2 insurers proposed to not cover Wash. abortions

May 22, 2013 @ 5:46 pm

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Two insurance companies who filed to compete in Washington state's health care exchange initially proposed not to provide abortion coverage, officials said Wednesday.

All current Washington health plans provide abortion insurance. Stephanie Marquis, a spokeswoman with the Washington state Office of the Insurance Commissioner, said the plans without such coverage in the health exchange were recently filed by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of The Northwest and BridgeSpan Health Company.

A spokesman for Kaiser said it mistakenly omitted abortion coverage in its filings and is moving to correct the error. A spokeswoman for BridgeSpan said the company has been reassessing and making changes to its plans and intends to include coverage for abortion services.

The proposals set off frustration among advocates who have been pressing for a new state law to secure abortion coverage for all Washington health plans. Elaine Rose, the CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, said it is evidence of the need for lawmakers to make it clear that abortion should be covered.

"What's going to happen next year, or the year after that or the year after that?" Rose said. "Are we going to constantly be at the whims of insurance carriers changing their minds?"

Opponents of the abortion insurance law have long argued that it's unnecessary since all the plans in the state have been providing abortion coverage. Advocates have been worried that plans may change due to new rules that create more administrative burdens for insurers when they cover abortions.

The insurance commissioner's office has also supported the law.

"Any time you don't have something written into law, there's a chance it won't be covered," Maquis said.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Silicon Sound
    We have more high-paying high-tech jobs than we can fill

  • Heartstopping
    Daredevils post breathtaking pictures atop Seattle landmarks

  • The Wolfpack Is Back
    Will 'Part III' leave you with a hangover? Find out if it's worth your time
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 (24)


  • 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" }
  • imanegro wrote...
    Yeah, gotta have baby-killing coverage
    May 22, 2013 4:30 pm
    No politics here.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • longwayhome wrote...
    Answer this republicans
    May 22, 2013 7:26 pm
    Your daughter is raped by an unknown person, she conceives a child from this act of violence, your uncle Charley (republican christian) does the same thing to your next door neighbor girl. An unwanted pregnancy is not God's gift to the world. Can't you neanderthals figure this out? Rape, incest, children with downs syndrome can be detected early on, I have worked with these children and my heart breaks when I see the republicans professing that it's God's way. What a bunch of crap.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BeenThere wrote...
    "An unwanted pregnancy is not God's gift to the world"? Really.
    May 22, 2013 9:19 pm
    What do you know about God and His gifts? But you get to decide who is worthy of life and of death? God complex, narcissism.....which do you suffer from? Are you speaking on behalf of all women and all the unborn children as well?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }