Tensions flare as abortion insurance bill moves forward
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A measure to require most insurers in Washington state to cover abortions will receive a hearing before a Senate committee, Majority Leader Rodney Tom pledged late Thursday, setting up a discussion on a measure that had been thrown into limbo a day earlier by another key senator.
The proposal has been a political hot-button in the state, as supporters say it would protect existing abortion coverage once new insurance rules come into effect under the federal health care overhaul.
Opponents, however, say the measure puts federal dollars at risk and threatens the religious freedoms of those who oppose abortion rights.
Proponents answer those concerns by pointing to language in the bill that would render moot any sections inconsistent with federal law and provisions granting protections to insurance carriers that object to covering abortion on religious grounds.
Tensions over the bill flared this week as Sen. Mike Padden, chair of the Law and Justice Committee, reversed an earlier decision to give the bill a hearing on Friday before his panel.
Padden, a Spokane Valley Republican who opposes abortion rights, had agreed to allow his committee to discuss the measure, which he said had "flaws."
"I'm not afraid to give this bill a good airing because the more facts that come out Friday, the better," Padden said in a Monday news release. "People on both sides of the issue will get ample opportunity to make their points."
On Wednesday afternoon, just after a hearing in Padden's committee on a separate bill to require that minors seeking abortions first notify a parent, the item was pulled from the committee's Friday agenda.
The move presents a challenge to Tom, a Medina Democrat and supporter of abortion rights who leads the Republican-dominated majority that holds a one-vote edge in the Senate. Tom said late Thursday that it was still to be determined when the bill will be heard and in which committee.
"We want to create a culture where we're able to look at bills that people agree with and don't agree with," he said.
Padden on Thursday declined to say whether Senate Bill 5576 would receive a new hearing date in his committee. Padden spokesman Eric Campbell, contacted by email, declined to say why it had been pulled from Friday's agenda.
It is doubtful that the bill would have emerged from the Republican-controlled Law and Justice Committee even if it had received a hearing.
An identical measure, Senate Bill 5009, was earlier referred to the Senate's Health Care Committee, where it has not been scheduled for a hearing. The companion House Bill 1044 received a hearing last week and is scheduled to be voted out of the Health Care and Wellness Committee on Friday.
Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, the prime sponsor of the Senate measure, said he was frustrated that it lost its hearing date but said he expected Tom to make good on his word that it would be heard.
"I'm a patient man," said Hobbs. "Legislation takes time. But I can't speak for the patience of the millions of Washington women who will be directly affected by the passage or failure of this legislation."
The proposal has been a political hot-button in the state, as supporters say it would protect existing abortion coverage once new insurance rules come into effect under the federal health care overhaul.
Opponents, however, say the measure puts federal dollars at risk and threatens the religious freedoms of those who oppose abortion rights.
Proponents answer those concerns by pointing to language in the bill that would render moot any sections inconsistent with federal law and provisions granting protections to insurance carriers that object to covering abortion on religious grounds.
Tensions over the bill flared this week as Sen. Mike Padden, chair of the Law and Justice Committee, reversed an earlier decision to give the bill a hearing on Friday before his panel.
Padden, a Spokane Valley Republican who opposes abortion rights, had agreed to allow his committee to discuss the measure, which he said had "flaws."
"I'm not afraid to give this bill a good airing because the more facts that come out Friday, the better," Padden said in a Monday news release. "People on both sides of the issue will get ample opportunity to make their points."
On Wednesday afternoon, just after a hearing in Padden's committee on a separate bill to require that minors seeking abortions first notify a parent, the item was pulled from the committee's Friday agenda.
The move presents a challenge to Tom, a Medina Democrat and supporter of abortion rights who leads the Republican-dominated majority that holds a one-vote edge in the Senate. Tom said late Thursday that it was still to be determined when the bill will be heard and in which committee.
"We want to create a culture where we're able to look at bills that people agree with and don't agree with," he said.
Padden on Thursday declined to say whether Senate Bill 5576 would receive a new hearing date in his committee. Padden spokesman Eric Campbell, contacted by email, declined to say why it had been pulled from Friday's agenda.
