Abortion insurance bill breeds controversy at hearing
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Abortion rights supporters and opponents packed a Washington state House hearing Thursday and debated a measure that would require insurers to pay for the procedure.
Supporters call the bill the Reproductive Parity Act and say it's intended to preserve existing abortion coverage once new health insurance rules come into effect under the federal health care law.
Rep. Eileen Cody, D-West Seattle, the bill's sponsor, said it is needed because under the Affordable Care Act, insurers will face red tape associated with covering abortion that may tempt them to drop it from their plans.
Starting next year, insurers will be required to collect two sets of premiums, one for abortion coverage and another for all other care.
Cody said she is unaware of any carrier contemplating dropping coverage.
Opponents of House Bill 1044 used the hearing to say it was wrong to force businesses and women who oppose abortion to pay for coverage for a procedure they equate with murder.
"This bill would force me to buy something I do not believe in," said Kimmy Jones, 28, a stay-at-home mother from Rainier, Wash.
Detractors also said that an exemption for insurance providers on conscience or religious grounds was not strong or broad enough.
Jonathan Bechtle, CEO of the Freedom Foundation, a fiscally conservative group that takes no position on abortion, said his group also opposes the measure.
"Whatever one thinks about the morality of this issue, forcing businesses and individuals to follow one rule reduces competition, reduces choice, and reduces innovation," Bechtle said.
Supporters, for their part, told members of the House's Health and Wellness Committee that women in the state should be able to make decisions about abortion without fearing that their insurance won't cover it.
Elaine Rose, CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, said her group wants to make sure women have access to insurance that "allows them to make the decision that's best for them and their families, with their God and their doctors."
A similar measure passed out of the Democratic-controlled House last year but did not come up for a vote in the Senate.
Its fate will likely be determined in the Senate again this year, where a Republican-dominated majority has taken control.
Supporters call the bill the Reproductive Parity Act and say it's intended to preserve existing abortion coverage once new health insurance rules come into effect under the federal health care law.
Rep. Eileen Cody, D-West Seattle, the bill's sponsor, said it is needed because under the Affordable Care Act, insurers will face red tape associated with covering abortion that may tempt them to drop it from their plans.
Starting next year, insurers will be required to collect two sets of premiums, one for abortion coverage and another for all other care.
Cody said she is unaware of any carrier contemplating dropping coverage.
Opponents of House Bill 1044 used the hearing to say it was wrong to force businesses and women who oppose abortion to pay for coverage for a procedure they equate with murder.
"This bill would force me to buy something I do not believe in," said Kimmy Jones, 28, a stay-at-home mother from Rainier, Wash.
Detractors also said that an exemption for insurance providers on conscience or religious grounds was not strong or broad enough.
Jonathan Bechtle, CEO of the Freedom Foundation, a fiscally conservative group that takes no position on abortion, said his group also opposes the measure.
"Whatever one thinks about the morality of this issue, forcing businesses and individuals to follow one rule reduces competition, reduces choice, and reduces innovation," Bechtle said.
Supporters, for their part, told members of the House's Health and Wellness Committee that women in the state should be able to make decisions about abortion without fearing that their insurance won't cover it.
Elaine Rose, CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, said her group wants to make sure women have access to insurance that "allows them to make the decision that's best for them and their families, with their God and their doctors."
A similar measure passed out of the Democratic-controlled House last year but did not come up for a vote in the Senate.
Its fate will likely be determined in the Senate again this year, where a Republican-dominated majority has taken control.
I am posting links to a 7 part video on the scam of health insurance and the false cost of medical proceedures and how there is no health care crisis.  It is worth the listen.  He is a medical doctor with a private practice.  He was being filmed at a lecture he gave, so don't let the lack of production distract from the message.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMI0tcADlBc
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F02sb85_5g
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wfvtl7Gh_E
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JspTna2r-WQ
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKZDYDSyH-Q
Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_GRLBxKJ68
Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5uwMAvi9lM
Ridiculous and a big waste of time and money.
Â
 Why must it be an "all or nothing" matter?
Â
Why can't insurance carriers offer it as an option with a reasonable service fee?  That way, women who want the abortion coverage mark a "Yes" box on their insurance enrollment and pay the extra fee, while women who do not want it won't have it and won't be forced to pay for a service they aren't signed up to receive?
Â
Seems very simple to me but leave to the legislation to screw up.
Â
IF there are insurers who wish to provide coverage fine and I hope there are some. However insurers should also be free to offer coverage which doesn't include abortion. The state should keep out of it. There is NO one in Olympia competent to interfere with personal choice
I am a bit overweight..I DEMAND that my insurance company cover lipsuction. My wife would also like to increase the size of her bazooms..I also DEMAND that my insurance company cover her breast implants! So somebody tell me what is the difference in this demand and the one to have non-medically necessary abortions covered? Why is abortion the only non-medical procedure that is being forced on insurance companies?
