Roundup: The Slippery Slope of Abortion Coverage In Insurance
February 18, 2010 - 12:09pm (Print)
Last week we pointed out what may become the only "reform" imposed in the health insurance industry, the removal of coverage of abortion services from both public and private insurance policies.
Yesterday there was a debate in the Kansas House over a bill that would prohibit insurance providers from "covering most elective abortions under basic Kansas healthcare policies."
An amendment proposed by Rep. Peter DeGraaf, R-Mulvane, would require people to buy an insurance rider in anticipation of an abortion after July 1. The exception to the extra-coverage mandate on abortions would be to save the life of the mother. A woman or child who is victim of rape or incest would have to be covered by a rider to press a claim if she chose to abort the fetus. In the alternative, a female would have to pay for an abortion with cash.
"I don't think the rest of society should have to pay for abortions," DeGraaf said. "There are plenty of insurance companies that want to make money."
His measure, passed 73-45, would apply to all health plans in Kansas.
Notice the shift in rhetoric around abortion and health insurance. When the debate was about the federal healthcare reform bills, the argument for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment was that the federal government shouldn't force tax payers to subsidize abortion coverage for women -- even if in reality women would be paying for insurance with their own money. This was an argument about the use of tax dollars only.
Now watch how Rep. DeGraaf is changing the debate for those who pay into insurance as subsidizing others' coverage - which under his reasoning should give them some "right" to control other people's insurance policies. Anti-choice lawmakers are now using the same language for tax dollars and applying it to private monies.
Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Emporia, said Kansas policyholders opposed to abortion shouldn't be compelled to underwrite the procedure.
"For those of us who believe it's a moral issue," she said, "it's discriminatory to force us to pay higher insurance rates."
Thankfully other Kansas lawmakers knew exactly how to point out the absurdity of requiring riders for individual medical procedures.
Two House members opposed to the abortion amendment responded by inserting "poison pills" into the underlying bill to damage chances of passing the final product.
Rep. Barbara Bollier, R-Mission Hills, gained approval of an amendment requiring smokers to buy supplemental insurance for treatment of heart disease, emphysema and other ailments linking to tobacco. Not to be outdone, Rep. Ann Mah, D-Topeka, obtained sufficient support for an amendment mandating insurance riders for men requiring treatment for erectile dysfunction.
In the end, perhaps because, as Republican Rep. Virgil Peck put it, the new amendment for riders for erectile dysfunction "won't stand up on its own" the bill was sent back to committee.
Bonus item: The town of Apex, North Carolina, which recently voted to end coverage of elective abortions for their employees, couldn't even agree to get an opinion from the state's attorney general on their recent actions.
February 18, 2010
Campaign to end abortion kicks off Rockford Register Star
Canadian Tiff Over Abortion Overseas National Catholic Register
Hypocrisy, confusion over abortion in bills DesMoinesRegister.com
After delay, House honors young anti-abortion orator Columbus Dispatch
How to help women, and avoid abortion politics Ottawa Citizen
February 17, 2010
Syria's population control strategy under scrutiny Middle East Online
Northeast clinics encourage family planning Twin Cities Planet
'16 and Pregnant': Jenelle Los Angeles Times
Judge Who Championed Gay Adoption Dies Advocate.com
Same-sex 'marriage' law forces DC Catholic Charities to close adoption program Catholic News Agency
Pope Decries "Scourges" of Abortion and Contraception Lifesite
A "nuanced" view World Magazine
State may add contraception to local curriculum Ripon Commonwealth Press
Problems with the morning-after pill Washington Post
Life and choice City Pulse
Pro-choice license plate might not support Planned Parenthood WSLS.com
Mike Huckabee Releases New Statement Confirming He's Pro-Life on Abortion LifeNews.com
Pro-Life Billboard Campaign in Poland Links Abortion to Nazi Occupation Lifesite
A Word to COS Pro-Lifers! Campus
From the Rink to the Convent: How a Pro-Life Encounter Changed an Olympian's Life Lifesite
A baby in the womb - pro-life Deseret News
Medicaid Issue Sparks Pro-Life, Immigration Debate KETV Omaha
Day Gardner calls on blacks to recognize impact of abortion Catholic News Agency
Democrats May Lack Reconciliation Votes to Push Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill LifeNews.com
Three controversial bills culled from last year's omnibus abortion bill ... Oklahoma Gazette
NH House Rejects Treating Fetus As Person WBZ
Quest for abortion clarity fails Cary News
Virginia House and Senate OK Pro-Abortion License Plates, Funding Battle Next LifeNews.com
Woman who threatened protester cancels abortion Duluth News Tribune
VIDEO: '40 Days for Life' abortion protests begin outside Planned Parenthood Naples Daily News
Abortion provider Dr. Warren Hern: Trial for man who threatened him Westword
Arizona bill would strengthen reporting on abortions AZ Central.com
Mississippi Pro-Life Advocates Submit Signatures for Personhood-Abortion Amdt LifeNews.com
Confusion reigns over Wake commisioners' abortion vote The Independent Weekly
Rand Paul Takes A New Platform On Abortion WBKO
Kansas House approves measure requiring extra insurance for abortion Lawrence Journal World
MIgnatieff's playing politics, ideology with abortion Orangeville Citizen
Two abortion bills advance in Senate Salt Lake Tribune
House weighs abortion insurance Topeka Capital Journal
Abortion laws remain stagnant MU The Parthenon
Doctor barred from surgeries allegedly caught violating order Los Angeles Times
Planned Parenthood's selective hibernation Daily Caller
Abortion debate requires everybody's participation Daily Cardinal
This is not a shift in rhetoric. The purpose behind prohibitions on tax money being used for abortions is to prevent people from paying for the abortions of others. The insurance prohibition is a logical extension of that and, for some states, predates the ban on federal tax money being used.
People who are in insurance pools also pay to treat the consequences of the smoking, alcohol use, substance abuse, poor eating and exercise habits, genetic inheritance, voluntary risk-taking and sexual and reproductive problems of 'others'.
Why is abortion a unique and special case?
Is the next 'logical extension' to sort all illnesses into the covered 'deserving' and the uncovered 'undeserving' based on whether the root cause of their need for medical care is acceptable to 51% of the members of the insurance pool?
The purpose behind prohibitions on tax money being used for abortions
is to prevent people from paying for the abortions of others.
That's kind of the point of insurance in the first place though--if we were all only paying for our own care, health insurance would be pointless. The whole idea is that EVERYONE pays in, with the expectation that only some people will pull money back out at any one time. If people only paid into the service when they needed it, the entire system would break down.
There is a systematic campaign to remove aboriton coverage from all county and municipality insurance plans in North Carolina. State Rep. Paul Stam has contacted counties and municipalities around North Carolina and threatened to sue unless they remove "elective" abortion from their plans. Apex is only just the first. Wake County's attorney removed abortion coverage in an administrative move, without event consulting the county commissioners. The NC Board of Municipalities has removed abortion from the standard plan that they administer for towns around the state (individual towns can request that abortion be included in their plans).
You can hear a good roundup here, http://wunc.org/programs/news/archive/NRH0219.mp3/view.
