This is exactly what we are ranting about on this site. It would be bad enough to try to pass this anti-abortion legislation on its own, but bundling it with the all but must pass spending bill should not be allowed.

House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.

The provision may be an early indication of the growing political muscle of social conservatives who provided crucial support for Republican candidates, including President Bush, in the election.
...

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.
...

The spending measure, called an omnibus bill, was the main reason Congress returned to Washington after the election, and members of both parties say that despite Ms. Boxer's warnings, it is likely to pass with the abortion language intact.

The alternative is to let government funding for a wide array of agencies - like the F.B.I., the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency - run out, in effect causing a partial government shutdown.

The fact that the senate must now either vote for the anti-abortion measure or allow a partial shutdown of the government due to funding issues is outrageous, and the fact that this can even be done is reprehensible.

The provision could affect millions of American women, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who warned Friday that she would use procedural tactics to slow Senate business to a crawl if the language was not altered.

"I am willing to stand on my feet and slow this thing down," Ms. Boxer said. "Everyone wants to go home, I know that, and I know I will not win a popularity contest in the Senate. But they should not be doing this. On a huge spending bill they're writing law, and they're taking away rights from women."

Ms. Boxer said that she complained to Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but that he told her that House Republican leaders insisted that the provision, which was approved by the House in July but never came to the Senate for a vote, be included in the measure.

"He said, 'Senator, they want it in, and it's going in,' " Ms. Boxer recalled.
...

Some lawmakers and Congressional aides interpreted the House leaders' insistence as reflection of the new political strength of the anti-abortion movement and of Christian conservatives, who played an important role in re-electing Mr. Bush this month.

Kudos to Senator Boxer, and a group of bipartisan female Senators that have been speaking out against this bundled legislation, but with the threat of a partial government shutdown looming, it is unlikely that the measure will be delayed or defeated.

Quite frankly, we say let it shut down. If the choice is temporarily not funding the FBI, EPA, and NPS or stripping away our civil liberties to please the Religious Right, we know what our decision is.

[Editor's note: According to this Associated Press article as quoted from ABC News:

Resolving one last-minute fight, Senate GOP leaders agreed to give abortion-rights supporters a chance by spring to repeal language making it easier for health-care providers to decline to provide abortions or offer counseling and referrals.

So, the legislation went through, but with some kind of caveat to allow a fight in 2005. I guess we'll see what happens. I wonder how long it will take the Religious Right to use the fact that the abortion legislation was signed into law as an argument against the challenge in 2005, despite the explicit caveat. On a bright note, the senseless rider making the oak the national tree was included in the final version of the bill, and won't be challenged next year.]

So, the legislation went through, but with some kind of caveat to allow a fight in 2005. I guess we'll see what happens.

Well, what happened? Do you have an update?

There appears to have been some kind of opposition to the measure in the spring of 2005 (though we can't find much), but the opposition wasn't able to overcome the majority of Republicans at the time, and the Weldon Amendment was codified as law in December 2005 (despite continued urging by the ACLU to quash the extension).

Most recently, a challenge to the law was dismissed by a Federal Appeals court in November 2006 due to a lack of standing. In short, that means that there hasn't been a proper hearing of the issue yet, and one could still be forthcoming if someone who does have proper standing can challenge it. We're not entirely sure how one secures proper standing in a case like this, but perhaps for the anti-choice crowd that's exactly the point.