 @sometimesright sometimesright wrote: "Why is abortion the only non-medical procedure that is being forced on insurance companies?"
Â
What? Abortion is a medical procedure.
 @Sutekh For that matter so are tatoos! So are piercings! So are any other kind of procedure that is not medically required! I can name 100 of them! What if I felt a need to turn myself into one of those vampires? How about horn implants? Having a baby is a medical procedure, going in and altering the natural bodies process of what naturally happens when a sperm meets an egg, is no different than putting a whole in your ear and then demanding that your insurance compan pays for it!
 @Smokin Bear abortions for medical reason are less than 2% of them a year. The rest are ELECTIVE! Exactly the same thing. 98% of abortions are done for no medical reason, simply because the mother is ELECTING to remove the baby from their bodies. No different than removing fat with liposuction. In fact babies actually can help mothers be more healthy in the long run and fat on your mid section can lead to all kinds of future medical issues, so in reality liposuction is actually more medically neccessary than an abortion!
 @sometimesright  @Sutekh Lighten up on the Amphetamines, dude...LOL. Â
Â
None of the things you listed have a remote connection to the abortion issue: A woman may need an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy: the fetus won't survive and the condition is life threatening to the mother.
 @Sutekh so is liposuction and breast implants then!
 @sometimesright  @Sutekh Nope.  That is elective cosmetic surgery.  Huge difference.
I am pro choice, but also saddened by it. Â I love pro life. Â
Abortion is population control. Â Also, before legalization, pharm companies used to have to pay Sweden high dollar amounts for fetuses used for R&D, where cells were necessary to grow vaccines and viruses, and used for cosmetics. Â Now they pay bottom dollar to drive up profits using diploid cells. Â It took me less than 10 seconds to find this link -Â http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccine-production-with---human-diploid-cells-aborted-fetal-cell---tissue.html
oh yeah.... remember this, the next time you get vaccinated..... yuck
 @Hueski Oh, dear. If you believe anything you read on that site, I'm sorry for you.
 @Sutekh I just grabbed the first link off of my search..... I was referring to diploid cells.  Read the literature before taking any vaccine.
the nazi's killed babies to, how is this any differant
 @1791 Blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are not "babies." They are POTENTIAL babies, much in the same way that an acorn is a potential oak tree.
Â
Incidentally, the Nazis imposed the death penalty on doctors who performed abortions on "Aryan" women, so if you want to play the "who's more like the Nazis" game, you'd better start looking in the mirror.
 @Sutekh Ironically the Nazis used your same reasoning. Jews, gypsys, Slavs, Poles, were not "real" people. They were inferior, so no problem, look the other way, just a bunch of overgrown blastocysts! What a stupid line of reasoning! Do you actually believe what you are typing?
every child is a child of god
I think all insurance should cover maternity, as far as abortion no because unless its life or death or rape. or having a child will cause extreme emotional harm and hardship, its elective just like cosmetic people who get one generally do not medicaly need one they just dont want to have a baby they laid down and had sex to create.
 @@amber@ The problem is how far does a woman have to go prove that she was raped in order to get an abortion? What degrading, humiliating process or exam will satisfy the powers that be that that her hardship will be sufficient, or that she was legitimately raped? We can barely get a rapist convicted as it is. Your rationalization sounds great but it doesn't work in practicality without adding a powerplay over women. No thank you.Â
 @justsaying  @@amber@ Buying insurance coverage should be like a auto dealership - buy the model that fits your needs and the accessories you desire. NO need to pay for others lifestyles. NONE of this one size fits all.
Insurance companies aren't required to cover maternity services. (or many other types of care, for that matter) Why does abortion get special treatment? My husband and I were paying out of pocket for health insurance and of all the plans the insurance provider offered, only ONE covered maternity. (it also happened to be the most expensive) So my husband and kids went on a cheaper plan, and since we knew we wanted more kids, I chose the more expensive plan. Why should abortion coverage be mandated, but not maternity? If you want to have the option to have an abortion, find a plan that covers it. Just like I wanted the option to have my maternity care covered by insurance, so I found a plan that did that.Â
 @LunchWithABear Insurance should cover ALL medical procedures. They should not be able to pick and choose. Oh and I believe in a socialized healthcare system, where everybody pays in and everybody has the option/ability to receive the benefits regardless of their current economical status.
 @Jalharad  @LunchWithABear Jaiharad, and everyone avoids personal responsibility - a great society of looters
 @Jalharad Then move to Canada and see how great it is in a country 1/10th the size of the US.Â
 @Smokin Bear Population of Canada..34 million...Population of the US 313 million! Before you make yourself look any more ignorant, why don't you do one of two things. Either take a second and look up what the population of each country is, or if you already did this, then take a basic fractions class. 34 of 313 is a shade under 10%! Therefore the US is aproximately 10 times bigger, or 1/10th the size...what a frigin' clown!
