Congress Endangers Military Women's Health With Ban

May 28, 2003

by Jan Erickson, Government Relations Director, and Leonard Tengco, Communications Intern

At a time when accolades are being extended to U.S. military men and women serving in Iraq and other countries, Congress has chosen to continue the unfair and dangerous ban on abortions at overseas military bases. Both houses rejected amendments last week to the $400 billion defense spending bill that would have repealed that ban—an action that has been repeated virtually every year since 1996 when anti-abortion extremists took majority control of Congress.

The amendments—offered in the House by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) and in the Senate by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)—were rejected on May 22 with votes of 201 to 227 and 48 to 51, respectively. Three swing senators who had never voted on this issue before, Sen. Zell Miller (Ga.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), both Democrats, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), voted against the repeal.

In Developing Countries, Health Risks Are Serious

The more than 100,000 women living on military bases overseas—servicewomen, spouses and relatives of military personnel—are not able to obtain abortions at military hospitals, even if they pay for the procedure with their own money. Abortions are allowed in cases of rape or incest, or if the women's life is in danger, but the military will not cover the costs unless the woman would die as a result of the pregnancy. Unfortunately, for military women who must resort to local hospitals and clinics in developing countries to obtain abortions, the risks to their health and life are serious in often unsanitary and poorly equipped facilities.

Feminist leaders gave kudos to Murray, Sanchez and Snowe for standing up for military women, noting that military women and their dependents are being denied a right that they have in the U.S.—being able to obtain a legal abortion.

"No woman should have to give up her constitutional rights because her military career takes her overseas, or because her father or husband is stationed on a military base," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "The U.S. government is treating military families like second-class citizens when it comes to their reproductive health, and that is simply unconscionable."

Restrictions for Military Dependents

Not content to stop most abortions performed at military hospitals overseas, anti-abortion activists like Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) are reported ready to offer a bill (S. 1104) soon that would require parental consent for any woman under the age of 18 seeking an abortion on a military base in the U.S. Current military policy requires a minor to secure the consent of a parent or guardian before obtaining an abortion—but a minor can only receive an abortion if she is the victim of rape or incest or faces a threat to her life if the pregnancy is continued.

The legislation provides an extremely narrow judicial bypass that does not safeguard confidentiality; therefore, a young woman may be reluctant to seek a judge's approval in lieu of parental consent. Including a parental consent requirement in the statutes will make it less likely that military dependents will seek abortions at military hospitals and instead turn to unsafe local medical facilities.

Finally, the Brownback bill would state that a fetus is an "individual human organism from fertilization until birth." Not only would this redefinition take us one step closer to overturning Roe v. Wade, but calling a fertilized egg a fetus also has onerous legal implications for stem-cell research, in-vitro fertilization and the most common forms of contraception.