While the pro-life camp attaches itself to the moral line of reasoning against abortion legality, the pro-choice side uses rhetoric related to equal rights under the American constitution. Neither interacts directly, because they both are arguing on completely different topical stages. This holds constant from the grassroots level to the congressional level.

Republicans and Democrats use reproductive rights to distract from other issues, appease powerful rivals and manipulate constituencies.

Never was this clearer than when President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13535 last March. The momentous heath care reform bill passed earlier last year with a last-minute defeat of the Stupak-Pitt Amendment, which would have prohibited public funds in the form of health insurance from being used for abortions.

Its defeat marked a victory for pro-choice organizations, as every piece of legislation pertaining to health care since Roe’s passing in 1973 has contained the Hyde Amendment — a provision similar to Stupak-Pitt.

Attaching the Hyde Amendment on the recent health care bill erased the progress made by Stupak’s defeat and flew under the media’s radar. Finally, Republicans and conservative Democrats had their piece of the bill.

The National Organization for Women described the administration’s policies on reproductive freedom as “shaky at best” and said his readiness to sign the order verified “it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women.”

Democrats sold out on the Stupak victory, but Republicans aren’t doing any better. Last week, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., encouraged Congress to focus on pressing issues such as economic revitalization rather than belaboring the repeal of health care reform in a Senate without substantial support.

Instead, U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., introduced the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” or HR 3, in the U.S. House of Representatives. The act not only blocks federal spending for abortion care, but also denies federal subsidies to private health insurance companies who cover it, imposes tax penalties on anyone who pays for it, prohibits government facilities from providing abortion care (such as military or Indian Health Services locations) and a slew of other restrictions.

Rather than forming productive legislation to confront today’s most pressing issues — economic development, overfunded wars or unemployment — Smith decided to distract his constituency by overstressing issues that perpetuate partisanship.

The bill is so extreme that it holds no exceptions for cases in which the mother’s health or life is at risk, while imposing blanket restrictions on all funding for abortion, including private. Its bill number, H.R. 3, indicates it is the party’s third-highest priority this session, trailing closely behind the original health care reform bill repeal.

The bill will never pass the U.S. Senate. They are wasting time and energy to form legislation on something they know they can’t win, while distracting the public from issues they promised to solve in the November elections. Throughout Smith’s clamor, neither party has mentioned Executive Order 13535.

Both parties are playing hot potato with reproductive rights, and only when it’s convenient. The debate over bodily authority is one of our generation’s most important, and it should not be treated as a playing chip in the legislative process.

Legalizing abortion and barring public funding isn’t ideal for either party, but it is indeed a compromise — a key tenet of legislative government. It’s time to reframe the debate and ask legislators to stop using our reproductive rights as a political chess piece.

Monika Johnson is a State News guest columnist. Reach her at john2727@msu.edu.