It was a late night last night for the U.S. Senate. In the past, when anti-choice politicians controlled the process, that would have meant something dreadful would have happened to women's freedom and privacy.
Previous Congresses were famous for votes at 3 a.m., hoping their shenanigans would go unreported and slip under the public's radar screen.
But, pro-choice Americans, I am pleased to report different news: Last night, the Senate rejected two anti-choice amendments, but the razor-thin margin by which we won these votes is a reminder of why elections matters.
To what amendments am I referring?
Well, you can depend on anti-choice politicians to lack creativity and imagination, and last night was no exception.
In a blatant attempt to entangle the budget resolution in anti-abortion politics, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) offered an amendment intended to codify a controversial Bush administration regulation, put in place in 2002, which allows states to make an embryo or a fetus -- but not a pregnant woman -- eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The amendment failed 46-52. Last year, a coalition of pro-choice and pro-life senators defeated a similar Allard proposal -- but last night we picked up a few new senators. The tide is moving in the right direction!
As I said, the same stuff over and over again.
And speaking of items off the anti-choice shelf, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) put forth an amendment modeled after the so-called "Child Custody Protection Act" [PDF] (CCPA). This divisive and controversial proposal would prohibit anyone other than a parent -- including a grandparent, aunt, adult sibling, or member of the clergy -- from accompanying a young woman across state lines for abortion care if the home state's parental-involvement law has not been met.
Here is another sign of progress: the Senate's rejection of CCPA late last night, by a tie vote of 49-49, is a major milestone for pro-choice Americans.
Our message of how this proposal jeopardizes the health and safety of young women who can't reach out to their parents for fear of violence, or in cases of rape or incest, really got through this time, thanks to our allies in the Senate for making the case to their colleagues.
We applaud our pro-choice friends in the Senate who blocked these anti-choice measures. They stood up against the divisive attacks which were simply trying to distract the public from our nation's true priorities like fixing the economy or making health care more affordable.
Pro-choice Americans made tremendous gains in the 2006 elections and restored pro-choice leadership in Congress, but anti-choice members still outnumber pro-choice lawmakers in both chambers. Until the numerical composition of Congress matches America's pro-choice majority, we will continue to see dangerous and divisive assaults on the values of freedom and privacy.
It is fantastic that new senators, such as Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jon Tester (D-MT), and James Webb (D-VA), who defeated anti-choice incumbents in 2006 continue to show why elections matter, vote by vote.
So, celebrate today -- we won by a whisker -- and then volunteer tomorrow for a pro-choice candidate for the House or Senate.
Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL
Loading comments… 
Will this lead to a second civil war? I cannot imagine that more passion would have been possible before the Civil war.
How about a national refrendum, in time to avoid hatred boilng into the streets or before the south declares independan
Obama '08!
Who the hell thought it was a good idea for men to determine what a woman is to do with her body?
Thank God for the women who said TO HELL WITH THAT!
Why such an easy decision? I was about to graduate college, I was unemployed
I can respect other woman being pro-birth. What I do not respect is a man telling me what I should and should not do with my female body. This is a woman's issue and therefore men should keep their lack of understand
My Body, My Privacy, MY CHOICE!
I often wished that she had aborted the original fetus and conceived me when she was good and ready to be a mother. I am glad that you had the simple courage, and the ability to choose how to handle your pregnancy in your own best interests. The kind of crappy lives endured by me, my mother, my gutless absent "father", my grandparen
Disgusted, selfish folk, like "PaNevvy", ought to experience my life and then decide if unready, unwilling mothers should be forced to raise babies.
Had your mother decided to abort you, it is most likely that it would have occured after the point at which YOUR body was fully wired to feel pain. You would have died a relatively quick but incredibly painful death and would not be here to be as pro choice as you are.
Roe v Wade ahs been on the books for 35 yrs- and we are proud we barely scraped it through AGAIN? This is Proof we have had serious Losses not gains!
NOW has done nothing to solidify this Right! We should not be in the same national discussion that was resolved ove r3 decades ago! they have Failed and you want US to pat them on the Back???
Tehy haven't even called the 'right to Lifers' Bluff- failed to define waht Rights those of US alive should have - which take preedence over those who have not even reached the point of 'Life ' Yet. Right to Life should be held to it's Rhetoric- stem cell research for those suffering from dibilitati
I'm a right to lifer, bu ti am not a Pro Birther regardles of the consequenc
Perhaps you can explain why soo many children remain unnadopted
Which pro-life fundamenta
.
Profession
On a side note, it frankly offends me when infertile couples pressure pregnant girls to give babies up for adoption.
Onto the meat of the subject, I make this call to everyone out there who has strong feelings on the issue, they're are not anti-choic
In addition, to both sides of the issue, stop trying to use deceitful tactics and methodolog
If the legislatur
Like all really decisive things I'm sure that this will be solved by science one day in the future when we'll be able to turn on and off the reproducti
it isn't just about not wanting a baby. perhaps the baby is deformed, or has a genetic defect that will make its life short, painful, and miserable. perhaps the woman was raped. perhaps the pregnancy is not viable or it is ectopic. perhaps the woman is married with 3 children and despite all efforts to avoid a pregnancy it happened anyway and they can't afford another one. perhaps the mother is unable to carry a pregnancy to term without serious threat to her health and possibly death. i don't like abortion, i don't see it like its candy and everyone should have one. but unfortunat
if every pregnancy that has been aborted hadn't who would be caring for the resulting children? where would they live? would they be guaranteed healthcare even if it was a pre-existi
Because those are entirely different issues.
Whether or not a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy is an entirely different issue from a person's right to own guns and each should be judged on their own merits and not based upon other views that an individual may hold.
Additional
Also, look up when life begins and you will find that all cultures have a different answer--so
Additional
Also, look up when life begins and you will find that all cultures have a different answer--so
Women will be able to stay at home and seek quality medical care or be forced to the back alleys or accross the border to hget what they need.