I’m super provincial and I don’t care. I love that Washington was mentioned as a point of hope in this otherwise dispiriting roundup of reproductive rights at the state level.*
Finally, a bit of good news! From the state of Washington, legislators are seriously considering mandating that insurance companies must pay for abortion services just as they are required to pay for maternity services:
The Reproductive Parity Act, as supporters call it, would require insurers in Washington state who cover maternity care — which all insurers must do — to also pay for abortions.
The bill passed the state House earlier this month by a vote of 53-43, though it faces an uncertain future in the Senate. […]
“It’s not expanding abortion coverage,” said Democratic Rep. Eileen Cody of West Seattle, the bill’s primary sponsor. “It’s ensuring the rights of women to get what they’re paying for now and to continue their freedom of choice.”
The bill is scheduled for a public hearing in the Public Health Care Committee on April 1st.
So while, as we’ve discussed earlier, this bill got to the Health Care Committee as a way to stop it from getting to the floor, well it’s still being heard in committee. And since it will get a hearing, here are the members of the Health Care Committee. If they’re your Senator, great! Let them know you support this common sense piece of legislation. If not, you can still email them at first.last@leg.wa.gov.
* And reading those updates for years now, I think this is the first mention of a positive bill, but I could be forgetting something.
Carl, I think this bill’s passing is inevitable, but it shall take concerted political action.
From the cited WaPo article “Sheldon and fellow Democrat Rodney Tom currently side with Republicans in the Senate leading to questions as to whether the Reproductive Parity Act, as it is known to supporters, has enough votes to pass.”
Siding with Republicans on social issues is generally a political career killer. For the turncoat opportunists, Sheldon & Tom, this is where chickens come home to roost.
Why do they refer to it as “reproductive rights?” Seems to me that the goal is,non-reproduction. Why not call it “non-reproductive rights” if the goal is to,prevent reproduction?
(BTW, I’m totally in favor of abortion on demand, so there!)
Nobody ever looks at the practical aspect of these types of bills. Most activists either view abortion as an abomination or a sacrament, and the analysis and public debate degenerates from there.
But exactly how can you have “parity” between abortion and childbirth? With childbirth, a woman is forced to accept medically sound judgments (and even some medically unsound accounting judgments, far too frequently) as to when and how her baby is delivered — at least to the extent she wants any sort of insurance to cover her pregnancy costs. With abortion, a woman has an absolute right to the procedure at any time during the first two trimesters (to at least 24 weeks) and even beyond if there is not yet “viability”.
The cost of abortion increases dramatically as the pregnancy progresses. It isn’t easy to find abortion prices on the web — or the prices of any other medical procedures for that matter. I did find a listing from the University of New Mexico Medical Center, that I thought was informative:
http://www.unmcrh.org/fees/
UNM charges $425.00 at under 11 weeks, $500.00 up to 15 weeks (which covers the first trimester and then some), and going up to $1,800.00 at 21-22 weeks. I would assume that 23-24 weeks would cost several thousand dollars. And that prices in Washington are at least somewhat higher than New Mexico.
So if an insurance company is required to provide abortion coverage, should they be required to cover only the cost of a basic first trimester abortion? Or the actual cost of an abortion at whatever time a woman may recklessly choose to exercise this fundamental constitutional right?
@1
I’m sure Sheldon is mourning the loss of all of those campaign funds the state Democrat machine has pumped into his accounts in the most recent elections. He’s elected to represent his district, and I assume he’s doing that in this instance.
Regarding Tom, meh. If he’s bounced from office I don’t think it will be specifically over this. Right to life is a social issue. So is personal responsibility. My guess is Tom knows what he’s doing.
Um, no.
Most choice advocates see adult women as autonomous and equal agents able to make their own decisions on their own behalf.
You know, like feminism is the radical notion that women are people, too.
Do you imagine that the prices you quoted are in any way comparable to the rather substantial costs of delivering a child at term?
Abortion can be an appropriate medical procedure at any point during a pregnancy, depending on the medical, psychological and social circumstances of the pregnant woman, in consultation with her doctor, and anyone else she chooses. As such, it is appropriate that medical insurers be compelled to cover it as such.
Your whining seems to be conveying a sense of panic that irrational and irresponsible woman are going to bankrupt the system with their poorly thought out, and perhaps even frivolous, decisions to have abortions when the silly mood strikes them. (Contrasted, of course, with those virtuous women who choose to deliver babies and are…
Un-fucking-believable.
@ 5
Do you imagine that the prices you quoted are in any way comparable to the rather substantial costs of delivering a child at term?
Howz about splitting the difference? Insurance companies will cover all abortion costs, at any stage of gestation, as long as part of the procedure is a Norplant device implant. The later in gestation that the abortion occurs, the longer the duration of implanted Norplant activity. A reproductive penalty box, of sorts.
Since both Lib Sci and Richard Pope wish to discuss it in monetary terms, let’s really cut our long-term costs to the bone. Lib Sci gets a partial-birth abortion at no out-of-pocket cost, and Richard gets some security that the event won’t be repeated by the same woman any time soon.
Kinda like cutting the baby in half to assuage each maternal claimant except, you know, less blood.
@6 You forgot the vaginal ultrasound probe.
Do we, as men, have the Right, to force a woman to carry a baby to term?
You said you were married to a black man… So who is we, as men? Are you coming out? Puddy is sure unemployed Pluto boy has it in the crazed databaze.
@8,
BUTTPUTTY just loves forcing women to do what he thinks is in the women’s best interest.
After all, women are second class citizens who are incapable of making the RIGHT decision for themselves.
@9 Only you think I’m a woman.
Still didn’t answer my question, why do we men have the right to force women to carry babies to term?
9 – You dumbass fool.. I asked you once before..
Heh.. Too funny..
I bet you’re having a hard time processing this!
FOOL!
Well Fascist Pigsty,
Glad you think as a woman in a man’s body. Sounds like serious mental issues… Well your post prove that everyday. Puddy thinks as a man in a man’s body!
See ya!
And unemployed Pluto boy when do your questions coming from an unemployed lazy ASSed idiot mean anything?
Get a job you idiot and support the wife and kids.
And were did Puddy say he forces anyone to do anything? Got PROOF?
Butt everyone knows you force goats do perform in your best interest!
HAHAHAHA!
The PUTZ just loves forcing women to do what he thinks is in the women’s best interest.
The PUTZ also loves the pedophile clergy, goats, chickens and hominids of various kinds. Must go hand in hand.
That’s the best you can do ekim goatmaster???
P A T H E T I C!
That is what we have been telling you for years, PUTZ.
Wear the boots ekim… Wear the bootz.
You’re the PUTZ, BUTTPUTTY. You’re the PUTZ.
Since ekim had no proof above he’s left nothing. Absolutely nothing…When disarmed, a idiotic libtard is as useless and an unemployed libtard!
Wait a minute… ekim and Pluto boy, a match made on HA!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You mean you lied about being a sysadmin and knowing how to type wget statements!
You’re the PUTZ alright.