Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 11, 2012

Click here to view bill details.

The abortion proponents are never satisfied. This bill will force PRIVATE insurance plans to cover VOLUNTARY abortions which will not only add to the cost of insurance but ignore any moral or ethical objections that people have against abortion and who are members of a private insurance plan. This is another step in the direction of forcing one's morality upon another, which is fine as long as you are a pro-abortionist. By making someone else pay for a voluntary abortion, the state is effectively increasing the cost of health insurance and forcing the men and women who pay the health insurance premiums to pay for the destruction of human life, thus forcing some who object to abortion on religious, moral or ethical principles to indirectly ignore these principles. This is a grossly unjust bill. The state has no right to force private insurance carriers to cover the VOLUNTARY destruction of human life and force those enrolled in private insurance plans to pay for them.

The state has the right--if not the obligation--to protect individual persons from coercive behavior by employers if those employers enjoy public tax breaks and/or receive public money. Requiring coverage of legal health care services is reasonable since no one forces an individual to receive the services in question--or forces any health care professional to perform them in opposition to their individual conscience. This is another form of the "you can't use my tax dollars to fight a war I don't support" argument. It doesn't fly.

kfw:

Requiring coverage of legal health care services is reasonable since no one forces an individual to receive the services in question

kfw:

The state has the right--if not the obligation--to protect individual persons from coercive behavior by employers if those employers enjoy public tax breaks and/or receive public money

 

Owch kfw! you are right.

kfw:

This is another form of the "you can't use my tax dollars to fight a war I don't support" argument. It doesn't fly.

Not quite.  The sticky point and main word here is Voluntariy.  Voluntary is not the same as for medical reasons.  Using your argument, the state should pay for dying hair because it makes the person feel better about themselves.  Same argument, same it doesn't make sense department.  I do not like pregnancy...  But in order to save the mother's life or even in instances of rape, I can go along with it.  But not when the mother decides it is "too inconvienent" for her to have a child especially now days when all one has to do is go to the local High School and get the morning after pill (okay I exagerated here but not by much).  Abortion should never be put under the cover of birth control and this is what the bill is doing.

Your first sentence has nothing to do with nor any bearing on this bill. It has nothing to do with "coercive behavior by employers if those employers enjoy public tax breaks and/or receive public money." The bill says that any health plan that covers maternity care must also cover voluntary abortions. In essense then the bill forces health insurers to cover a NON-MEDICALLY NECESSARY and purely VOLUNTARY procedure. If as you claim requiring coverage of legal health care services is reasonable, then the state can add all sorts of other voluntary procedures/services, if they are legal. The test was and should remain whether a service or procedure is MEDICALLY NECESSARY. The problem with your reasoning is if state law demands health insurer's provide coverage for more and more simply VOLUNTARY procedures/services, the list is endless. And as each new coverage mandate occurs, who do you think will pay for these added mandates? The one paying the monthly premium. Which means even though one may not ask for the service, they will pay more in premiums so that service is provided for those who do ask for it. Result: Higher insurance premiums for everyone. Future demand for more VOLUNTARY procedures/services that will add even higher costs to health care and insurance.

I agree with you Lainie59. Here we have more government intrusion, more of the liberal agenda crammed down our throats. And we pay for it. These clowns need to be impeached, I'm so tired of their tactics.

Even federal income tax payer's of other states will pay for a portion of the implementation of this bill if the state, under OBAMACARE (God, help us!), chooses a federal employee's health insurance plan under the required exchange. How? Under Obamacare, if a state chooses a federal employee health benefit plan as their Health Exchange Plan (required by Obamacare) and choose to cover voluntary abortions, they have to separate the amount of premiums used for abortions since federal law prohibits funding abortion. Who will pay to have the premiums separated? The federal income tax payer since their taxes will fund the technology required to separate the premiums. So if the state passes this bill, Washington State residents who are also federal income tax payers will pay TWICE-once for the federal subsidy to fund the technology to separate the premiums, and again through state taxes that will find the OBAMACARE-mandated health exchange.

This is a delicate issue and I hope our officials will think twice before adopting this bill. I heard about this Bill when I was in a local shop buying Triluma cream, I could not believe my ears that they are ready to vote for this, one thing is to be forced to make an abortion due to some medical problems, but letting people make abortions because it is "too inconvienent" is not a wise decision.