Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel

How fitting. How fitting it is that just days before Memorial Day weekend, when we honor our fallen troops, the Senate Armed Services Committee takes a very big step in respecting and acknowledging the women who currently serve to protect our country.

In case you haven't heard already, the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday finished its mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013. During the mark-up, the Committee voted on whether to include an amendment offered by Senator Shaheen that would repeal the ban on coverage for abortion for survivors of rape or incest in the military.

I know I am usually the "Debbie Downer" for repro rights news, but today, I have the great news to report that the Amendment PASSED!! For the first time in a very long, we are VERY CLOSE to bringing the health insurance coverage for military women in line with the coverage other federal health insurance programs currently provide.

Now, you may stop to wonder, um, why is this the policy anyways — why are military women denied such coverage? Why are they denied such coverage when civilian federal employees even have access to this admittedly-pitiful level of coverage? Great question.

When your line of work is protecting reproductive rights, like me, sometimes you just don’t know how the day will go. Some days you just never know. And last Tuesday was just one of those days. That day I went to the markup of H.R. 2299, a bill titled the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act” that took place in the House Committee on the Judiciary. This bill, which is better called the “Teen Endangerment Act,” would jail an aunt or grandmother who supports a niece or granddaughter who crosses state lines to seek abortion care. The bill would also jail a doctor who provides abortion care to a teen who crosses state lines for such care when the doctor did not first inform the teen’s parents. There are very few exceptions to these onerous and dangerous provisions (including none that consider the health of the pregnant teen), meaning that this bill would most likely result in teens being denied access to abortion care they seek or make teens seek such care without any support from a trusted adult.

I went to the markup not really knowing what to expect, particularly because the hearing a few weeks before had not been very dramatic, especially when compared to other recent hearings on reproductive issues (most notably the “Where Are the Women” contraceptive coverage hearing and the hearing on the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011”). Unfortunately, the markup made up for the hearing’s relative lack of drama, as I sat through hours of votes where every amendment that would have made this harmful bill just a little less harmful was rejected. Yes, the amendment that would have exempted a grandmother from criminal penalties for helping her granddaughter during her time of need was voted down. Yes, the Committee rejected an amendment that would have provided an exception to the criminalization of a minister or older sister who supports a teen seeking abortion care where the teen’s health was in danger. The Committee also rejected a similar amendment that would have exempted physicians from criminal penalties for failing to notify a teen’s parents where the health of the teen was in danger (yes, in case you were wondering, this is the Judiciary Committee rejecting a provision that the Supreme Court has said is required in any restriction to abortion access). The Committee also voted down an amendment that would have exempted the criminalization of an older brother or neighbor who helps a teen when she fears for her physical safety if forced to notify one or both parents. Are you starting to get why I felt pretty deflated after this markup?