Health insurance; contraception coverage. (HB1315)

Introduced By

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) with support from co-patron Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Health insurance; contraception coverage. Provides that no individual or group accident and sickness insurance policy, individual or group accident or sickness subscription contract, or health care plan for health care services shall provide coverage for contraception methods, sterilization procedures, abortifacient drugs or devices unless the subscriber or enrollee in the policy, contract, or plan requests such coverage. The bill also provides that any employer who provides for health and medical care or reimbursement of medical expenses for his employees as a self-insurer is not required to include coverage for contraception methods, sterilization procedures, or abortifacient drugs or devices. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

  • 10/03/2012 Committee
  • 10/03/2012 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13100059D
  • 10/03/2012 Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
  • 01/17/2013 Impact statement from DPB (HB1315)
  • 02/04/2013 Motion to discharge Committee on Commerce and Labor rejected
  • 02/05/2013 Left in Commerce and Labor

Comments

Shelley Napier writes:

When will Delegate Marshall stop his attack on women's healthcare. Does Delegate Marshall have any understanding regarding how long and hard women have worked to get Birth Control covered by insurance? Does this man have any idea what birth control is for?

ACLU-VA Women's Rights and Reproductive Freedom, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

HB 1315 conflicts with the new federal rule that requires employers (with exemptions for religiously affiliated organizations) to provide health insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act. It restricts access to contraception and other reproductive health services, limiting insurance coverage within the new state health care exchange under the Affordable Care Act, and, as such, violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. If this bill passed, however, and the federal rule is changed or set aside by the courts, Virginia will have in place a state law that will limit access to birth control and other reproductive health services. The ACLU of Virginia opposes this bill because it intends to discriminate against women and limit women’s access to basic health services. Requiring coverage of contraception does not violate the First Amendment. The ACLU of Virginia holds that at its core, religious freedom means that we are all free to make personal decisions based on our own beliefs and according to what is best for our health and the health of our families. It does not mean allowing particular religious groups to impose their religious beliefs and prohibitions on all of us.

Pam Lawrence writes:

My daughter's 15 year old friend was menstruating non-stop for 2 months and other complications. She was just diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome. The medical treatment for this is contraception, which has now regulated her period and she is on her way to non-surgical recovery. You need to STOP trying to legislate women's health, when there are so many reasons why women choose or medically NEED contraception. Including 15 year old girls, who are not sexually active, whose future fertility depends on treatment! Her family is Catholic and does not think this imposes on their religious beliefs. Let it go. Enough. Spend your time on legislation that will help the citizens and take away their rights.

Editor’s Pick
Gisele writes:

I am a sixteen year old girl with polycystic ovary syndrome, and I need contraceptive medicine to regulate my menstrual cycles; this is important to my future fertility because PCS left untreated can do a lot of damage to my ovaries and fallopian tubes and increases my future risk of an ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage when I do choose to start a family. Clearly, this delegate seems more interested in regulating whether or not my parents' insurance company should cover something that will be so important to my future.

As for contraceptive medication for the purpose of birth control, I have never used my medicine for such a purpose. However, oral contraceptives prevent many abortions from happening. Most contraceptives prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg OR prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg into the walls of the womb (note: pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg is implanted into the walls of the uterus, NOT when the egg is fertilized; indeed, without contraception many fertilized eggs don't implant and expel themselves from a woman's body in their monthly cycle). Additionally, please define "abortifacient drugs" -- there are many who believe that contraceptives are abortifacients, when they simply are not. Contraceptives are intended to prevent pregnancy. Abortifacients are intended to terminate one. Also, if this man is doing this for protecting fetus's lives, then perhaps he should get a non-post-menopausal woman to co-sponsor this bill with him, just to ensure that there are fertile woman who agree that their right to their own body isn't being infringed. Birth Control is something that is responsible for the rise of women in the workplace, as well as our wage-gaps becoming closer to equality to that of men. That alone is responsible for much of America's economic growth, which surely the Republican Party should be behind. My parents (and soon, myself) vote to send delegates to Richmond so that they can improve our daily lives -- our schools, our streets, and our communities. We do not send them to Richmond to debate the nuances of women's health often without even including women in the discussion.

What this bill co-sponsor doesn't realize is that pregnancy is a natural life process that can be fraught with a laundry list of medical and personal complications. When a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, she is usually in a state of mental pain for giving up her unborn child. The pain is only made greater by imposing further regulation on women, and implicitly telling them they are bad people for making this choice. These women are grown women, and their perspectives on their own pregnancies are infinitely greater than that of male politicians who don't fully understand her circumstances. Indeed, she is just as capable as these male politicians in making a moral, rational decision regarding her own health, and she doesn't need them to impose their choice onto her. Abortion will keep on happening; the best we can do is to keep it accessible so it will remain safe. Perhaps we should go back to the days where hundreds of women would die every month from botched Do-It-Yourself abortion attempts before the Republican Party realizes that accessibility is important to safety. If the sponsor of this bill is truly as pro-life as he claims he is, he will value the lives of women.

I am a loyal Eisenhower Republican, but the rightward swing of the GOP has frankly caused me to get disillusioned by its intentions (see: the Akin Comment, the Murdock Comment). I will be old enough to vote in the midterm elections of 2014. If the Republican Party doesn't move to the center on stances regarding women's health as well as illegal immigration (I say this as a daughter of legal immigrants who are now US citizens), they are losing my vote in 2014 and 2016.

Lakeside Muff writes:

Voters keep electing this guy...WHY??? This delegate is so far outside the mainstream..very scary. Get out of the social issues & free biznesses to create JOBS....this economy is killing us. JOBS, got it Mr. Marshall??