Federal control of the District of Columbia is written into the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

^"The Congress shall have Power...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States"^

The Twenty-Third Amendment gave the District of Columbia the right to vote in presidential elections. It was ratified by enough states to pass in 1961. The first election this was in effect for was 1964.

That being said:

The Democrats have been voting to shut down abortion funding for DC at least as often as Republicans.

Pay attention to how convoluted the writer of the article has to get to avoid this uncomfortable fact:

^The city's ability to spend money on abortions for low-income women has seesawed over the last two decades. When Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, in 1993 and 1994 and again in 2009 and 2010, the city has been able to spend its own money to pay for abortions for women on Medicaid. When Republicans have controlled at least one branch of government that ability has been taken away.^

As for needle exchanges, the article says:

^Congress prohibited the city from using its own money for the programs for two decades beginning in the late 1980s.^

Two decades? How many Democrats had to vote to keep that in force? Or are the writer trying the "one Republican branch rules all" trick again?

If all it took to take complete control of an issue was control of one single branch of government, the Republicans would be having a much easier time right now.

Vouchers? The people who actually use the D.C. schools have been fighting like hell to save that scholarship program for a long time. The liberal elites who ride their limos to the suburbs with locked doors have been trying to kill it.

More on D.C. education here.