Michigan Passes Separate Abortion Coverage Law

abortion is murder

Think Progress reports:

Michigan has recently been thrust into the national spotlight, now that state lawmakers have approved a measure requiring women to buy a separate insurance rider for abortion coverage. That restriction has been widely decried as a cruel and misogynistic policy, particularly since it doesn’t include an exception for victims of rape. Opponents have referred to it as a “rape insurance” law, emphasizing the particular burden that it places on victims of sexual assault. Pro-choice groups are considering a petition drive to attempt to repeal it.

That’s certainly been an effective messaging strategy to rally opposition to the legislation. A lot of people are fired up about “rape insurance.” But Michigan is hardly the only state that bars women from using their insurance plans to cover abortion care. It’s not even the only one that doesn’t make any exceptions for rape victims. On the contrary, this is actually quite a common policy on the state level.

First of all, it’s important to understand that restricting insurance coverage for abortion is an extremely popular method of cutting off access to reproductive rights. This type of indirect barrier to abortion access doesn’t seem as dramatic as a sweeping ban on abortion, and that’s why it doesn’t tend to grab as many headlines. But make no mistake: The anti-choice community is serious about making this type of reproductive care too expensive for most women to afford. Since an abortion procedure can cost anywhere between $300 and $10,000 out-of-pocket, one of the easiest ways to price individuals out of their abortion rights is to prevent them from using their health insurance to pay for it.

Low-income women in the country already face this reality. Thanks to the Hyde Amendment, federal dollars aren’t allowed to fund abortion, so most poor Americans can’t use their publicly-funded health insurance to cover an abortion. Thirty two states and the District of Columbia follow that federal standard for their state-based Medicaid programs. Many of these women simply don’t have the means to pay for the full cost of ending a pregnancy, and some end up being forced to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term.

And this type of abortion restriction has been steadily advancing in the private insurance market, too. North Dakota first banned private insurance coverage of abortion in 1979. Idaho, Kentucky, and Missouri placed restrictions on private abortion coverage in the 1980s. None has an exception for rape victims.

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which establishes state-run private insurance marketplaces, abortion opponents saw a new opportunity to restrict insurance coverage. Twenty three states rushed to ban their new marketplaces from offering any plans that include abortion coverage. And several decided to go even further, passing laws that restrict abortion coverage in the entire private market. Since 2011, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Utah have all enacted sweeping restrictions for women purchasing private insurance.

Of the eight states that restricted private insurance coverage for abortion before Michigan joined them, just one — Utah — has included an exception for victims of sexual assault. The remaining seven states don’t have a rape exception. Technically, they all force women to buy “rape insurance.” There just wasn’t the same kind of public outcry surrounding them.

And lawmakers aren’t finished proposing these types of measures, either. Last month, Ohio lawmakers introduced their own version of this type of legislation. That bill doesn’t have a rape exception, either — and actually goes even further to avoid providing any type of options for women who want abortion coverage. Ohio’s bill doesn’t allow women to purchase a separate rider for abortion services…

(Read entire article here)

The Detroit News had this to say about Michigan’s new law (broken link):

The Republican-controlled Legislature on Wednesday approved a voter-initiated law that would prohibit basic health insurance plans from covering abortions and avoid a veto by Gov. Rick Snyder.

The Senate voted 27-11 and the House passed the legislation 62-47 mostly along party lines in favor of Right to Life of Michigan’s proposal to require women to purchase additional insurance for abortions.

The law contains no exceptions for coverage of pregnancies caused by rape or incest and will go into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns for the year — likely in mid-March. The new law will apply to publicly funded health plans and those covering employees of private businesses.

Mostly Republican supporters defended the legislation as a measure that protects taxpayers from subsidizing the abortions of other people.

Democratic opponents decried the legislation in passionate floor speeches by saying it would require women to purchase “rape insurance” and urged taking the issue to a vote of the people in November 2014 — the other option with voter-initiated laws under the state constitution.

“This tells women that were raped and became pregnant that they should have thought ahead and planned for it,” said Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, who fought back tears recalling being raped 20 years ago. “Make no mistake, this is anything but a citizens’ initiative. It’s a special interest group’s perverted dream come true.”…

…Opponents characterized the proposal as government overreach that doesn’t provide general coverage for abortions in cases of pregnancy complications, such as fetal defects and miscarriages to save a mother’s life. State Sen. Bert Johnson, D-Detroit, said requiring women to purchase insurance for unplanned sexual assault is “a perverse idea of ‘personal responsibility.’ ”

The House debate over the change in insurance law also was fierce, with several women in the Democratic caucus vowing to overturn it with a petition initiative of their own. Right to Life of Michigan collected more than 300,000 voter signatures endorsing the initiative and had pressured lawmakers in both Republican-controlled houses to adopt the law before adjourning Thursday for the year.

State Rep. Kate Segal, D-Battle Creek, drew applause when she described the measure as “pure politics,” saying it treats women as second-class citizens…

Among the three House Republicans defending the ban was state Rep. Amanda Price of Holland, who said abortion “is an individual choice.” Price said the ban protects “hard-working Michigan families … from having to pay for someone else’s abortion.”…

…A statewide poll commissioned last month by the bipartisan public relations firm Lambert, Edwards & Associates found 47 percent of likely voters were opposed to requiring women to purchase additional insurance to cover abortions, while 41 percent supported the initiative…

…Democrats, who pushed for a statewide vote, argued the Right to Life petitions represent the will of just a third of Michigan’s residents…

…The petition circulation was launched after Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed 2012 legislation containing the same ban and opposed the voter-initiated proposal.

