that federal policy may continue to disallow federal financing of abortions, but America needs a law that "respects the women of this country," (CNN).

Being that women make up the only clear majority in this world-making up 52-54% of the population, it would seem that women's rights, including reproductive, would be guaranteed to all American women, not squandered away like some trivial issue. This point is especially important to elected officials because women also account for the majority of voters in elections-especially in big elections, including congressional and presidential.

Source used in the writing of this article: Dana Bash, Evan Glass, and Deirdre Walsh, "Senate rejects abortion amendment in health care bill." CNN.