 @sometimesright  @Jalharad Um, no.  Canada is actually 1.6x the size of the USA. Â
 Insurance should only cover abortion if it has to do with rape, or medically necessary. Abortion should never be used as "birth control". No matter what happens with this, Someone will not be happy.Â
 @Just my say I disagree. If you are covered for it, it should be paid for. The reason is no business of the insurance companies, or the rest of the world for that matter.
 @Jalharad So then should insurance companies be required to cover all other non-medically necessary procedures too? Why does abortion get special treatment? How about plastic surgery, liposuction, etc?Â
 @Just my say I am cool with that, but most of the socialized friends on here won't be. It smacks of elitism as only those who work hard will get better coverage, which of course they hate. They want everything for free on the backs of others regardless of how lazy one is!Â
 @sometimesright  @Jalharad I think insurance should cover everything. However, I think insurance company's should be able to say "you pay this much a month and we will only cover this much" If you want more through your insurance company, you should pay more. It kinda does that now in a way. If you wanted it to cover more than doctors, hospital, the basics. That is when the insurance company would say, "OK pay this much and we OK your policy for all of this".  I don't think it would be fair to have everyone pay for all the extra when not everyone wants it.Â
 @Jalharad You are right about it being no business of the insurance company. I really don't want to see it use as a "birth control". I care less who gets an abortion and who doesn't. Their choice did not stop me from waking up in the morning the next day and have a cup of coffee. My sister has had 14 abortions, and she has only gone through 2 pregnancies, had my nephews, only because they had rich daddy's. Do I think the insurance company's should pay for her, hell no.Â
I saw this story on Q13 last Sunday. Apparently, when it comes to money, the Catholic church doesn't even acknowledged that life begins before birth. And righteous people wonder why we think they are hypocrites.
Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjEs_2Vez1o
Â
 @JK15 Yeah, heard about that too. Are you surprised?Â
 @lakeview Not in the slightest..... The Mob is a more trustworthy organization than the Catholic church.
 @JK15 Thank God we have a constitutional republic and not your mobocracy! Can't imagine what it would look like if like minded people of yours got control of a mob...oh yeah, that's right...Nazi Germany!
I don't see a problem with the idea of "supplemental" insurance for abortion services. Sometimes I think the abortion movement goes too far and pisses off people, causing more harm than good.Â
The only time I would agree with insurance paying for an abortion is if it's medically necessary to the safety of the mother. Frankly, that's the only time I can agree with an abortion at all, but that's not my decision to make. But when the law tries to say I have to pay for someone else's abortion that isn't medically necessary I really get hot under the collar. Hopefully this will die out in the Senate.
@dg54321 molon labe, brother
Medical insurance should cover all procedures.. period.. and not pick and choose what they will cover and what they won't..
Most will not cover cosmetic surgeries, as they are elective surgeries.. so why is abortion so different than an elective surgery? It is a choice by the person, not a needed surgery, like appendicitis..
If one looks at the cost of unwanted children, then that should be considered too.. We all complain about how bad behaved our youth is. Yet some of those who complain, want to put more unwanted children on the planet..
I know, sounds bad.. but, in simple words, it is the truth.. People who don't want to be parents, are becoming parents, and they don't take care of their children, so they become a burden on society..
(can't make them get sterilized either) (BTW, I have a daughter, who fits that profile... shouldn't be a parent)
 @Mr. H I disagree.  Abortion is not always elective:
Â
Ectopic Pregnancy is a medical condition where the fetus attachs outside of the womb - the fetus will not survive and the mother will die if an abortion is not performed.  Not elective. Â
Â
Or, consider if your niece or daughter at the age of 13 was brutally raped and impregnated by her attacker, would you force her to go through full term pregnancy to deliver her attacker's baby? The emotional destruction would be life long. Â Not electve, in my point of view. Â
Â
Or a rape victim is infected with syphilis by her attacker and during the attack he impregnated her.  STDs do horrible things to a fetus, like some of the following:
Perinatal death
Premature delivery
Low birth weight
Congenital anomalies
Active congenital syphilis in the neonate
Long-term sequelae, such as deafness and neurologic impairment.
Â
While I agree that abortion shouldn't be used as birth control (and there are women who abuse it certainly), I also don't want to see a woman die because her right to choose was denied.
 @Smokin Bear This is such a smoke screen excuse. Nobody is arguing to outlaw abortions for medical reasons. It is the 95+% that are done for birth control reasons.
