During the 109th session of Congress, a handful of congresspeople worked to promote legislation that was harmful to women's and young people's sexual and reproductive health and rights within and outside the United States. Many of the bills they proposed worked to limit women's and young people's access to health information and to undermine their right to complete, confidential, and affordable healthcare. On the other hand, some legislators fought an uphill battle to defend the health and rights of women and young people, proposing legislation to protect women's right to legal contraception, for example, or to ensure that teenagers receive full, accurate, unbiased information on sexuality and reproduction.

The International Women's Health Coalition has compiled below a record of legislation affecting women's and young people's health and rights that was either passed or defeated by the 109th Congress.

Click here to access "Stay Informed, Take Action," IWHC's guide to legislation currently before the 110th Congress.

Effort to Limit Access to Abortion Fails – September 29, 2006
The Senate's final vote before it headed home to campaign was an effort to push through the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act to limit young women's access to abortion-though that effort failed. This Republican priority legislation has had a long journey:

• April 27, 2005—The House passed it 270–157.
• July 25, 2005—The Senate amended the bill slightly and passed it 65–34.
• During debate in the Senate, an attempt to strengthen the bill by working to prevent unintended pregnancies was rejected by the Senate. Both Senators from New Jersey offered an amendment to provide funding for medically-accurate sex education, which delays sexual activity and provides young people with correct information that allows them to make healthy decisions about their sexuality. The amendment would have also provided support to programs to help parents discuss sexuality with their own children. This effort to focus on reducing the incidence of abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies—rather than just limiting access—could not get a majority support in the Senate, which defeated it by a vote of 51–48.
• September 26, 2006—Because both Houses of Congress need to pass the exact same legislation for it to go to the President to be signed into law, the House took up the Senate bill again. In a surprise move, it reinserted the original language and passed it 264–153—requiring that the bill go back to the Senate for consideration.
• September 29, 2006—The procedural motion that required 60 votes for the Senate to take up the bill failed by a vote of 57–42.
  

Senate Takes Next Step in Limiting Abortion Access – July 25, 2006
In an attempt to reduce abortion by limiting access (rather than implementing comprehensive prevention strategies) on July 24, the Senate passed legislation by a vote of 65–34 to make it a federal crime for someone other than a parent to assist under-age girls—who are experiencing an unwanted pregnancy—to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. During debate, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said the bill is unconstitutional because it does not provide an exemption to protect the health of the young woman. The House of Representatives passed its version of this bill in April 2005, but there are differences that need to be worked out before the measure will become law.

An attempt to strengthen the bill by working to prevent unintended pregnancies was rejected by the Senate. Both Senators from New Jersey offered an amendment to provide funding for medically-accurate sex education, which delays sexual activity and provides young people with correct information that allows them to make healthy decisions about their sexuality. The amendment would have also provided support to programs to help parents discuss sexuality with their own children. This effort to focus on reducing the incidence of abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies-rather than just limiting access-could not get a majority support in the Senate, which defeated it by a vote of 51–48.

Neglecting Maternal Health – May 25, 2006
Failing to recognize and prevent the maternal health travesties caused by obstetric fistula, the House Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment by a vote of 23–30 that would have allowed U.S. support to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for the solitary purpose of preventing and treating obstetric fistula in nearly 40 countries. This amendment—offered by Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI)—would have directed funds already in the bill for UNFPA to its obstetric fistula prevention and treatment efforts if the Administration once again blocks funds for the range of UNFPA's programs. Obstetric fistula is a devastating and preventable pregnancy-caused injury that affects two million women worldwide, with 50,000 to 100,000 new cases every year in the developing world. Young girls—particularly those in the developing world who are married and face community pressure to bear children early—are the most common and susceptible victims to fistula because their bodies are not yet fully developed or ready for pregnancy. Opponents used weak arguments against the amendment. One such argument was that it would somehow support abortion services (although no evidence was given to support such allegations). The other, offered by the Republican leadership, admitted that if this amendment to promote women's health were included in the bill, it would make it challenging to get it passed by the full House, revealing the lack of support in Congress for these health services.

