Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

January-24-03

Senate Passes Spending Bill Without Abortion Restrictions

The Senate passed a $390 billion spending bill last night that lacked funding restrictions on abortion. The omnibus bill, made up of 11 spending bills left over from 2002, passed the Senate 69-29 after a series of debates and votes on a variety of last-minute amendments.

Not included in the bill, however, were two abortion-related provisions that have been in place for decades, according to the Washington Times. One provision restricts abortion coverage for the 8 million people in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program except in cases of rape, incest, of when the life of the woman is threatened, according to Kaisernetwork.org. The other prohibits abortions for women in the federal prison system, except in cases of rape and threats to the life of the woman. President Bush’s advisors have said they will recommend he veto the bill, which finances every federal agency, if the provisions are not included in the final version of the bill, according to the Los Angeles Times. The bill now goes to a House-Senate conference committee for negotiations. Congressional aides say that at this point in the process, the abortion provisions are likely to be reinserted, the LA Times reports.

Democrats argue that the Senate bill does not include enough funding for important domestic programs like healthcare, food safety inspection, and homeland security, among others, according to AP. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) explained that she was torn between her concerns about the Republican budget and that fact that “if we don’t fund the government, it shuts down,” according to the LA Times. She ended up voting against the final version of the bill, as did 26 fellow democrats, Jim Jeffords (I-VT), and Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL).

Media Resources: Los Angeles Times 1/18/03, 1/24/03; New York Times 1/24/03; Associated Press 1/24/03; Kaisernetwork.org 1/24/03; Washington Times 1/22/03


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .