So I guess it would be no surprise to find the Washington legislature attempting to force all health insurers to provide abortion coverage:
With 21 states having adopted bans or severe restrictions on insurance companies from paying for abortions, Washington is alone in seriously considering legislation mandating the opposite.OK, we could argue this one from a pro-abortion/anti-abortion point of view, or from an Obamacare/free market point of view, or ...
The Reproductive Parity Act, as supporters call it, would require insurers in Washington state who cover maternity care — which all insurers must do — to also pay for abortions.
But wait, why argue the point at all, since this is what you find in one of the last paragraphs of the story:
At present, all major insurers in Washington state cover abortions, and Cody, the bill's sponsor, said she knows of no carrier with plans to change. Insurers new to Washington state on its exchange may be tempted to adopt different policies, she said.You got this, right? Insurance carriers in Washington already offer the coverage that the legislature wants to make mandatory, and there is no reason to think that--in the most pro-abortion rights state in the nation--any future insurer would be stupid enough not to offer such coverage.
(Because not offering such coverage when everybody else did would be a big commercial disadvantage, right?)
That legislator Cody thinks future companies "may be tempted to adopt different policies" is more a sign of her limited intellect than of any reasonable probability.
Here we have a legislature contemplating a mandate to require companies to do what they are already doing, because somebody someday might not ...
... and people call Libertarians crazy when we laugh at the government.