Opposing Contraception – July 19, 2005
Once again moving to limit women's access to contraception, in July 2005 a House majority targeted some of the world's most vulnerable women: child brides who are highly susceptible to obstetric fistula. Voting 223 for and 205 against, the House voted to include an amendment offered by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) that stripped contraceptives from the list of services provided in the new fistula prevention and treatment program included in the Foreign Relations Authorization bill (H.R. 2601). By stripping contraception from the list of services available in fistula prevention and treatment programs, the House has denied these young women a critical means to delay pregnancy until their young bodies are better prepared to give birth to a healthy child. Click here to see how your representative voted. For more information on health risks and rights violations associated with child marriage, visit IWHC's issue brief, Child Marriage: Girls 14 and Younger At Risk.

Denying Safe Abortions to Women in the Military – May 25, 2005
At a time when the U.S. military has the highest-ever number of women serving on active duty, Congress defeated another attempt to allow female troops or military dependants stationed overseas to obtain safe abortions at military facilities—even if they pay for the procedures themselves. During consideration of the FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill, Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) offered an amendment that would have repealed the current ban on abortions in military hospitals unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life. Even in cases of rape or incest military health insurance does not currently cover the cost of abortion procedures-an especially troubling fact in light of the rising number of reported cases of sexual assault among service members. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 194–233. Click here to see how your representative voted. 

Supporting U.S. funds for family planning worldwide – April 5, 2005
In support of women worldwide who are in desperate need of basic reproductive health services, including HIV/AIDS prevention, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment offered by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) that would have repealed the most harmful and inequitable provisions of the Global Gag Rule. Established by executive order on President Bush's first working day in office in 2001, the Global Gag Rule denies U.S. international family planning assistance to any foreign nongovernmental organization that uses its own privately raised funds to counsel women on the availability of safe abortion, provide safe abortion services, or advocate for changes to abortion laws—even if abortion is legal in the country where the organization is located. Adopted by a vote of 52–46, the Boxer–Snowe amendment to the FY 2006 Foreign Affairs Authorization Act states that foreign nongovernmental organizations cannot be denied funding based on the medical services they provide, including counseling and referral services, if those services are legal both in the country where the organization is located and in the United States. It also states that the U.S. government cannot impose restrictions on foreign organizations' free speech that could not be imposed on U.S. organizations. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) pulled the entire Foreign Affairs Authorization bill from the floor before it was complete, leaving the Boxer-Snowe amendment in limbo. Click here to see how your Senator voted.

Failing to Meet Women's Needs Post-Tsunami – March 15, 2005
Following the devastation created by the December 2004 Tsunami in Southeast Asia, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) offered an amendment to the Tsunami/War Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 1268) to address women's particular health and safety needs post-Tsunami. The amendment called for a $3 million contribution to UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, to be spent on:

• equipment, including safe delivery kits and hygiene kits, medicines, and supplies, including soap and sanitary napkins, to ensure safe childbirth and emergency obstetric care and prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS;
• reestablishing maternal health services in areas where medical infrastructure has been destroyed by the tsunami;
• preventing and treating cases of violence against women and youth;
• promoting unaccompanied women and other vulnerable people's access to vital services, including clean water, sanitation facilities, food, and healthcare.
  Rep. Maloney's amendment was accepted by voice vote on March 15, 2005, and then dropped from the final bill during the conference process.
  

Finding Loopholes for Clinic Protesters – March 8, 2005
In March 2005, the Senate defeated the Clinic Violence Amendment to the Senate version of legislation to reform how citizens can use bankruptcy protections. The amendment, offered by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), would have made it illegal for reproductive health clinic protestors to skirt the financial consequences of their actions by filing for bankruptcy. The Senate defeated the amendment by a vote of 53–46, allowing anti-abortion protesters to file for bankruptcy instead of paying fines incurred from performing or threatening violent actions against reproductive health clinics, clinic workers, or patients. Click here to see how your senators voted. Click here for more information about the Clinic Violence Amendment. For more information on the history and extent of clinic violence, visit Religious Tolerance.org or the National Abortion Federation.