NYT Editorial: Disrespecting Women Soldiers

05/31/2005

May 29, 2005
NY Times

Showing bad timing as well as bad judgment, House Republicans chose the
days before this weekend’s patriotic holiday to deny needed health
services to women serving the nation in the military.

On Tuesday, Republican leaders had the Rules Committee block the House
from voting on two modest amendments to the military authorization bill
that were intended to remove ideological barriers to providing decent
care to military women who are victims of sexual assault. One amendment,
offered by Representative Michael Michaud, a Maine Democrat, would have
ensured that so-called morning-after emergency contraception, which can
prevent pregnancy if taken within 120 hours of unprotected sex, was made
available to sexual assault victims at military bases. The other,
sponsored by Representatives Christopher Shays, Republican of
Connecticut, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Democrat of Florida, would
have carved out a narrow exception to the ban on federal financing of
abortions, for military women who have suffered rape or incest.

We understand why G.O.P. leaders wanted to prevent the House from voting
on these measures: that would have required Republicans to go on record
in favor of ill-treating female service members to placate their
influential extreme-right wing.

On Wednesday, House members did vote on a perennial proposal, offered
this time by three California Democrats, Representatives Susan Davis,
Jane Harman and Loretta Sanchez, to permit American troops overseas and
their relatives to obtain abortions at military hospitals and clinics if
they pay the bills. Military doctors currently may perform abortions
only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is endangered.
Even in cases of rape and incest, the women must pay. While women
stationed in the United States who seek an abortion can at least go to
public or private hospitals or clinics off the grounds of military
bases, those options may not be available to many of the more than
100,000 American women living on overseas bases, including in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

“We ask women to put their lives at risk for our freedom, so why is it
we do not support them when they require safe and legal medical
services?” asked Representative Davis. That is the right question.
Troubling figures released this month by the Pentagon show that the
number of reported cases of sexual assault among service members
continues to climb. Regrettably, this did not deter the House from
defeating the amendment, 233 to 194.

Among those voting against it was Representative John McHugh, a New York
Republican who, as chairman of a subcommittee looking into the
military’s sexual assault crisis, spoke only a year ago about the need
to reassure women of Congress’s “sincerity” in addressing the problem.
House Republicans did back away from an effort to impose unwarranted new
limits on women’s service in combat support and service units. But that
cannot reverse the hurtful message to female soldiers sent by the other
votes. That task now falls to the Senate.