When the United States became a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), it committed--among other things--to provide universal health care and housing to its people. And yesterday, by a razor-thin margin, the Senate formally opened debate on a health care bill that, if approved, will bring us very, very close to meeting the first goal without imposing new restrictions on a woman's right to choose.

Jill at Feministe has blogged a detailed analysis of abortion provisions in the Senate version of the bill, which eliminates some of the messy language in the House version of the bill--language that would have ultimately banned private insurance coverage of abortion. The hard work of pro-choice activists, dismissed by some moderate Democrats as a "self-absorbed overreaction" riddled with "selfish dramatics," is beginning to pay off. The new legislation represents no more, and no less, than an extension of the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding of abortion.

That's not really an acceptable status quo, but it does not, at least, represent any further concession on reproductive rights. If the Senate language is adopted in conference, feminists will no longer be forced to choose between promoting the very real benefits health care reform will bring to women and fighting the most restrictive anti-abortion legislation since Roe v. Wade.

And make no mistake: Contrary to the traditional Democratic Party logic that issue activists contribute nothing to the process, this was a pro-choice victory bolstered by one of the largest grassroots lobbying efforts in the history of the movement. We flooded our senators with calls, emails, and letters--and so far, it appears to be working.

Now let's continue to push our senators to make sure that the Senate language, rather than the House language, appears in the final bill.

Related: Why is Abortion Legal? | Is Health Care a Human Right?

So let me see if I understand you correctly, mainstream Democrats: Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), a longtime opponent of health care reform, has decided out of the goodness of his heart to construct a well-written amendment to the health care bill that would bring pro-choice and pro-life Democrats together and ensure its passage. Am I right?

Judging by the words of my About.com colleague Deborah White, guide to U.S. Liberal Politics, that's what many Democrats are thinking right now--which is how they're justifying the biggest restriction on abortion rights since Roe v. Wade. But let's break this down: Read more...

If you've been following the pro-choice response to the Stupak amendment, and you've also read the darned thing, you may be wondering how we got from point A to point B. How does the stumbling, messy language of this amendment actually produce a ban on private insurance coverage of abortions? Read more...

Other than the completely baseless red herring about the Shepard-Byrd Act somehow threatening free speech, one of the most persistent criticisms of hate crime laws is that motivation does not, or should not, matter when it comes to criminal justice--that we should not establish special categories of prosecution for crimes that are motivated by specific factors. As Star Parker argues in the Dallas Morning News:

What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of violence - for murder - may be different depending on what might be deemed to be the motivation?

Can you imagine a football game where the penalty for roughing the passer is 20 yards rather than 15 if the referee concludes that the violence perpetrated was motivated because the quarterback was [gay]?

That's a legitimate point of view, and the response to that argument is to describe the chilling effect that hate crimes can have on entire communities--an effect comparable to terrorism. The extra penalties, in other words, do not suggest that the victims' lives are worth more; they suggest that there are more victims involved.

This is also the rationale behind laws against rebellion and terrorism, which attach additional penalties to acts that are perpetrated with the objective of targeting the U.S. government or the country as a whole.

It's true that more categories may be added to the hate crimes law down the road. Personally, I would welcome additional protections for veterans, the elderly, children, and the homeless under the same terms as the Shepard-Byrd Act. All we are doing is stating that crimes that target communities need not pose a threat to the U.S. government, or to the country as a whole, in order to have a disproportionate effect on larger communities. The hate crime law, in other words, is not a statement that members of targeted groups are sacred; it is a statement that the government is not, and that every community terrorized by bias-motivated violence should be protected in a way that acknowledges the broader impact of such violence.

And if you still don't believe that LGBTs need special consideration, I would urge you to look at the Transgender Day of Remembrance web site--a record of anti-transgender violence, much of it unprosecuted, that serves as a threat against anyone who colors outside of the arbitrary lines of heternormativity. A country in which a gay couple can't hold hands in public without fear of violence is not a free country--regardless of whether the violence is perpetrated by the government itself, or by vigilantes who are deputized by local law enforcement agencies' selective unwillingness to prosecute.

See also: The Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009