 @Smokin Bear You probably need a logic class to go with the fractions and basic googling! So now you are equating a baby to a disease or a virus? Everything you listed from your silly scenario, are MEDICAL problems. A baby is not a medical problem to be wiped out such as a disease, virus or a cancer. Abortion because of rapes are even more rare than abortions because of medical reasons. You are just using these smoke screens as an excuse to justify killing perfectly healthy babies for no other reason than convienence! Finally, to suggest that we kill babies for population control? Really? You are one twisted individual. Maybe you need a 20th Century History class to go along with the other ones. Start about 1933 in Germany! BTW..I love your hypocrisy about unrelated issues! We are talking about whether 98% of abortions are being used as birth control and you bring up all kinds of straw men arguments! Logic my friend...learn about it and use it!
 @sometimesright  So, based on your comment, should your deliberate lack of compassion be everyone else's problem?
Â
Based on your comments, no one should get vaccines or any other medical care - it's just a smoke screen excuse, isn't it?Â
Â
 So, in a hypothetical scenario,  when your dad or aunt or your mom is struggling to breathe in the last stages of  lung cancer, how would you like it if  someone who has no connection to your family, decides, "Well, no they don't NEED another oxygen tank and why give them morphine? - they're just taking up space and there are other people we'd MUCH rather treat who are more worthy of medical care." Â
 Or for fun, how about your Mom gets raped by a creep who has the new strain of incurable Gonorrhea.  Won't that be fun? And then you find out that old mom got knocked up by the loser - Are ya looking forward to a new brother or sister ? Someone YOU'LL have to care for, THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, because they'll be born severely retarded and your mom will probably die of her infection. Â
Won't THAT be a good time for ya!Â
Â
 If a woman is willing to be financially responsible for HER CHOICE that AFFECTS HER BODY how is it up to you to decide what is right for her?
Â
What are YOU doing on any appreciable level to improve the environmental impact of human consumption on our planet? Â How would you justify your existence in the same context that you use to judge choices made by people you don't even know?
Â
I know, you'll avoid answering that very simple question directly by placing some unrelated issue into the discussion (typical self righteous coward)...Redicto ad absurdum...Reduce the issue to the absurd in a flaccid attempt to "win" the argument. Â
Â
There is no winning or losing. Â It is what it is.
 @Mr. H Mr. H wrote: "so why is abortion so different than an elective surgery? It is a choice by the person, not a needed surgery, like appendicitis.."
Â
Many abortions are medically necessary to save the woman's life. There was a case recently in Ireland where a Catholic hospital refused to perform a life-saving abortion. Both the woman and her unborn child died as a result.
 @Sutekh  @Mr. H My son is going to be 5 in a few days and he gets Botox. That is not his choice and the insurance company pays for it. Every year, I spend a whole day on the phone, emailing, and gathering info, for the insurance company. Just for Botox. If insurance company's did not pick and choose and allowed everything that would be great. It would be smart for them to say "OK you pay this much a month and we will cover this much." Â
Makes me so sad to see a political group, who are all out to keep people from shooting eachother, have very little respect for those who want to see these little innocent lives saved. Â Even if you don't agree with people why not respect them and allow them to not bear the burden of paying for it?
 @ohhmammamia you do realize that your entire through process reverses itself, right?Â
Â
I'm guessing no. Â
 @T H I S Not at all.  People are so engrossed with saving lives (and rightfully so) that it puzzles me that the same people wouldn't have any sympathy to those who want to protect unborn life as well.  That's all.
 @Gaikokujin Yet I bet the same clown would be the first one to turn you into the federal government if you destroyed a bald eagle egg!
 @lakeview It works fine as long as you are not the baby. I notice that they don't get a vote in this matter! This is like a Nazi saying that gassing Jews worked just fine! You notice that Dr. Mengele didn't give the Jews a vote either!
 @ohhmammamia  @T H I S THIS doesn't believe the baby is a life, to him it's only cells. Then he typically attacks and belittles posters he disagrees with.
 @lakeview The point here is not about what you believe is correct.  There is a large group of people here in this country that are very morally opposed to it because they do indeed it is killing someone.  Is it really right to force them to anyway - being as controversial and heavy as it is?
 @T H I S Um wait.  Did I say I wasn't for gun control?  Nope.  Don't believe I did.
 @lakeview I am sorry, but I have to deduct ten points from your post for using facts, logic, and reason when debating with a conservative on the KOMO forums.
 @ohhmammamia  @T H I S Aborted fetuses can't survive outside the body on their own. They are "part" of the woman's body, literally with a tube connecting them. I don't like abortion, but it's HER body and HER choice. Once the fetus is "viable" then it matters. So the current system works just fine.Â
 @ohhmammamia It puzzels me that people are so engrossed with protecting an "unborn life," and not give two farks about what happens to that life the second it is born.
Â
And you will miss that point entirely to I suppose. Â