It is doubtful that the bill would have emerged from the Republican-controlled Law and Justice Committee even if it had received a hearing.
An identical measure, Senate Bill 5009, was earlier referred to the Senate's Health Care Committee, where it has not been scheduled for a hearing. The companion House Bill 1044 received a hearing last week and is scheduled to be voted out of the Health Care and Wellness Committee on Friday.
Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, the prime sponsor of the Senate measure, said he was frustrated that it lost its hearing date but said he expected Tom to make good on his word that it would be heard.
"I'm a patient man," said Hobbs. "Legislation takes time. But I can't speak for the patience of the millions of Washington women who will be directly affected by the passage or failure of this legislation."
To all the Pro-Abortion fanatics: I could not care less if the President, the entire Congress, the Supreme Court of the land champion abortion. Like I said before a nation that embraces the Abortion Industrical Complex that allows partial birth abortions and gendercide will rot from the inside out. The pro-abortion crowd certainly has the upper hand at this time but in due time my pretty it is all going to come crashing down. Ripping an unborn out of the womb because of inconvenience or gender of the baby makes us a nation of barbarians.
I am pro-choice. However, I do believe that (with the exception of extreme cases) abortions are elective surgeries. So insurance companies should not be forced to provide coverage.
I am for abortions, but forcing an insurances company to flip the bill for that will just make yours and my premium go up. So no to that.
For those of you against having insurance cover abortion, the same can be said for any number of drugs/procedures in which I will never take or do. Or you for that matter. There is absolutely nothing to argue about regarding having the corrupt insurance business cover more procedures. NOTHING. YOU are not paying for it, the government is requiring insurance cover it.Â
@Northend It should be a special plan if you chose to have that on your plan, and you know you will pay more for that plan not passed on to the other clients. I am for choices which is the freedoms we have in the U.S.A.
@nunof uors:Â
Lets pretend that you have $1, representing the "cost" of insurance.
Â
Abortion would comprise less than 1 cent out of that dollar.Â
Â
AND, since most people are covered by employer sponsored plans, and the employer pays the majority of the premium (if not all of it), *you*, as an individual, do not really hve any say in what is covered by your plan because the employer is the one choosing the benefits to be included.
Â
If you want personal choice & control over what exactly *our* plan covers, you would have to buy an individual plan - and trust me, you probably could not afford ione that carries benefits equivalent to what your employer sponsored plan covers.
 @LocalLady  @nunof Oh, these poor refuseniks, reality flips the bird at them...again...
 @nunof uors So I can choose to not have rehab offered? Or transplants? Or any number of other services/ procedures my medical plan covers? I don't think so. I have never been able to choose what is on the plan, only the plans offered. I don't think you understand how medical insurance works.Â
Why not give consumers a choice by requiring half of the state approved insurance companies to have aborticide procedures included in their policies? For employer based coverage give 2 choices one with and one without. Everyone should be happy.Â
Â
Just becasue we disagree doesn't make one of us wrong.
 @FED__UPÂ
Way to make up a wprd *"aborticide") to try to push emotiona; buttons.
Â
Every insurance company decides what benefits they include in any given policy. If they include maternity, then the law would require they also include abortion.
Â
The vast majority of people are covered through an employer sponsored plan. It is the EMPLOYER'sw decision which plans & benefits to include in their coverage for their employees. I doubt that many employers are going to be willing to have "2 choices" (in other words 2 entirely different plans) on offer. They are going to want to have 1 plan - it simplfies their lives, makes it easier to administer their benefits.
Â
I have over a decade of experience in health insurance/benefits. I can tell you without question that in all that time, dealing with companies large & small from throughout Washington state *& natiionwide. I have only ever seen one plan that did not cover abortion. AND in all that time, I took less than a dozen calls regarding abortion benefits. So, even if it is a benefit, I would say it is a rarely used benefit.
