The Senate will take up HB 1123 on second reading. It prohibits a health insurance policy from covering abortion services provided by a medical provider except that it can provide such coverage if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or if an abortion is necessary “to avert the pregnant woman’s death or a substantial an irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” However such coverage may be provided through an endorsement or rider.
This is pretty clearly an effort to make it more difficult to get an abortion. (I have keen insights, I know.) If we pretend there is another motivation for this bill, what’s the rationale? “Abortion is murder, but it’s o.k. if you finance it with a separate contract.”
The “major bodily function” language is, I think, telling. What if there is the risk of irreversible impairment to the woman as a person but not, necessarily, to her as a biological machine? Too bad, I guess. Mental impairments are too easy to fake and, in our heart of hearts, we don’t believe they’re “real” diseases.
“As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends to compensatingly increase.” -Aldous Huxley
Hadn’t heard that one. It’s an interesting proposition.
Not really. They let you have the easy stuff that poses no threat to the power of the state so you’ll labor under an illusion of freedom. While the federal courts were busy yesterday allowing gay marriages, the Supreme Court increased the power of police to enter your house absent your consent.
“Control the coinage and the courts — let the rabble have the rest.” — Dune
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”
– Mayer Amschel Rothschild
well, kinda. What they said is that we shoudl stop electing Republican Presidents, so jackassess like Sam Alito don’t end up on the bench
I wonder how Patricia Miller, a licensed RN, can sponsor legislation that uses invasive medical procedures to punish women trying to get chemical abortions. Seems like malpractice to me.
Malpractice, or murder, is more accurately described as killing half the patients who enter the office.
Sanctioning murder if it’s paid for through a separate insurance rider doesn’t sound any more defensible.
A fetus isn’t a patient, because it’s not a person. It’s a parasite. You’d know this if you didn’t hate freedom and human life so much.
It’s my money, and insurance companies are private enterprises. Abortion is a legal, constitutionally protected medical service. Nevertheless, the Republican government wants me to carry an additional rider as a woman of child-bearing age, paid for above and beyond my standard insurance coverage, just in case I need to access a full range of medical services. In case of an emergency, the burden of proof is on me to “prove” (to whom?) that I have been brutalized enough to access healthcare I’ve paid for.
Seems legit.
If only they would use their powers for good……
At some point, doesn’t Casey affect these laws? I mean what is an undue burden?