Advertisement

Archive for Friday, September 16, 2011

Judge questions Kan. limits to abortion coverage

September 16, 2011

Advertisement

— A judge hearing a challenge to a new Kansas law limiting insurance coverage for abortions questioned Friday whether the stated basis for the measure made sense or whether the law was merely meant to place an undue burden on women seeking the procedure.

Attorneys for the state told U.S. Magistrate Judge Kenneth Gale that lawmakers were expressing "the conscience of its people" in passing the legislation because abortion opponent should not have to subsidize the procedure in a general health insurance plan. The law prohibits insurance companies from offering abortion coverage as part of their general health plans, except when a woman's life is at risk. Those who want abortion coverage would have to buy supplemental policies, known as riders, covering only abortion.

However, Gale pointed out that by law, insurance companies calculate rates on an actuarial basis, meaning all policyholders' money is pooled together. The result is that even those without a policy covering abortions could still end up subsidizing the procedure, he said.

"Why the coy disguises in a rider?" Gale sharply questioned the state's attorneys. "Why not just prohibit abortion?"

Attorney Stephen McAllister, who represents the state, responded that the state may very well be able to do just that. He said the state has a strong interest in protecting "potential life."

The American Civil Liberties Union questions the law's constitutionality and wants a temporary injunction putting the measure on hold until its legal challenge is resolved.

"Making abortions more difficult for the sake of making them more difficult is unconstitutional," ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri contended.

Gale is expected to issue his findings this weekend, with the parties having seven days to file any challenges to those recommendations. The final decision on the injunction will be up to U.S. District Judge Wesley Brown.

Republican Gov. Sam Brownback has extolled lawmakers to protect the unborn and establish a "culture of life." The ACLU argued in a court filing that the new insurance statute is but another example of laws passed this year that attempt to make it more difficult for women to get abortions.

Enforcement of two other new Kansas statutes — one dealing with restrictive abortion clinic regulations and another stripping federal funding from a Planned Parenthood chapter — have been blocked by federal judges ahead of trials to determine whether they're constitutional.

The judge questioned attorneys on whether they agreed that an insurance statute that created a burden on women's right to an abortion was OK as long is the burden isn't undue. But, he said, the purpose of the statue cannot be to create a burden on the right to an abortion.

McAllister replied that there is nothing in the legislative record stating that the purpose of passing the abortion insurance law was to create a burden on women.

Abortions in clinics can run from $450 early in pregnancy to as much as $1,500 as the pregnancy advances. Hospital-based abortions can cost thousands of dollars.

McAllister told the judge the statute was overwhelmingly passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by the governor.

"It expresses the wishes of the people of Kansas," McAllister said "That is entitled to some respect."

He argued that the potential monetary harm to women is not an irreparable injury that would justify an extreme remedy such as a temporary injunction.

The judge again asked: "If you are placing a substantial obstacle on the right to choose — if that is the case, don't we have irreparable harm?"

Gale also grilled attorneys for the ACLU, at one point telling them he was concerned about the quality of an affidavit they submitted to support their request for an injunction and rejecting their request to file more a extensive one.

The judge also expressed skepticism about the ACLU claim that the abortion insurance law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because Kansas women would not be able to buy comprehensive health care insurance for all of their medical needs but allows men to do so.

Other states have similar statutes prohibiting private health insurance companies from covering abortions unless coverage is obtained through an optional rider. Missouri's law has been in effect for more than 28 years, and Kentucky has had one in effect for 27 years. Oklahoma passed one four years ago.

But the ACLU's challenge to the constitutionality of the Kansas statute also has widespread implications to other states because it challenges a provision in the federal health care overhaul that authorized the states to prohibit abortion coverage in policies sold on the state exchanges. The ACLU sued Kansas because it was the first state whose law banning such coverage went into effect, Amiri said.

Besides Kansas, other states that elected to prohibit abortion coverage through the exchanges include Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia.

Comments

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 7 months ago

The bottom line is that abortion is the brutal dismemberment of a human child and it has no moral virtue at all. We should be a society that places a high value upon human life and we should build upon that a true culture of life. Republicans and Democrats and others should unite to end the destruction of abortion on demand!

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 7 months ago

If you watch the dismemberment of a child on video --a real abortion-- what some defend as merely "choice" I'm sure you will agree that if not murder it is at least the killing of a developing human being.

0

sunny 2 years, 7 months ago

$500 is cheap to commit a murder

0

Armored_One 2 years, 7 months ago

If the cost of abortions is the issue, then it should actually be the preferred medical procedure, as opposed to births in hospitals, which normally cost several thousands of dollars.

Don't use an argument unless you are prepared to defend against the inverse of your stance.

0

neo_star 2 years, 7 months ago

"...were expressing the conscience of its people..." I think they really mean "religion of its people". However, I kind of remember something about a separation of Church and State from my high school civics class.

0

Jimo 2 years, 7 months ago

Great. The Party of Death blabbering about a "culture of life"!!

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 7 months ago

More republican intrusion into our personal lives. Republicans have only two issues: their money and other peoples' sex lives.

0

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 7 months ago

This is one more step in the right wing "cultural revolution" and is part of their "great leap backward." Vigilance is the price we all pay for living in a democracy. I already know some of you will point out we don't live in a democracy, but a republic is a form of representative democracy...

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.