Â
Costwise, it is a MUCH smaller cost of claims paid than cancer, radiation, chemical dependancy, prosthetics, reconstructive surgery, and just about every other benefit. It SURE as hell is much less expensive than a maternity case. So, in the financial equation sense, it is much most cost efective.
Â
Bottom line is, all the protesting & gnashing of teeth from individuals will not amount to much. In a group plan, the employer sponsoring (*paying for) the coverage will have the final say. It would be interesting to see where emplyers stand, what choices they make. I would be dollars to donuts they opt to have abortion coverage in their group plans.
 @FED__UP How about consumer choice with regard to allowing smoking or overweight people in a plan or not? I bet the expense of that is much more than what would be saved by having a pro-birth-only plan. ...kind of a slippery slope.
Society is quickly changing, and for the worse. Progressives, liberals and most Dems embrace abortions with a passion. We have a President, 2 WA Senators and most of the Congressional Delegation that would move heaven and earth to see that as many abortions as possible are performed at taxpayer expense of course. It is a sure sign that our society and country will not survive when we are busy butchering the unborn for convenience sake. Considering the women and the men behind these unwanted births maybe it is best the pregnancy be terminated.  At least Jesus will embrace their little souls.
 @jdoll88:Â
".... We have a President, 2 WA Senators and most of the Congressional Delegation that would move heaven and earth to see that as many abortions as possible are performed at taxpayer expense of course ...."
Â
No, you are completely wrong.
Â
We have a President, 2 WA Senators and most of the Congressional delegation that would protect a right to abortion, a right that was confirmed as a right by SCOTUS. They fight to preserve access & availability of these medical services in the face of "pro birth" people who are all about forcing THEIR beliefs & religion on others in an effort to demand that others comply with what THEY deem "appropriate".
Â
Get your religion out of our lives.
@LocalLady @jdoll88: I can use the same argument "Local". Get your humanist, progressive, God hating theology out of our lives. It works both ways my dear.
 @jdoll88:Â
Actually no, it does not work both ways.Â
Â
I am not forcing my beliefs on you in such a way that it would have a personal impact on you (ie: I am not saying oyu MUST or MUST not do something, in this case have an abortion). I leave that up to the individual.
Â
YOU, on the other hand, are FORCING oyur beliefs on others.  You would deny them an abortion, forcing them to carry to term whether they wanted to or not. You are NOT paying their medical care & bills, you are not financially responsible for the resulting child. So by what right do you feel you should have any say in the matter whatsoever?
Â
And who, exactly, said my "theology" is God Hating - mine or anyone else's that believes in choice? It is not. What I personally believe is that the decision is between the woman, her partner & her physician, NOBODY else. It has nothing to do with loving or hating God. Mainly because guess what - NOT all people even believe in God. Some are atheists, some are Hindus, some are Buhdists, some are any number of hunders of other religions, NONE of which even HAVE "god" as most "good christians" perceive God to be.
Same argument, different day! Instead of trying to do something about education, the budget or any of the other pressing problems, let's try to find a way to stop abortions! Of course, we can't afford to pay for the mother's medical care, the child's day care, education and all the "entitlement" programs so once the child is born we no longer are so concerned!
 @Mamuk This is why anti-abortion folks are more accurately called pro-birth and not pro-life. Liberals are not so much pro-abortion as more holistically pro-life. They value the pregnant woman's life as much as a fetus's eventual/potential life after birth; the whole life or pro-life cycle from birth to death. Whatever a woman chooses, it is a difficult individual moral choice.
@albion - No, it's not a "difficult individual moral choice." Either you believe in murder or you don't. There is no gray area here. You can argue all you want that what you are killing is not a baby, but the bottom line is you are destroying a living being with a heart beat. It never fails to amaze me how people can justify even the most horrendous behavior.
 @jdoll88:Â
The formal medical definition of the term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable.
Â
See that? BEFORE THE FETUS IS VIABLE. In other words, it is NOT a baby.
Â
As for your comment about "partial birth abortion". They have been against federal law since 2003. Nice try.
 @jdoll88:Â
Â
Well, since you like to make things up, I will take your fantasies one at a time.
Â
According to the CDC, the total number of abortions in the US was 1.2 million in 2009 *the most recent year statistics are available for).  Not sure where you got 3.5 million from, other than perhaps your fevered imagination.
Â
"Partial Birth Abortion (the pro-life term used to wring the emotions for the medical procedure "dilation and extraction," or D&X, has been ILLEGAL since 2003, when then President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Â
D & X IS a valid medical procedure. It is normally performed in these circumstances:
Â
2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
 ~  There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.   ~ The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect, like Down's Syndrome. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.Â
3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
 ~  The fetus is dead.
 ~  The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
 ~  The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
 ~  The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.
Â
The same procedure, however is ALSO used in late term miscarriages - are you trying to include those in your totals to try to inflate your numbers?
Â
You'll notice that ALL of these examples have a common denominator - either the woman's is in danger, there are medical problems related to the pregnancy, or the fetus (NOT A BABY0 is already dead. Are you saying that in the cases where the fetus is already dead that the woman should still be forced to carry to term?
Â
So, what *proof* do you have that shows there were 35,000 paritial birth abortions in 2012? I can already answrer my question - NONE.. The procedure has been outlawed for nearly a decade now.
Â
And what the hell are you talking about "gendercide"? Another made up word to try to play to the emotions, nothing more. At the time when the vast majority of abortions (over 90%) are performed in the first trimester (before 12 weeks) you cannot even tell which gender a fetus is.
@LocalLady @jdoll88: Oh really? Gendercide is legal but it is still done. Democrats in Congress had the chance to vote to make it illegal but they chose not to. As for partial birth? Check you facts!!!! As for the mere 1%. Let's see 3.5 million abortions a year time 1% = 35,000. No big deal, right Local?
 @jdoll88:Â
Problem with this tired old argument is that that procedure is already outlawed, and even when it was still legal it was nearly never done (I would say less than 1% of all abortions nation wide).
Â
Biut way to try to use emotion to cover up the fact you have no facts or science to back up your argument.
 @albion:Â
Problem is, if they can;t scream "you are murdering innocent babies!!!", if instead they had to be biologically & scientifically accurate (you are removing a clump of cells from it's host) they would not be able to use emotion to their advantage. Heaven forbid they simply stay the hell out of a decision that is not theirs to make.
@albion @wheresthecommonsense So that means you support partial birth abortions? You know the procedure where the murderous doctor rams a sharp instructment into the skull of the child? A society that murders the unborn with such ease and indifference does not deserve to survive.Â
 @wheresthecommonsense  @albion I respect your pro-birth belief system. I also am personally pro-birth. But physiologically it is not murder... there is no gray area here. The fetus is 100% dependent upon the life of the woman who provides blood, nutrients, and oxygen. So, it becomes a difficult individual moral choice as to whether to allow a fetus to eventually be born into life or not. "Murder" in this case is just a manipulation of language like any other.
Â
Even the bible says that life begins at birth with the first breath.
@Mamuk Such nonsense. You display the classic depraved mindset of a liberal. A responsible person would make every effort to be the best parent they could no matter what their income level was. Remember it was done for centuries before the "entitlement" mentality took over our country. Considering that we have a huge % of our populous that is self-centered, narcissitic and uncaring about their children this situation was bound to happen.Â
Â
 @jdoll88  @Mamuk "You display the classic depraved mindset of a liberal."
Compared to the classic deprived mind of the conservative - who insists the child be born, but feels they have no interest in the child beyond that...you wash your hands of all the poor education, health care, living conditions, safety in public places are up to the parents. And THEN you sound the praises of a man whose words "What you do to the least of these, you do onto me..." put the lie to your own words.
 @jdoll88  @OrcasThunder  @Mamuk "How the hell do you know how I or other conservatives feel about children after the fact?"
By the fact that conservatives are constantly ranting about the "single mothers with their hand out..." and the oft-repeated mantra when families have "too many kids" - "You shouldn't have had the kids if you can't afford them!".
You, personally? I have no idea. But that is the consistent response from the right, that anyone who has kids better be able to pay for them. Then there are the screams about help for families, school lunches, bus rides, medical care...it gets to be so predictable.
@OrcasThunder @Mamuk Really Orcas? This classic comeback holds no water. How the hell do you know how I or other conservatives feel about children after the fact? We all pay taxes to support schools. To pay for welfare (both legitimate and non legitimate). We spend millions to support the children of illegals. I personally donate a great deal of money to local charities that help newborns that are born to drug and alcohol addicts. So get of your humanistic/liberal/progressive high horse.
I understand that some people think that abortion is not a moral issue with them, but why can't the other side understand that abortion is murder of an innocent to some people, and those people shouldn't be required to participate in any way of something so vile to them. This includes paying for it.
@Magic 8 Ball:
Â
The formal medical definition of the term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable.
@Magic 8 Ball:
".... Â abortion is murder of an innocent ...."
Â
An innocent what? It is a fetus - a clump of cells that has absolutely no means to survive independently outside the womb.
Â
Why is it "the other side" can't understand that they should keep their noses out of other people's business?Â
Â
You *claim* you are being "reuired to participate in something do vile". No, hyou are not. You are not being asked to personally attend during the surgical procedure. YOU are not "participating" at all.
 @Magic 8 Ball Why am I required to pay for a war that killed an estimated 100,000 people, based on known lies and the greed of the oil companies?
 @Magic 8 Ball Trying to control a woman's body is certainly a moral issue, as is the plight of a fetus that cannot live without the life of that same woman. I guess you could say that abortion is a partial suicide which certainly has psychological repercussions, but you cannot murder something that cannot yet live on its own, just like you cannot murder a dead person. In any case, abortion is a private choice made by an individual woman; It is nobody else's business just like any other health care decision.
@albion Yet if I murder a woman who is 2 months pregnant I can be held for two counts of murder. The courts have already said that killing an unborn baby is murder.
 @Magic 8 Ball  @albion And at the same time the courts do not consider abortion murder. Do you agree with every legal decision? Did you agree with the supreme courts decision on Obamacare or corporate personhood? What is legal changes with time. Legal frameworks are not biology/physiology. Abortion is certainly a difficult individual decision, but by any empirical or rational measure it is not murder. Even the bible does not consider it to be murder.
 @albion  @Magic 8 Ball It is if we have to pay for it.
 @dedanann:Â
And just who's abortion did you personally write a check to cover?
 @dedanann  @albion  @Magic 8 Ball You're NOT paying for it! What part of "private health insurance" don't you understand?
No employer should be forced to pay the consequences of unplanned pregnancy. That is a personal problem and expense, none of your employers business.
 @sotweetie:Â
People with this *argument* irritate the crap out of me! If you were to take an employer's group coverage, and break down the cost per benefit, the cost of covering an abortion as compared to substance abuse, a prosthetic limb, maternity care, or any other major medical cost is miniscule.
Â
AND, it is the EMPLOYER's decision whether or not to choose a plan that covers it - NOT yours.
 @SoTweetie Is it then more "moral" to require the same employer to pay the costs of the woman taking weeks off after the birth, and be guarantied to have a job to return to?
 @OrcasThunder Who's talking morals? I am talking employer rights. I support a woman's right to choose, and in the same respect I oppose requiring employers to cover abortions. I don't support mandating employers provide elongated paid maternity leave, so no it's not "more moral". The employer shouldn't be obligated in either circumstance unless by choice and financial ability.
 @SoTweetie "Who's talking morals?"
Just about everyone except - apparently you...
Here's the short synopses of the issue - some employers want to be excused from the mandate to cover abortions in the insurance coverage they provide for employees - based on the claim that since abortion violates their MORAL code, they should not have to pay for it.
Hence the issue of "morals"...
As to that "right" you speak of, under ObamaCare, they don't have that right. They have to provide the entire package.
 @SoTweetie How the heck do you know whether the pregnancy was "unplanned?"
Â
It's clear that you are assuming every woman who gets an abortion is some kind of slut.
Â
Ever hear of an ectopic pregnancy?
 @Sutekh  @SoTweetie I assume that every woman going to get an abortion is doing so precisely for the reason that her pregnancy was unplanned, or for medically necessity.Â
 @Sutekh medical*
Whether you are pro-choice or pro-birth, it is an individual's life decision. If you are pro-birth then have a baby, but stop trying to control what another woman does with her body. The market does not control a woman's womb, just like the market does not control whether you get to own handgun or not.
@albion   a woman is responsible for what she puts in her body. if she does not want to wait for nature to take it's course why am i responsible for HER decision to have sex. We the people had NOTHING at all to do with her decision and the unintended consequences. obviously this does not include rape.Â
 @jennieb "a woman is responsible for what she puts in her body"
Does that include what goes into her body during rape?
 @SoTweetie Are you saying that we SHOULD be responsible for what is put into her body during rape?
And so it's somehow "OK" to remove a rape baby, but not an accidental baby? Why?
Frankly, the ONLY argument against abortion that I will even CONSIDER as an "argument" is one that mandates no abortions (based solely on religious grounds), even for rape, incest, or risk to the mother. Anything between the that and no limits is simply hedging, and therefore irrational. If you say "most" are not allowed, but for reasons of rape that abortion is allowed, you negate the standard of "all life is precious" and substitute "Almost all, but babies of bad seed can be aborted"...On religious grounds, there is no middle ground.
For true medical reasons, some wiggle room exists - but ONLY at the mother's choice, no religion has a say unless the mother chooses.
 @OrcasThunder ... "obviously this does not include rape." Selective comprehension, exhibit A.
 @jennieb You aren't responsible... let it go, and mind your own business.
 @dedanann:Â
How?
Â
The vast majority of people who have health insurance have it through their employers. They are NOT paying for an individual plan that is solely their own - they are covered under a group plan that the EMPLOYER chooses. The EMPLOYER chooses what benefits to include or exclude, and the EMPLOYER pays some (usually the majority) of the premium.
Â
Funny thing about insurance. Once the premium is paid, it is no longer "your" money. It goes into a pool of funds that is then used to pay claims for ALL the members in the premium pool. They could be claims for chemical addiction & substance abuse, for cancer care, for amputations, for contraception, for abortion, for ANY care that is a covered benefit of the plan. It is NOT "your" money, and it is not your decision how it is spent or what it pays for.
Â
The ONLY way you would be "financially responsible for her mistake" would be if you were coercered to personally write a check to cover the expenses out of your own personal bank account.
Â
So, here's a hypothetical for you: Your employer, ABC Company, chooses a group insurance plan that DOES offer abortion as a covered benefit. Your employer is paying 80% of your insurance premium. Do you think you actually have any legal right to fight your employer's decision to choose a plan that covers abortion? Do you think you have any legal right to try to get your employer to drop abortion coverage? Do you think you have any legal right to say what your employer's group coverage will & will not cover?
 @dedanann  @albion  @jennieb "Financially we would be responsible for her mistake."
And yet you feel no such difficulty about denying the woman and child after the child is born...if you are responsible for forcing her to go to term, wouldn't you feel at least SOME responsibility for assuring the child grows up with an education, has health care, nutrition and save and adequate housing?
 @albion  @dedanann  @jennieb Why must I pay for rehab? Why must I pay for smokers who develop lung cancer? Albion is right--it's all part of the network.
 @dedanann  @jennieb Kind of like how I am financially responsible for how others eat, smoke, drink, drug, and just generally live their lives? I'd rather not pay for others lack of responsibility for their health either. But for better or worse that is part of the social contract.
 @albion  @jennieb Financially we would be responsible for her mistake.
 @albion Oh how I love the manipulation of language...the opposite of the word "birth" is what?
 @sometimesright You mean like the manipulation of language where "pro-life" applies only to a fetus but not a pregnant woman, or anything else that happens after birth?
Â
"Pro-birth" is the most honest and accurate language/description for what the anti-abortion movement actually stands for.