Health insurance; policies without abortion coverage. (HB1174)

Introduced By

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas)

Progress

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

Description

Health insurance; policies without abortion coverage.  Requires any health insurer that offers, sells, or issues a health insurance policy in the Commonwealth that provides coverage for abortion services to also offer for sale in the Commonwealth a health insurance policy with substantively identical terms and conditions except that it does not provide coverage for abortion services. A health insurance policy that does not provide coverage for abortion services will be required to (i) provide coverage for the costs of services of a physician and other services incurred in providing medical assistance to preserve the life of a pregnant woman provided every possible measure shall be taken to preserve the life of the unborn child of the pregnant woman or (ii) reimburse the costs of services incurred in providing medical treatment to address previous fetal demise or intrauterine fetal death. The measure also provides that the basic health care services provided in a health care plan offered by a health maintenance organization may, but shall not be required to, provide coverage for abortion services. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/17/2012Committee
01/17/2012Presented and ordered printed 12104280D
01/17/2012Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
01/19/2012Assigned C & L sub: #1
01/20/2012Impact statement from DPB (HB1174)
02/14/2012Left in Commerce and Labor (0-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)

Comments

robert legge writes:

Oh, it's Bob Marshall. That explains a lot.

Angela writes:

Abortion is a safe and legal medical procedure.
Keep the government out of the bedroom.

Michael writes:

Why should I be forced to pay for your elective medical procedures? I'm already paying higher premiums to pay for services that I will never use; why demand that my burden be increased?

Claire writes:

This seems to be a bill that would force privately held businesses who have made a business decision to offer one kind of product to simultaneously offer a different version of that product that the government thinks it should offer, regardless of whether or not that business wants to offer that different version of the product. Doesn't this constitute governmental interference with private enterprise? Shouldn't private businesses be left free to design the kind of products they think best serve their business interests? If there's a huge market for health insurance policies that don't cover elective abortion, then surely a business will step up to meet that need with the necessity for governmental interference.

Michael, why don't you just choose a health insurer that doesn't cover abortions, instead of insisting that every health insurer that wants to do business in Virginia craft a separate wing of their business that meets your ideological demands?