Thursday, March 1, 2012

Your contraceptive abortion mandate update


It would appear that this mandate thing is quite catching.

Not content to merely force you to pay for someone else to get laid, now the statist agenda wants you to pay for disposing of the potential consequence of someone else getting laid.

OLYMPIA — At a time when many states are making it harder for women to get abortions, Washington state appears headed in the opposite direction.

Fifteen states have passed laws restricting insurers from covering abortions and 12 others are considering similar measures. By contrast, a bill that has passed Washington's House and is working its way through the Senate would make the state the first to require all health-insurance plans under its jurisdiction — except those claiming a conscience-based exemption — to include abortion coverage.

The measure, House Bill 2330, would do so by requiring insurers who cover maternity care, which Washington insurers are mandated to provide, to also pay for abortions. New York is the only other state considering similar rules, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks women's health-related legislation.

Opponents say expanded coverage would lead to more abortions and higher health-care costs for all — claims muddied by the already wide availability of abortion in the state and the fact that abortions cost insurers less than do live births. They also say the measure would violate federal rules barring discrimination against insurers who don't offer abortion coverage for moral reasons, putting at risk $6 billion in federal money.

We've got an idea: How about we let the insurance companies decide whether or not they want to cover abortions? And for you fans of "choice" out there, how about letting us choose whether or not to contract with an insurer or a specific insurance plan that covers abortion.

The elegance of it all is in it's simplicity and at its core is the concept that if you want to get laid, you pay for the contraceptive and if you want to get an abortion because you did not have the foresight to take preventive measures either before or after getting laid, you also pay for that.

Oh, and wait for it... the other shoe... the "rights" shoe. Never fails:

"Washington state has historically been in the forefront for women's reproductive rights," said Rep. Eileen Cody, D-West Seattle, who sponsored the measure. "We're just trying to maintain the status quo."

See? See how easy it is? When you arbitrarily declare a good or service a right, it therefore becomes "free" and the result is that you get someone else to pay for it. Perfect.

And by now, hopefully you are beginning to see how this "one size fits all" approach actually works out: Have a religious, conscientious, fiscal or otherwise wtf? common sense objection to footing the bill for someone else's sex life? Stow it, chump. Pay up. Have similar-based objections to paying for someone else's abortion? Too bad. Fork it over, pal.

Brothers and sisters, who could be blamed now for wanting to jump into this burgeoning cottage industry of "rights" in our post-Constitutional America?

We anxiously await for KT's head to explode in 7...6... 5...4...



Left Coast Rebel said...

The inevitable conclusion of the "slippery slope" we've all been talking (and screaming) about for years now. To tell you the truth, I'm tired and can't even wrap my mind around this story.

tom said...

"and the fact that abortions cost insurers less than do live births."

Seniors who die at age 60 probably cost a lot less too... hmmm...

SarahB said...

Reproductive Rights. Hm. Will they force insurers to cover fertility treatments? Want a baby, why pay for clomid and invitro yourself? The fact that it would offend Catholics should be enough reason to make Leftists give it a whirl. Will they cover adoption costs if fertility treatments don't work? Don't I have a right to be a parent as much as others have the 'right' to choose death for their unborn children?

K T Cat said...

Ask ye shall receive.

Road Dawg said...

This caused quite a stink with myself and Mrs. Dawg who believes free birth control contributes to healthy civilization.

Although there are merits to providing birth control, this gives a slippery slope. Uncle Paul recommended providing abortions as many as possible for the same reasons....better for society. Others argue Norplant should be mandated for female drug abusers or castration for argument I find defensible for the same reasons. Why let criminals raise more criminals into society?

So I have a moral dilemma; I want the criminal drug abuser to be forced to have birth control, because our current system will end up paying for the subsequent mental patient or criminal child/adult?

This is similar to helmet laws, whereby we have paid the price for irresponsible cyclists brain injuries, therefore we have mandated idiot control with helmet laws!

The answer is simple (personal responsibility), but the solution is hard. We want to have individual liberty and responsibility, but we have already treaded on this principle with laws assuming responsibility and compassion for the irresponsible and stupid. Now we find ourselves attempting to protect ourselves from the same laws we passed as compassionate.

We are the frog that can't jump out of the boiling water.