Wash. House passes abortion insurance bill

February 22, 2013 @ 1:09 pm

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Setting up what promises to be a contentious reckoning in the Washington state Senate, the House on Friday passed a measure requiring that most insurance carriers in the state cover abortions.

House Bill 1044 is intended to ensure that insurers continue covering abortions once bureaucratic hurdles for doing so come into effect next year with the enactment of federal health care reforms. Lawmakers in the House passed the measure by a vote of 53-43, with all but two Democratic votes cast in favor and all but one Republican voting against it.

"Today nearly every health plan in Washington state covers a full range of reproductive options," said Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma. "And we want it to stay that way."

Opponents contend that abortion coverage in the state is already widespread and the bill is unnecessary. They also argue that it could risk federal health care funds by violating federal law and that it infringes on religious liberties.

"This bill takes away my choice as a woman and other individuals' choices as well to choose not to have that care," Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy, said.

Supporters point out language in the bill that makes any portion of it inconsistent with federal law moot and exempts insurance carriers _ though not businesses or individuals _ objecting to abortion on moral grounds from paying for the coverage. The measure goes next to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future.

A similar bill in the upper chamber has 23 co-sponsors, leaving it two votes shy of a majority. Another senator, Rodney Tom, D-Medina, who leads the majority caucus of 23 Republicans and two Democrats, spoke recently in support of the bill at a pro-abortion rights rally at the Capitol.

Sen. Randi Becker, R-Eatonville, who is chairwoman of the Health Care Committee, said she will make hearing the bill in her committee a priority.

Given the widespread abortion coverage in the state, Becker said she is skeptical of the measure's utility, but she is keeping an open mind. She declined to speculate on its prospects of clearing her committee, which is made up mostly of Republicans.

Sen. Steve Litzow, a Mercer Island lawmaker who is the sole Republican co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said he was heartened that it had cleared the House but said it was unlikely that any action would be taken to move it to the Senate floor in the event that it fails in committee.

"I would be surprised," he said. "You'd have to do something that would be out of the ordinary."

In a statement, Gov. Jay Inslee commended the House for passing the bill and implicitly urged Senate leaders to allow the bill to come up for a floor vote, where supporters believe they have the votes to pass the bill.

"The Senate should not shut the door of democracy when it comes to women's health care," he said.

___

Follow AP Writer Jonathan Kaminsky at http://www.twitter.com/jekaminsky


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More Local News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (21)


  • Add A Comment

  • jstumbo wrote...
    Women's rights?
    February 7, 2013 6:05 pm
    I am a pro choice person. I figure it is a individual decision. Myself, I would not opt for an abortion. This law would do nothing for women's rights to get an abortion. It is legal, and would remain legal no matter what they decided with this law. What this law is trying to do is force a company (insurance) to have to cover an elective procedure. A procedure that does not cure a disease or correct a defect. What about forcing them to pay for other procedures for which there is not a medical necessity? All insurance companies must pay for breast enlargements. All insurance must pay for nose jobs. All insurance companies must pay for liposuction. Why is it that they force them to pay for a procedure that does not treat a defect or disease, yet people that have fertility problems do not get any coverage? Fertility issues are a real defect. Something that can be fixed, or treated. Yet they are not covered. Why not? This is another area where the government is overstepping its bounds. Much like requiring each person to get insurance. They should just do away with the requirement that hospitals cannot turn people away. Let them turn people away unless they have insurance. Then people will get insurance.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CldWtrSrf wrote...
    jstumbo.... "Why is it that they force them to pay for a procedure that does not treat a defect or disease, yet people that have fertility problems do not get any coverage?"
    February 7, 2013 7:07 pm
    Well because, it doesn't fit the agenda. Does anybody out there know what the agenda is? No? I do! It's called....EUGENICS!!!! Look it up, everything will start to make sense.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @CkdWtrSfr
    February 7, 2013 9:47 pm
    No one here supports the OR Ducks silly! ;)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Cigarfan
    February 22, 2013 10:01 pm
    It costs $2 for a condom. To bad your father never used one. We'd have one less Dumbfukker on this site.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    jstumbo
    February 7, 2013 9:48 pm
    Poor women need healthcare too!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CldWtrSrf wrote...
    How gross and twisted....
    February 7, 2013 7:03 pm
    It's alright to force people to pay for others abortions, but I'm not allowed to have certain types of guns because they are "scary looking"....logic is DEFINITELY not Democrat's strong point. It's not Republican's strong point either, but I think we all knew that already.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • xplanes wrote...
    Leave it to the tolerant left
    February 22, 2013 12:20 pm
    to take THE most contentious and emotional issue dividing the country and shove it down people's throats because they have a simple majority in government.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mike Hunt wrote...
    Hypocritical
    February 22, 2013 12:28 pm
    It seems odd to me that one side is talking "pro-choice" while at the same time demanding that the other has none.

    If the added insurance cost is as small as claimed, why not leave it as optional for those that want to purchase it? Problem solved.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    What about FATHERS?
    February 22, 2013 10:03 pm
    There is no such thing as CHOICE for Fathers.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }