Within days of its passage the bill came under attack by members of Congress, Catholic church officials, prescription drug insurers, and the Washington Post. Members of Congress opposed to the bill imposed a so-called "conscience clause" as a condition of its approval. This would allow employers and individuals to opt out of the provisions of the bill on "religious or moral" grounds. Mayor Williams has let the bill die by not signing it.

The city council will take up the bill again when it returns from summer recess.

The Washington Post opined, "The insurance industry warns, further, that the mandate will raise the cost of coverage." Women's rights activists have argued for the mandate as the only way to take the decisions over vital issues of reproductive health care out of the hands of insurers and employers and in put them in the hands of women. According to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, while 97 percent of health plans cover prescription drugs, nearly half of those do not routinely cover contraceptives.

Catholic church officials have argued that the ordinance would force the church to violate basic tenants of doctrine. In the days leading up to the council vote on the bill, priests throughout the city were instructed to read a letter from Auxiliary Bishop William Lori opposing the bill and calling on Catholics to lobby the mayor and city council.

But city officials noted that existing federal insurance law already exempts many of the city's largest employers associated with the Catholic church, including Georgetown University and the Archdiocese, because they are self-insured. These exemptions have been opposed by women's health organizations.

Twelve other states have laws mandating coverage of prescribed contraceptives with exemptions narrowly framed on religious grounds.

The exemption imposed by congressional opponents of this city's bill would be one of the broadest of its kind.

Republican representative Thomas Davis, chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee on the District, said, "There is no way this ordinance is going to fly on Capitol Hill in its current form." And Representative Ernest Istook, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on the District, accused council member James Graham of "religion bashing." During debate on the bill Graham argued that public health policy should not "defer to Rome."

Working people here, however, must first defer to Capitol Hill. Until 1973, city officials were appointed by Congress or the President. Since then working people have been allowed to elect a local government but all laws, administrative appointments, and regulations are subject to review and approval by Congress.

In the mid-1990s Congress imposed a financial control board over the city. Under the guise of "fiscal responsibility" it drove through austerity measures in health care, education, employment, and other social benefits. At the same time it paid enormous sums to the wealthy holders of the city's bonds and loans.

The is not the first time members of Congress have used their veto prerogative over city officials. It has consistently removed provisions from the city's budgets which provide funding for abortions. Last year it overrode an ordinance that would have provided benefits for same sex partners of city employees. In 1998 members of Congress held up public announcement of the result of votes on a medical marijuana initiative. And in 1992 Alabama Senator Richard Shelby forced the city to hold a referendum on the death penalty, which was rejected.

Sam Manuel is the Socialist Workers candidate for Delegate to the House of Representatives and a member of the United Transportation Union.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home