Lawmakers in Kansas are debating a bill that, if passed, would require women to purchase separate, abortion-only, insurance policies at some point in time before they considered having that particular procedure done. One lawmaker’s comments are nearly as controversial as the topic of abortion itself.
One could spend hours debating the moral or religious implications of abortion. I’m going to set aside all of those arguments, and just focus on the implications of abortion-only policies from an insurance perspective.
If this bill is passed, it would involve the creation of a brand new type of insurance policy, that does not currently exist. It would be called an abortion-only insurance policy. The function of this policy would be to cover the cost of medical bills associated with having an abortion. The policy would not cover anything else, just that one specific procedure. No one would be required to purchase this type of insurance. A woman could choose to buy it, or could choose not to buy it.
It is my understanding that the abortion-only insurance policy that lawmakers in Kansas are debating about would be something that is completely separate from a woman’s health insurance policy. I am not certain if the new, potential, policy would be in the form of a “rider”, which would imply that it would be attached onto a woman’s health insurance policy if the woman chose to purchase it, or if the new policy would be one that could be purchased independently.
Currently, women who purchase a “rider” that relates to pregnancy would have at least some of the costs of prenatal care, the cost of medical bills that are connected to giving birth in a hospital, and the costs of post-natal care covered by her insurance policy. Right now, women who do not have this form of coverage, who become pregnant, are paying those medical bills out of pocket.
The main purpose of abortion-only insurance would be so that taxpayers and business owners could know for certain that they have not indirectly paid for a woman to have an abortion.
One would have to plan ahead, and buy “pregnancy insurance” before becoming pregnant. I suppose that the abortion-only policy might function in a similar way. A woman would have to buy it before she ever became pregnant.
However, there is a big problem with this sort of argument. Women who purchase the extra insurance to cover the costs of pregnancy are intending to get pregnant. No woman intends to be the victim of rape or incest. Most abortions are preformed after a pregnancy occurs from a rape or from a case of incest.
An abortion-only policy sends the message that all women should expect to be raped at some point in their lives, and therefore, should “plan ahead” for that eventuality. Representative Pete Degraff has compared an accidental pregnancy to a flat tire. He has been quoted as saying: “We do need to plan ahead, don’t we, in life?”, and points out he has a spare tire on his car. I’m not sure who he means by “we”, since he, being male, will never have a need for an abortion-only insurance policy.
Image by Kurt Nordstrom on Flickr