http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/09/bill-would-require-health-insurance-policies-sold-in-washington-to-cover-abortion Comments On: Bill Would Require Health Insurance Policies Sold in Washington to Cover Abortion by Cienna Madrid en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Mon, 20 May 2013 15:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by tnygenie]]> Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:27:17 -0800 The Stranger
Posted by spinflux]]> Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:38:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Soupytwist]]> Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:57:02 -0800 The Stranger
If a woman does not choose to get pregnant, but becomes so anyway (birth control failure, rape, etc.), abortion stops being an elective procedure, and becomes an important medical procedure that should be covered by insurance, just like insurance covers the removal of benign tumors, treatment for disfiguring facial rashes, medication for ADHD, etc. None of these things are likely to be life-threatening (unlike pregnancy), but left untreated they can have a pretty big impact on the person's quality of life.

If you're trying to argue that insurance companies should have no restrictions whatsoever on what they cover, that's a different issue, and you should just say that. But abortions are often more medically necessary than many other things insurance companies cover, and implying that abortion is some sort of luxury procedure is just insulting.

Posted by Kitts]]> Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:28:53 -0800 The Stranger Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:56:59 -0800 The Stranger
@13 - They tried that, from 1996 to 2000. The result was that insurance companies stopped writing any kind of policy in Washington. The state was forced not only to backtrack, but make huge concessions. I am leery of heading back down that road.


Posted by TechBear]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:26:18 -0800 The Stranger Posted by HR Guy]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:32:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Allyn]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:59:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Cienna Madrid]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:48:01 -0800 The Stranger
Of course, I also think that the state should open up apple health to everyone with a valid Washington state address…. So, there’s that.

And we should have an income tax. And sales taxes should be only for items costing over $100-ish. And anyone who utters the words “intelligent design” without audible contempt should be fined. And initiative sponsors should be limited to three in a lifetime.

Vote for Allyn for Governor.

Posted by Allyn]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:29:45 -0800 The Stranger
As the post states, this bill doesn't expand abortion coverage in Washington state. It simply ensures that equal coverage for maternity care and abortion--which all insurance companies offer in WA state through their policies--continues in its current form.

Posted by Cienna Madrid]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:21:50 -0800 The Stranger its too late.
your enthusiasm for slaughtering babies is obviously suspect.
please turn in your homoliberal ID card and exit the blog.....
Posted by mountains of corpses and rivers of blood]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:37:53 -0800 The Stranger
But women forego an abortion because their insurance won't cover a $200-300 abortion?

maybe Barbie was right about math being too hard......
Posted by Mommy would have killed you but the rent was due....]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:35:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TechBear]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:24:39 -0800 The Stranger
@3, 4 - You make good arguments as to why insurance companies would voluntarily cover abortion. But they are not arguments for making abortion coverage mandatory.

@6 - I very much agree that contraception should be made available for free or minimal cost, and that the proper use of contraception should be a required part of health education classes from grade school through university. I have no problem with the fact that, in Washington, insurance coverage of contraception is required: that is a matter of basic health care maintenance. I just do not see abortion as falling in that same category.
Posted by TechBear]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:20:02 -0800 The Stranger
Let's put it this way. If I were to get knocked up despite taking every precaution otherwise, the abortion I get is not elective. It's necessary. There is no way in fuck I'm carrying anything to term. If not a medical abortion, I would find some other way to miscarry. Life will NOT find a way in this body.
Posted by suddenlyorcas]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:04:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by WestSeven]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:03:40 -0800 The Stranger It is good for the nation if Liberals kill their babies before they can grow up and vote.....
Posted by that clump of cells will never vote Democrap....]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:49:17 -0800 The Stranger
From a health insurance POV, abortion costs a lot less than maternity care throughout pregnancy + delivery. From a health risk POV, there's much less danger in an early-term TA than in all the possible secondary issues that can come up over the next nine months + post-partum period.
Posted by Canadian Nurse]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:44:02 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:39:12 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TechBear]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:33:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Canadian Nurse]]> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:27:43 -0800 The Stranger