Under the terms of legislation approved at the end of March by a House panel public employees will no longer be able to get insurance that covers most abortions. Prior this law the state law already prohibited the use of public dollars to terminate pregnancies except to save the life of the mother. However the law was flexible in terms of allowing certain cities and counties to offer health insurance policies that can cover abortion. Of course, the anti-abortion centers are backing up the measure and they say there is no right to demand public funding despite the fact courts have upheld the right of women to an abortion.
SB 1305, which already has been approved by the Senate, would expand the existing law to say that no government funds can be used, directly or indirectly, to pay for a health insurance policy for workers which includes abortion as a covered service. As already said the only exceptions would be to save a woman's life or when an abortion is necessary to avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. The law does not exclude abortions in case of rapes and incest. Officials say those situations can be addressed with morning-after pill, which is actually a high dose of hormones that can prevent ovulation or keep a fertilized egg from implanting.
In my opinion excluding abortions in case of rapes and especially incest is horrible. Incest usually happens on more or less regular basis, and the victims are young girls. Do you think they know what morning after pill is? Senator Linda Gray says she would preclude coverage for that pill, too, but she should not keep any woman from getting the care she needs, saying she simply would have to pay the $300 cost of getting the pill out of her own pocket. I am sure it is small change for Mrs. Gray, but not everyone has $300 just in case. Basically, I agree that insurance should not cover most abortions, but I would definitely not exclude rapes and especially not those that are in connection with incest cases.