[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 73 (Thursday, May 15, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NO ABORTIONS ON OVERSEAS MILITARY BASES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. W. TODD AKIN

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 14, 2003

  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House Armed Services 
Committee (HASC) the majority of my colleagues and I rejected a 
proposal by one of the Committee's members to permit abortions on 
military bases overseas.
  This proposal would have turned our overseas military bases into 
abortion clinics. This would not only be wrong, but would also be a 
prime example of wasteful spending for political gain.
  The proposed amendment to the Armed Services authorization bill would 
have changed a Department of Defense (DoD) policy that has been in 
place since 1996, and before that, from 1988 to 1993, which prohibits 
using DoD funds for abortions, except when necessary to save the life 
of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
  The amendment follows the same flawed logic as President Clinton's 
executive order which overturned this policy in 1993 and allowed 
abortions to take place at military medical facilities. During the 
years that the executive order was in place, the DoD was not only 
unsuccessful in identifying obstetricians and gynecologists stationed 
overseas who would perform abortions, but the number of abortions 
actually provided during those years was very small.
  Some of my colleagues argue for this amendment based on a perceived 
``necessity'' for safe abortions at overseas military bases. However, 
this ``necessity'' does not exist. Even if this amendment were to have 
been adopted, DoD policy would still prohibit military doctors from 
performing abortions in those countries where abortion is restricted or 
not permitted.
  Also, in most overseas locations where legal abortions are not 
available, military beneficiaries have the option of using space-
available travel to return to the U.S. or travel to another overseas 
location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion just as do other 
service personnel and their family members who desire other elective 
procedures.
  This amendment would also go against the DoD's official position on 
this policy. The Department opposes changing the policy for a number of 
reasons. First, it would involve the military in performing abortions 
for family planning purposes. Also, a change is not needed and is not 
considered to be necessary to protect the health of women in or 
affiliated with the armed forces overseas. Lastly, this change would 
create an assumption that practitioners adequately familiar with and 
willing to perform abortion services are available in overseas military 
facilities, which may not be true.
  This amendment not only violates the spirit of the Hyde amendment, 
which prohibits federal funding of abortions, but it also would 
encourage a very dangerous precedent of providing federal funds for 
elective procedures. The non-elective exemptions for abortions in cases 
of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk are already 
in place and no further expansion is needed. Consequently, the use of 
tax-payer dollars for an elective procedure will only lead to a 
slippery slope of fiscal irresponsibility and soaring healthcare costs.
  The House has defeated this amendment every year since 1996, and we 
defeated it again last evening in the Armed Services Committee. We have 
done so for the sound reasons I mentioned above, and I applaud my HASC 
colleagues for their good judgment and unwillingness to diminish the 
sanctity of life at the nation's overseas military bases.

                          ____________________