The Detroit Free Press editorial page tees off on the state Legislature for bills on their way to become law that would greatly restrict women's health choices.
Two ideas have the potential for devastating consequences for Michigan women, the paper says:
"One bill would allow physicians and other health care providers to refuse to provide services to patients when there’s a “moral” or “conscientious” objection, and allow employers to refuse to pay for services on the same grounds; another three-bill package would require women seeking insurance through Michigan’s soon-to-exist health care exchange — part of federal health care reform — to purchase an optional abortion insurance rider to have such services covered."
Both issues were endorsed Thursday by the state Senate and are now in the mandatory five session-day waiting period before the House can act.
There is no economic case to be made for insurance companies requiring women to pay more on the chance that they will, at some point, need an abortion. If money were the issue, it would make much more sense to require smokers, or diabetics, or people with histories of heart disease, or almost any other ailment, to carry additional coverage.