“He felt it highly inappropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she would have needed to select elective insurance coverage and also that it interferes in the current private market for insurance,” Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said Wednesday without making any further comment.

Under the state constitution, the governor has no say over the new proposal, which becomes law with passage by the Legislature…

Anti-abortionists realize that they can not outlaw all abortion though a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade, so every few years they cook up innovative ways to make it hard or impossible for a woman to get an abortion. The latest tactic is to use state law to place abortion restrictions/bans in the insurance plans offered through the insurance marketplaces established as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

Abortion was  legalized forty years ago, yet anti-abortionists continue to do everything they can to keep women from having an abortion. The battle is far from over.  If you have not read, Abortion Facts, Lies, and Contradictions or Ohio Has Turned Into a Haven for Right-Wing Politics, you might find them interesting and germane to this post.

Comments (10)

  1. bill wald

    The alternative is that men must pay for abortion coverage.

    More important, the product in question is NOT insurance because it does not meet any insurance principles. It is a pre-paid medical service. Why should people with pre-existing illnesses be covered if fire insurance does not cover pre-existing fires? And why should people pay more for pre-existing drunk driving convictions? Why should women pay less than males for life insurance? Because they live longer. That’s how insurance is supposed to work.

    Reply
  2. Jada

    Something that anti-choicers never seem to get a grasp of is that they really can’t effectively influence the demographic they’d most like to – middle class or wealthy women with resources who can travel wherever and pay whatever for a safe, discrete abortion. There’s lots of talk of “changing hearts and minds,” but if you’re able to obtain what you want without much inconvenience, it stands to reason that that’s exactly what you’ll do; that’s the way it’s always been.

    Either way, it’s poor women who suffer the most and who are marginalized in every way, as the same anti-choicers are also anti-poor-women-and-children. I’ve read enough of their comments on various sites to know that while the argument always starts out concerning “innocent babies,” it ends up actually being about “wicked women who need to shut their legs.” It’s completely disingenuous on their part and we all know what they’re really talking about because they complain that even MARRIED women shouldn’t be having sex without the intent to procreate.

    Reply
  3. Stephanie

    Ugh, this law. Talk about government overreach. What happened to the small government trope of the republicans?

    Reply
    1. Scott

      Stephanie,
      Republicans seem to operate on the concept of “Only old white men know how to run vaginas”. They seem to miss the point that not having a vagina should totally disqualify them from doing anything besides shutting up on the subject.

      I’m of the firm opinion that “penis envy” is pure fantasy and that a bunch of men suffer from “uterus envy”.

      Scott

      Reply
  4. Undercover Atheist

    I guess I need rape insurance now. Having a vagina is the new “attractive nuisance”. And I thought it was annoying when the insurance company made us put a lock on the pool.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      I wouldn’t call vagina’s a nuisance. Attractive, yes and used to easily bend a man’s will. :) But..on a serious note…I agree with you completely.

      Reply
  5. gimpi

    “Opponents characterized the proposal as government overreach that doesn’t provide general coverage for abortions in cases of pregnancy complications, such as fetal defects and miscarriages to save a mother’s life.”

    So a woman who doesn’t purchase an abortion rider and can’t afford an emergency abortion in the event of a life-threatening complication to her pregnancy will be allowed to die? Did I read that right? Veerry pro-life.

    Reply
    1. Stephanie

      Guess you die or get stuck with the bill, which would have been covered or least semi covered under the insurance you had before these wingnuts got involved. That was one of the first situations I thought of when I heard this.
      For some reason this reminds me of a very “pro life” person I know. She wants to shut down every Planned Parenthood, which offer health services besides abortion for women. In fact, 97% of their services have nothing to do with abortion. Anyway, she wants abortion to be illegal. But then it was brought up that women would have illegal abortions and be seriously harmed or even die. She said that would be ok because: “women who get abortions deserve what they get.” Way to be “pro life.”
      Making abortion illegal doesn’t make the abortion rate go down. Err…I just could go on forever but it makes no difference because they have a view and they stick to it.

      Reply
  6. Angiep

    Excellent! Since we can now decide the issues that our tax dollars will fund, I have decided that I no longer want any of mine to go towards illegal or immoral wars. Let’s face it, our “war efforts” kill a lot of innocent people. Maybe the religious right doesn’t care about them. Seriously, I am very unhappy with the fact that a large chunk of my paycheck goes to fund our “defense” budget. I would not complain about the money being used for schools, humanitarian programs, environmental causes, or animal welfare efforts…or even Planned Parenthood.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      There ya go, following an argument to it logical conclusion. Like you, I would love to not support the US war effort and a host of other things. But, since I believe we have a social contract in this country, I know, at times, my tax money is going to support things I disagree with. What I can do is work to change what we do spend money for. I would love to see defense spending cut dramatically. No money, no illegal, immoral, non-defensive wars.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>