It would seem obvious to most Americans that outlawing or hindering any group of people’s medical rights would be morally wrong. Most Americans would consider it, at the very least, to feel unconstitutional. Virtually all Americans would consider outlawing or hindering any group of military veterans’ medical rights to be arguably the lowest form of spiritual bankruptcy available to the human race.
That is exactly how low the Republican Party has gone. In the GOP’s misshapen plan to gum up all government productivity, they find themselves stumbling over themselves to stop legislation that was once considered very easily bipartisan. In August, Republican senators like Ted Cruz decided to vote against the PACT Act, which was 100% dedicated to health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic agents. At that time, the Republican Party whined about “spending” in the bill. A strange load of horse manure even for the GOP at the time. We are approaching the end of September, and the House of Representatives is finally moving to vote on passing the Solid Start Act. This is another veterans program that hopes to provide much-needed outreach to veterans in their first years of transition back to the civilian world.
One of the main factors that led to the Solid Start pilot program, a bipartisan effort begun during the Trump administration, was the high suicide rates veterans were seeing in their first years out of service. This expansion and codification of the program was introduced by Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Republican Rep. David Joyce of Ohio. It’s a softball piece of legislation to pass. On Wednesday, after going through the committees, the bill was suddenly thrown into a strange place where Republicans said they would not vote for it—if 16 specific words remained in the bill.
RELATED STORY: Republicans backed themselves into a corner on veterans care bill, and they're struggling to get out
Those 16 words? “Providing women veterans with information that is tailored to their specific health care and benefit needs.” It’s in the 6320 (F) section of the bill. It is not a long bill. It is a very simple thing to read and comprehend. But health that is “tailored” to women is equal to women’s health and reproductive health, and the GOP objects to women’s health beyond being a vessel for baby-making.
One of the main authors of the bill, Rep. Elissa Slotkin, stood up and gave the GOP in the House the what-for for about 5 minutes. Rep. Slotkin made sure to remind those in the chambers that “this language has been in the bill since its inception when we created this.” That was in April 2021. More than that, these 16 words speak to health care already “covered by the VA.”
Rep. Slotkin wanted to make sure people understand that women’s health care is health care. “But just so we understand what was meant with the idea of providing women and veterans with information tailored to them, pregnancy and mental health care, maternity care, mammogram, breast health, breastfeeding and lactation, menopause, gynecological cancer. Pre-pregnancy health. Chronic pelvic pain. Birth Control. Osteoporosis, prosthetics for women. Intimate Partner Violence, disordered eating, sexual assault. I can go on. There is a very long list of specific health issues that are specific to women.”
As the Michigan Representative explained, none of this is “controversial,” so what is really going on that, now, all of a sudden, the GOP has decided to add more deaths to their political party’s body count?
“Earlier today, a letter went out from Ranking Member Bost and the pro-life caucus saying that members, while they supported it previously, should now turn against it. After publicly supporting this, they are now leaving it. And why? Because they are concerned about VA policy. They are concerned about the VA's decision to provide veteran women with access to abortion when they have been raped, when they are the victims of family incest, or when a doctor confirms that the pregnancy is a risk to the health or the life of the mother.
Not abortion on demand, not extreme policies. These very basic, commonly accepted instances when a women veteran has gone through hell and has no other option. The other side of the aisle, to be clear, is objecting to this bill because they object to any exceptions whatsoever on abortion. It is a political game. It is literally putting politics ahead of the 18 million veterans and 200,000 each year that separate.
It is our responsibility to honor the veterans, male and female. And I find it disturbing that you would play politics in this way. I asked the other side of the aisle to reconsider and support this bill.”
We are trolling the depths of the moral ocean here, and somehow the Republican Party is searching lower.
Rep. Slotkin was not done. After hearing Republicans wring their bloody hands and spout platitudes and bullshit, the Congresswoman went back up to hammer home the facts with a touch more emphasis. She first reminded the Republican Party how the government is technically set up to work: “I just I want to be clear, no one in this room is in the Judicial branch. And no one in this room that I'm aware of is a medical doctor. If you believe that the provisions that the VA has put forward have a legal problem, you have the right to take up that case and put it through the courts. We are the legislative branch. We make laws. We pass laws. We are not judge and jury. Take it to a court. If you're concerned, that is your right in terms of making decisions on behalf of women.”
Then she got down to brass tacks:
“If you want to take a veterans bill and make it about abortion, then let's do it. What you are saying, and you're saying in front of the American people, is that you believe a veteran who has been raped, who is the victim of incest, and who is or who is having a dangerous miscarriage.
“She does not deserve access to abortion. You are saying—unless you correct me and tell me—what you believe a woman deserves to have when she has been raped, the victim of incest, or is in the middle of a dangerous miscarriage. If you can't state it, then be clear you believe in no exceptions for women. A cold, heartless, violent approach to women's health.
“You want to ban all abortions. That is your goal. Many of you had been open about that. And if you flip the House, we know that you will put forward a full ban on all abortion for all states. You've been clear about it. You want to turn a veterans bill into an abortion bill. Let's do it. Not one of you are a medical doctor.
“Not one of you. What the VA guidelines say is that if you've been raped or the victim of incest or a medical profession deems that your pregnancy is a risk to your health. The one of four women in this country who has had a miscarriage, probably many women in this room, that you are a better judge of who gets to decide the future of their life and not a medical doctor.
“Who do you think you are? You are politicians. We are all on this floor. Elected officials and not medical professionals. If it was your wife, your daughter who was suffering through a miscarriage, are you going to tell her she can't until her fever gets high enough? Until she's bleeding harder? That's what's happening in the state of Texas right now.
“If that's what you want for veterans. Shame on you. Shame on you. I'm sorry. I we built this bill to be bipartisan, and I saw your support particularly, sir. And you're making it a political issue. Shame on you. You all have pictures of veterans in your office. Proud to show your pride in our veterans. It should be the most bipartisan issue in the world. And you're making it political. Shame on you.”
Amen to that.
Good judges are more important now than ever. In some states, judges are on the ballot this November. Tune in to
The Downballot to listen to Justice Richard Bernstein talk about what being on the Michigan Supreme Court has been like, and how his re-election campaign is shaping up.