(CNSNews.com) - Two pro-abortion senators are considering introducing legislation that would allow abortions to be performed at overseas military hospitals with private funds.

Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who tried to have a similar measure passed in previous years, are considering introducing the legislation as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, a spokesman for Murray said.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy is urging the Senate to vote for the Murray-Snowe amendment.

"I think it's a very important provision for military women to have someplace they can go in the U.S. medical system, especially when they're overseas," said Kennedy, a spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, an abortion rights advocacy group.

Kennedy cited the experience of a young soldier in her command in Germany, where Kennedy served as a battalion commander from 1986 through 1988.

Unable to afford a trip to the United States for an abortion, the soldier sought medical care at a German hospital, where she was not offered any pain medication and medical staff spoke little English, Kennedy said.

"She wasn't given any pain medication before, during or after," Kennedy said. "They did what is basically a surgical procedure without the least bit of pain medication, and there was no privacy."

"I think that the Senate would be missing an opportunity to do something good for women in the military who are defending this country at extraordinary personal sacrifice if this is not supported by the leadership in this country," Kennedy added.

Last month, the House of Representatives defeated a proposal introduced by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) to overturn the restriction on abortion at military facilities by a vote of 215 to 202.

In 2000, the measure was defeated by a vote of 50 - 49 in the Senate. There has not been a vote in the 107th Congress in the Senate on the issue. However, if it passes because of membership changes since the last election, the administration is expected to issue a veto threat.

"I do not expect it would survive a conference," Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said of the amendment.

U.S. law bans almost all abortion procedures at U.S. military hospitals unless the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy or her pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.

In 1993, President Clinton issued an executive order that allowed women to pay for abortions with their own money in military hospitals overseas.

However, Congress effectively overruled the executive order in December 1995 and reinstated the ban, which remains in effect.

Abortion rights advocates argue that the ban discriminates against women who volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising a legally protected right simply because they are stationed overseas.

Abortion is illegal in many countries in which U.S. personnel are stationed. Moreover, traveling to another foreign country, or to the United States, to obtain an abortion is difficult and potentially cost prohibitive, especially for younger enlisted women, they argue.

But pro-life forces said there was little chance the ban would be lifted anytime soon. Michael Schwartz, vice president of government relations with Concerned Women for America, said if the Senate takes up this issue, it would be taking up an issue that already has a record vote in the House.

"And I think there is zero possibility that they will change the law regardless of what the vote is in the Senate," he said.

"What's at stake is whether we're going to turn federal military medical facilities into killing centers, and I think that's a very important issue for the sake of our armed forces and for the sake of what federal policy is," Schwartz said.

Mo Woltering, director of public policy with the American Life League, also said if passed in the Senate, the bill would likely die in conference.

"But it's something that the pro-life community needs to remain vigilant with because there's just a never ending effort to get more abortions and more publicly-subsidized abortions," he said.

"We support the current ban," Johnson of the National Right to life Committee said. "We don't believe that the U.S. government should be involved in the destruction of innocent human life."