Advertisement

Kansas legislature

Kansas Legislature

ACLU argues Kansas abortion insurance law is discriminatory

December 8, 2011

Advertisement

— The American Civil Liberties Union told a federal judge that a Kansas statute restricting abortion insurance coverage discriminates against women.

Documents filed Wednesday by the ACLU contend the state law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it prohibits insurance companies from offering women comprehensive policies for all their health care needs.

The argument comes amid efforts by Kansas to bar that claim in a lawsuit challenging the new law's constitutionality.

The filing comes in response to a motion by the state seeking a partial judgment before trial on the lawsuit. The state contends it has a rational basis to prefer that insurance policies subsidize the costs of childbirth, but not abortion.

The ACLU contends that the law is not "rationally related" to a legitimate state interest in childbirth.

Comments

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 4 months ago

Abortion is the brutal violation of the human rights of each unborn child. The law should once again affirm and protect the lives of the little unborn children in the womb. America should once more respect life!

0

KULawrence 2 years, 4 months ago

It is discriminatory. It discriminates against ending the life of those about to be born for no other reason that because a mother decides her child's live is less important than some other personal priority.

0

2 years, 4 months ago

@lunacy From the APA position statement in 1978 "1) opposes all constitutional amendments, legislation, and regulations curtailing family planning and abortion services to any segment of the population; 2) reaffirms its position that abortion is a medical procedure in which physicians should respect the patient's right to freedom of choice - psychiatrists may be called on as consultants to the patient or physician in those cases in which the patient or physician requests such consultation to expand mutual appreciation of motivation and consequences; and 3) affirms that the freedom to act to interrupt pregnancy must be considered a mental health imperative with major social and mental health implications."

As far as I can tell, the APA position hasn't changed very much since 1978.


Even tho Wikipedia isn't a "good source," it's a good start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion... Several studies are cited, I'll leave you to go look at them. In part: "In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses."[6] The APA revised and updated its findings in August 2008 to account for the accumulation of new evidence, and again concluded that termination of a first, unplanned pregnancy did not lead to an increased risk of mental health problems. The data for multiple abortions were more equivocal, as the same factors that predispose a woman to multiple unwanted pregnancies may also predispose her to mental health difficulties.[10][11] A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while studies with methodologic flaws and other quality problems were more likely to report negative consequences.[12] As of August 2008, the United Kingdom Royal College of Psychiatrists is also performing a systematic review of the medical literature to update their position statement on the subject, which is expected to be published in autumn 2011.[3]"

The most important thing here is when the article says high-quality studies show few or no mental health consequences, while those with "methodologic flaws and other quality problems do.


BUT, the question isn't whether or not your faith tells you abortion is bad, it's whether or not requiring special abortion insurance is unconstitutional or not. Laying religion aside, is requiring special abortion insurance unconstitutional or not, and why? Compare this to Viagra being subsidized by insurance while birth control isn't.

However, that isn't an issue for Mulvane Republican Pete DeGraaf, who says he has a spare tire in his car, so he sees no problem with women being required to carry special abortion insurance

0

mcmandy 2 years, 4 months ago

Do you have a link/title/author/sponsor for this study? I find the bit about women feeling the effects of abortion than rape extremely hard to believe. If there is an actually a legitimate study that concludes this, however, I'd very much like to read it.

0

Jane 2 years, 4 months ago

It's as discriminatory as women having to have specific coverage for having a child, IMHO.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

Actually, it discriminates for children. Forced childbirth by 12 year old girls and making them bear their rapist's child is a horrible thing.

0

sunny 2 years, 4 months ago

Abortion discriminates against children!

0

2 years, 4 months ago

In Kansas, The Guv equates "rationally related" to faith-based or grounded in theocratic dogma.

Ya know, The Guv should really stop doing things like this. Otherwise God is going to get PO'd and she's going to come down and let him have it.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.