Sen. Feingold Explains "No" Vote on Mikulski Women's Health Amendment, Sort Of

In yesterday’s post, I wrote about Sen. Feingold’s puzzling and infuriating “no” vote on the Mikulski Women’s Health Amendment, which will require women’s preventative health services to be full funded by insurance companies. I emailed Sen. Feingold’s office, expressing my anger and disappointment in the senator’s vote. I also made some comments on Twitter, encouraging others to email and call his office.

I was not the only one who noticed Sen. Feingold’s somewhat-peculiar vote.  David Dayen over at the influential Firedoglake.com took note, as did the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Politico. By last night, Sen. Feingold’s office released this statement:

I am disappointed that the Senate health care debate has gotten off on the wrong foot.  The first amendment voted on would add almost a billion dollars to our budget deficits over the next 10 years.  We should make sure health plans cover women’s preventive care and screenings, but we should also find a way to pay for it, rather than adding that cost to the already mountainous public debt.  At a time of record deficits, Americans expect fiscal responsibility from their representatives in Congress.

I also received a reply to my email from Sen. Feingold’s aide early last evening. She assured me that Sen. Feingold is a strong supporter of women’s access to health care and preventative services and that his “no” vote was “was not about the policy of the amendment.”

I believe her. I know that Sen. Feingold is a deeply principled man who has decided to take a stand on fiscal responsibility. He recently introduced a new bill, Control Spending Now Act, the purpose of which is quite simply, “to control Federal spending now”. I also appreciate that Sen. Feingold has been an advocate for women’s health. He sponsored a resolution that the Senate support  “the goals and ideals of National Women’s Health Week”. He is a co-sponsor of Sen. Shaheen’s resolution condemning violence against women’s health (read: abortion) providers. He is a co-sponsor of the Breast Cancer Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act, which will raise awareness and provide support for young women with breast cancer.  Sen. Feingold also deserves major kudos for being a co-sponsor fo the Paycheck Fairness Act and for recently co-chairing a hearing on rape as a weapon of war with Sen. Boxer in May.

So, yeah, Sen. Feingold usually walks the walk on fighting for women’s rights. He’s definitely a male ally. He really dropped the ball on this one, though. As I told the senator’s aide, it feels like he sold women out to uphold his pledge of fiscal responsibility. One billion dollars is basically chump change in Washington. If he was really concerned about the money, he should’ve worked with Sen. Mikulski to find the money to pay for her amendment. She announced she would be introducing the amendment before Thanksgiving, over a week ago. There was time for negotiation on this one.

After all is said and done, here’s what I think happened: I think Sen. Feingold knew there were sixty votes to pass the amendment. Sen. Snowe was a co-sponsor (way to go, Olympia!) and Sen. Collins probably made her intentions to vote for the amendment known as well. Sen. Feingold probably had political cover to vote against the amendment and went for it.

He still should’ve done the right thing, though.