The New York Times wrote that it passed "with three Republicans joining 56 Democrats and the two independents in favor" -- so the first thing I thought was, "If even two GOP senators voted for it, who the hell were the two Dems that nayed it?"

Considering his threat to introduce a "Stupak-like amendment," pro-lifer Ben Nelson (D-NE), was the first name that came to mind. And I was right. The second, however, was a little puzzling -- Russ Feingold (D-WI). According to OpenCongress, Nelson is one of the senators Feingold votes with least often.

It's not as easy for me to gloss over Feingold's votes as those of most of his colleagues, because he does strike as me as one of the more reasonable members of the Senate. After all, he was among the few that voted against the war in Iraq and the only one to vote against the PATRIOT Act, the legislative antonym of civil liberties.

Feingold's official statement is that his nay vote was cast as one for fiscal responsibility. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the amendment would cost $980 million over the next decade.

Where would that money be spent?

The amendment guarantees that all women will receive a free annual gynecological exam, which would include screenings for the leading killers of women -- breast, cervical, ovarian and lung cancers; heart disease; and chronic illnesses such as diabetes. It also requires insurance plans to cover a whole slew of comprehensive preventive care and screenings specific to women, with no copayments.

That is music to my ears. I suppose I take this amendment very personally because I was diagnosed with a very common but -- as it turns out -- very expensive pre-cancerous gynecological affliction this summer. I have insurance and do all the right things -- annual exam, preventive screenings, you name it. My mother raised a little hypochondriac. But despite doing "everything right," I was saddled with nearly $6,000 in copayments and coinsurance. And the bills keep coming in, months later.

I am lucky, of course -- my diagnosis was completely treatable, albeit outrageously pricey given the high rate of its incidence. But ever since, I've felt, as Mikulski so aptly phrased it, that "simply being a woman is treated as a pre-existing condition."

I can't rail against Feingold and say that he's shown little fiscal restraint when voting for other measures. He voted against the bailout giveaway to the banks, and he continues to make clear that if Obama wishes to earn his vote for funding Vietghanistan, it must come with a precise timetable for withdrawal.

In other words, I think Feingold's votes are often sound. But I do think he is wrong on this one, and I pick on him because he's normally so level-headed. (I won't even try to call out the other 38 nay-vote boneheads.)

Women bear the brunt of extremely complex reproductive systems that do require specialized health care. In our heinous profit-driven health care system, taking care of our female bodies is really expensive. But, as they say, what do we have if we don't have our health?

If there's anything worth driving our country further into debt for, it's the wellness of at least half our population.

Tagged as: senate, women's rights, russ feingold, health care reform, ben nelson, barbara mikulski

Daniela Perdomo is a contributing writer & editor at AlterNet. You