To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
"On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, today's action in the House is a vivid reminder of the constant attack women are under from politicians who--unlike most Americans--refuse to trust us and allow us to control our own bodies and make our own decisions about our lives." (Photo: Light Brigading/flickr/cc)
On the 42nd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms a woman's Constitutional right to an abortion, House Republicans passed a far-reaching anti-choice bill that women's health advocates say would cause the entire insurance market to drop abortion coverage while raising taxes on small business who provide comprehensive health care to their employees.
After pulling a more extreme anti-abortion bill at the last minute due to intra-party dissent, the GOP on Thursday voted 242-179 in favor of alternative legislation sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) that restricts federal funds for abortion.
But according to women's health experts, it would do much more than that. In a press statement, NARAL Pro-Choice America outlined the shocking implications of the bill:
"By passing a mean-spirited bill that takes abortion coverage away from millions of women, the House has shown it's totally out of touch with women's lives and health care," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the ACLU. "Politics shouldn't drive decisions about a woman's health or her insurance coverage. If Congress really cares about women, it will focus on expanding policies that support women and families, not on banning coverage of abortion in insurance."
Other activists said the move was politically opportunistic--timed to coincide with the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.--and just as ideologically motivated as the more extreme bill Republicans withdrew on Wednesday night.
"Today's exercise in the House is not about making public policy, nor is it about helping American women and families," Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It is about catering to a small minority of voters--anti-abortion activists who are descending on Washington for their annual march. It is nothing but a sad waste of time and waste of the faith that voters put in the Republican Party to come up with new solutions to actual problems in 2015."
Hogue continued: "On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, today's action in the House is a vivid reminder of the constant attack women are under from politicians who--unlike most Americans--refuse to trust us and allow us to control our own bodies and make our own decisions about our lives."
The measure has not been approved in the Senate. According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House indicated President Barack Obama would likely veto the bill if it reached his desk.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
On the 42nd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms a woman's Constitutional right to an abortion, House Republicans passed a far-reaching anti-choice bill that women's health advocates say would cause the entire insurance market to drop abortion coverage while raising taxes on small business who provide comprehensive health care to their employees.
After pulling a more extreme anti-abortion bill at the last minute due to intra-party dissent, the GOP on Thursday voted 242-179 in favor of alternative legislation sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) that restricts federal funds for abortion.
But according to women's health experts, it would do much more than that. In a press statement, NARAL Pro-Choice America outlined the shocking implications of the bill:
"By passing a mean-spirited bill that takes abortion coverage away from millions of women, the House has shown it's totally out of touch with women's lives and health care," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the ACLU. "Politics shouldn't drive decisions about a woman's health or her insurance coverage. If Congress really cares about women, it will focus on expanding policies that support women and families, not on banning coverage of abortion in insurance."
Other activists said the move was politically opportunistic--timed to coincide with the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.--and just as ideologically motivated as the more extreme bill Republicans withdrew on Wednesday night.
"Today's exercise in the House is not about making public policy, nor is it about helping American women and families," Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It is about catering to a small minority of voters--anti-abortion activists who are descending on Washington for their annual march. It is nothing but a sad waste of time and waste of the faith that voters put in the Republican Party to come up with new solutions to actual problems in 2015."
Hogue continued: "On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, today's action in the House is a vivid reminder of the constant attack women are under from politicians who--unlike most Americans--refuse to trust us and allow us to control our own bodies and make our own decisions about our lives."
The measure has not been approved in the Senate. According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House indicated President Barack Obama would likely veto the bill if it reached his desk.
On the 42nd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms a woman's Constitutional right to an abortion, House Republicans passed a far-reaching anti-choice bill that women's health advocates say would cause the entire insurance market to drop abortion coverage while raising taxes on small business who provide comprehensive health care to their employees.
After pulling a more extreme anti-abortion bill at the last minute due to intra-party dissent, the GOP on Thursday voted 242-179 in favor of alternative legislation sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) that restricts federal funds for abortion.
But according to women's health experts, it would do much more than that. In a press statement, NARAL Pro-Choice America outlined the shocking implications of the bill:
"By passing a mean-spirited bill that takes abortion coverage away from millions of women, the House has shown it's totally out of touch with women's lives and health care," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the ACLU. "Politics shouldn't drive decisions about a woman's health or her insurance coverage. If Congress really cares about women, it will focus on expanding policies that support women and families, not on banning coverage of abortion in insurance."
Other activists said the move was politically opportunistic--timed to coincide with the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.--and just as ideologically motivated as the more extreme bill Republicans withdrew on Wednesday night.
"Today's exercise in the House is not about making public policy, nor is it about helping American women and families," Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It is about catering to a small minority of voters--anti-abortion activists who are descending on Washington for their annual march. It is nothing but a sad waste of time and waste of the faith that voters put in the Republican Party to come up with new solutions to actual problems in 2015."
Hogue continued: "On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, today's action in the House is a vivid reminder of the constant attack women are under from politicians who--unlike most Americans--refuse to trust us and allow us to control our own bodies and make our own decisions about our lives."
The measure has not been approved in the Senate. According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House indicated President Barack Obama would likely veto the bill if it reached his desk.
