Presented without comment, since I will have plenty of comments following the hearing on February 18: a report on SB 486 in Seacoast Online includes this quote from a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman regarding the bill to mandate abortion coverage within any health insurance policy that covers maternity care.
“The Reproductive Health Parity Act builds on the progress New Hampshire has made in recent years to ensure that Granite Staters’ insurance covers the health care they need, including abortion care,” said Sabrina Dunlap, vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in New Hampshire. “For those facing an unintended pregnancy, or changed circumstances during a planned pregnancy, access to timely, affordable and respectful abortion care is an essential component of reproductive health care. Passage of SB 486 will continue New Hampshire’s long history of protecting the right for patients to make their own health care decisions.”
I posted an incorrect date for the upcoming hearing on SB 486-FN, a bill to require insurance plans which cover maternity benefits to provide coverage for abortion services. The hearing is Tuesday, FEBRUARY 18, not March as I originally reported. I regret my error. I have corrected my earlier post on the bill, which includes location and time for the hearing.
As luck would have it, my mistake was in a high-traffic post. If you shared it (and thank you for reading, by the way), please share this correction as well.
(An earlier version of this post carried a headline saying “March 18.” The correct date is February 18.) The latest abortion bill to come to the New Hampshire legislature in 2020 is the so-called “Women’s Reproductive Health Parity Act of 2020,” SB 486-FN. The bill will have a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee on Tuesday, February 18, at 2:15 p.m. in room 100 of the State House.
From the bill’s official analysis on its cover page: “This bill requires insurance plans which cover maternity benefits to provide coverage for emergency or elective abortion services.”
Yes, parity between maternity and abortion, as though abortion were health care. Are you an employer whose benefits to employees include health insurance? You’ll help pay for abortions if this passes. It’ll be interesting to see which organizations and companies sign up in favor of this bill at the hearing.
Private and public plans are both included. Medicaid funds originating with the federal government are not supposed to go for abortion, so the bill includes this: “If the commissioner determines that enforcement of any policy described under paragraph I may adversely affect the allocation of federal funds to New Hampshire, the commissioner may grant an exemption to the requirements of this section only to the minimum extent necessary to ensure the continued receipt of federal funds.”
Don’t let that comfort you. You’ll recall what happened the last time the federal government made a rule that threatened to affect abortion providers, don’t you? Advocates for abortion providers simply appropriated state funds to cover what the feds wouldn’t.
The members of the Commerce committee are Sens. Kevin Cavanaugh, Jon Morgan, Donna Soucy, Harold French, and Chuck Morse.
As enrollment season for 2017 health insurance coverage is underway, the Charlotte Lozier Institute in conjunction with the Family Research Council has updated its Abortion in Obamacare web site with a state-by-state list of health insurance plans that do not cover most abortions.
I have not independently verified their New Hampshire information, but I offer it as something to consider when you make your health insurance choices for next year. It’s not easy to keep our insurance premium dollars from being used to underwrite abortion, and I welcome the Lozier Institute’s efforts to shed light on the subject.
If readers have corrections to this information, send them to firstname.lastname@example.org.
On a related note, I’d like to hear from readers who have opted out of conventional health insurance in favor of medical cost-sharing programs like Medi-Share or CMF-Curo. How have these programs worked out for you?
Not a blogging day, except to rant. It’s health-insurance-shopping time. (We’ve all gotten past the keep-your-plan lie, right?)
I want to have some kind of coverage, to insulate my family from possible catastrophic medical costs. I want to avoid Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. Make that I want to spit in the mandate’s eye. I don’t want to participate in a program that funds elective abortions – and yes, Obamacare funds abortions. I haven’t forgotten September’s Government Accountability Office report.
My choices, as far as I can tell, are these:
Buy a plan on the exchange, and cross my fingers that my money isn’t used to pay for someone else’s abortion. There’s no state law here to keep that from happening.
Go without insurance and pay the piddling fine. That’s appealing given my income level, but it leaves my family too exposed to catastrophic costs. Also, paying the fine grants a little too much to Caesar, although I’m aware that’s not a settled point among my co-religionists.
Enter a health care cost-sharing program like CURO from Christ Medicus. Would I qualify? Can I afford a program that doesn’t cover a pre-existing condition? Of course, in view of the high deductible I’m paying under my current coverage (thanks again, Obamacare), cost-sharing may still be the economically sensible thing to do. It is absolutely the way to go to be sure my health care dollars don’t go to abortion.
This should be a simple matter of dollars and cents, but it’s not. I live in a country where divesting oneself from the abortion industry is becoming well-nigh impossible. I’m going to keep trying.
End of rant. Back to crunching the numbers and discerning the best course.
Readers, what are your thoughts as open enrollment time approaches?