Register for E-mail alerts. Comment on articles. Sign up today, it's easy.
Close

Military abortion issue returns

Senate amendment reverses ban on procedure overseas

CHANGE SPONSOR: Sen. Roland W. Burris, Illinois Democrat, says military personnel deserve CHANGE SPONSOR: Sen. Roland W. Burris, Illinois Democrat, says military personnel deserve "the highest quality care." (Associated Press)
Social Networks
facebookFacebook
twitterTwitter
Question of the Day

Will you be affected by Hurricane Earl?

View results

Three months after abortion nearly derailed President Obama's health care bill, the hot-button issue is back before Congress with an amendment to the Senate's defense policy bill that would end the military's long-established ban on allowing abortions in its overseas hospitals.

The change was sponsored by Sen. Roland W. Burris, Illinois Democrat, and passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee in late May. It would require women to pay for abortions upfront and without government funds, but would allow doctors at military hospitals to perform the procedures if those conditions are met.

The amendment would overturn a policy put into place by congressional Republicans in the mid-1990s that restricted abortions at military hospitals only to cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.

Military personnel deserve "the highest quality care," said Mr. Burris, and "that includes allowing women and their families the right to choose at facilities operated under the Department of Defense." The amendment passed the committee on a 15-12 vote.

But the provision has angered pro-life lawmakers, who argue that taxpayer dollars would still go to fund doctors and surgical equipment used for abortions in military hospitals, and questioned why the policy change was implemented in the annual defense policy bill.

"This administration and its allies seem determined to upend widely accepted compromises reached on a variety of issues," said Rep. William M. "Mac" Thornberry, Texas Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "Most Americans would find it deeply offensive to have their taxpayer dollars go to pay for abortions in the military."

The battle is erupting just a few months after a fight over taxpayer funding of abortion almost sank the Democrats' health care bill. Pro-life activists argued that the bill expanded government-funded coverage of abortions, and nearly rallied enough votes to defeat the entire measure. Mr. Obama intervened and begged Democrats not to use health care to alter abortion policy.

Similar issues are in play in the defense bill - popular legislation that is considered crucial.

A White House spokesman didn't return messages seeking comment on the president's position.

Abortion rights groups applauded the committee's vote. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said joining the military "shouldn't cause women to lose health care options if they're stationed overseas."

Story Continues →

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

About the Author
Rachel B. Duke

Rachel B. Duke

Rachel B. Duke is an intern with the National Journalism Center working in family and social issues and national news for the summer. She is a senior at Southern Methodist University in Dallas and will graduate in December. 

Comments

kevinkelly says:

2 months, 3 weeks ago

Mark as offensive

I am a MARINE and am against military abortions 100%.Don't kill off my future fellow MARINES.

cub62 says:

2 months, 3 weeks ago

Mark as offensive

These Liberals don't get it because first of all they don't believe in God. This country already has two generations of people that don't go to church. Obama was right by saying that this is no longer a Christian nation which of course it is what he likes. The baby killers are everywhere.

Cobra says:

2 months, 3 weeks ago

Mark as offensive

patpacer, the "poor" have been around since before recorded history. Allowing abortions will NOT, I repeat NOT, bring people out of poverty. It does KILL innocent children and guarantees that they will not be allowed to even breath their first breath of air. To save that child from poverty you would, what, KILL THEM? Just how moral is THAT?

View all comment(s) on this article.

Post a comment

Title

Not Registered Yet?

Comment on articles. Receive e-mail newsletters and alerts. Sign up today.

Happening Now

Click for more stories

Most Read

    Independent voices from the TWT Communities

    Movies in Toto

    Interviews and movie reviews, including DVD and Blu-ray reviews.

    Riffs

    Find up-to-date information on the D.C. and Baltimore live music scenes and read interviews with artists and reviews of the latest releases and concerts.

    Fade to Black

    Oklahoman Jason Black's view of sports with a twist of pop culture.