Politics

Michigan Senate passes bills to stop ObamaCare from funding abortions

(Photo credit: Maia C on Flickr)

Three bills were read and passed in Michigan’s Senate this Thursday. All three are aimed at allowing employers the ability to determine whether or not employees will receive coverage for abortion in health care plans. Employers who want to provide abortion coverage will then have to pay for the addition insurance rider.

Senate Bill 612

This bill, which passed on a 27-11 vote, seeks to amend the Insurance Code of 1956.  It states that “[a] qualified health plan … shall not provide coverage for elective abortion.”

Abortion coverage will be at the discretion of the employer: “an employer may purchase a option rider to provide coverage for an elective abortion.” The bill then states two requirements that must be met for this rider to be valid, one of which is that it is the employer who “pays the entire premium amount for the rider and the cost of the rider is not factored into any premium amount for which individual employees contribute … either directly or through a payroll deduction.” The other is that notice of the rider be given to employees.

Senate Bill 613

This bill, which passed on a 27-10 vote, extends the provision of the bill discussed above to the Nonprofit Health Care Corporation Reform Act.

Senate Bill 614

This bill seeks to put teeth into the above two bills by amending the Public Health Code to provide penalties for violation of the bills.

Passing on a 28-10 vote, this bill provides that the reimbursement for abortions through a health care plan are prohibited “unless the reimbursement sought or accepted is from an optional rider,” as provided for by the above two amendments. If this bill becomes law, the penalties for violating this law would be “a civil fine of up to $10,000.00 per violation.” The attorney general is given authority to enforce it.

If these bills pass the House, they will be given to Governor Snyder to sign or veto.

Live Action on Facebook
  • ima

    Hmm, an attorney that doesn’t understand or agree with privacy rights. Interesting. I wonder if Michiganders will be able to rustle up 160,000 signatures to be able to vote these down. That’s crazy talk.

    Enjoy your win while you can, Ms Miller.

    http://www.workers.org/2012/11/25/michigan-emergency-manager-law-defeated/

    http://possibleandlegal.blogspot.com/

    • First Citizen

      Um evidentally you do not understand the bill, it has nothing to do with privacy it is Conscience Protection for the Consumer. Yes I will enjoy our win.

      • ima

        Excuse me, Mr. boss, who pays me minimum wage and provides me with expensive insurance with shoddy coverage, this is kind of embarrassing for an 18 year old girl to be saying to a 55 year old intimidating cigar smoker, but it turns out my boyfriend’s condom broke and I’m pregnant. May I please, Sir, be allowed to get an abortion?

        “Tell me your medical history so I can make my decision”.

        Um, that’s private between my doctor and me.

        “If you don’t tell me what’s goin on, no deal”.

        But, I can’t… that’s doctor-patient privilege, isn’t it?

        “There’s a new law that just passed, so… if you don’t talk, no deal”.

        You’re right, first Citizen, no privacy issues at all. All those lucky poor girls will be forced into having all those babies you love so much, while those unfortunate rich girls will be baby less and fancy free. Well written my good men.

        But wait, Knock me over with a feather:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/likely-increase-in-births-has-some-lawmakers-revisiting-cuts.html?_r=0&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_content=Texas&utm_campaign=ppact

        • Fed_Up_w/B.O.B

          ^ maybe those lucky poor girls should learn how to keep their legs closed and face the facts that sex could lead to pregnancy and pregnancy will lead to child… and if you can’t afford the cost of raising a child why should your employer pay for an abortion, there is always adoption and actually keeping the child growing up and accepting the fact if you want to have sex like an adult you should be responsible like an adult.

          • ima

            The point of the story is the privacy issue. Did you miss that? You seem to be dancing around it quite a bit.

        • First Citizen

          You are very confused I am a woman.

        • First Citizen

          Firstly I do not know how my gender changes my arguments. Even if it did I am a women.

          • ima

            Where did I talk about your gender? Did you think my scenario was about you? This was a story to illustrate a point. Did you not get that? ‘Well written my good men’ was directed at the Michigan Legislature. Is this your way of avoiding my point? Assuming you get my point.

          • First Citizen

            Sorry I miss understood you, but one of the bills was sponsared by a women.

          • ima

            And you’re still avoiding my point.

          • First Citizen

            I ment sponserd in my previous post. Anyway I was not trying to aviod your point. It would not work to purchase the rider once a pregnancy took place anyway so your senirio is off. Secondly I see no reason why a employer has to pay for coverage that goes agianst their conscience (most people do not know that abortions are automatically covered in MI).

          • ima

            Is there a comparable constitutional right that a man has which must be disclosed to his boss to secure a health insurance payment?

          • First Citizen

            That does not matter. Why does the idea that she might have to ask for the insurence coverage, change whether the law is good or not? Do employer’s freedom of conscience matter at all? If so than the employer’s freedom of concience would over ride the womens right to not be embarressed. Many believe abortion is murder. Would you want to pay for something you feel morally wrong?

          • ima

            That does not matter. Let’s see:

            Imagine a female boss. One of her male employees wants a vasectomy. Are you in favor of forcing him to disclose this to his boss to secure a health insurance payment?

            You wrote “Would you want to pay for something you feel morally wrong”? This particular female boss feels vasectomies are morally wrong.

            You also wrote “Do employer’s freedom of conscience matter at all? If so than the employer’s freedom of concience would over ride the womens right to not be embarressed”. Are you in favor of replacing ‘women’s’ with ‘men’s'?

            If an employer requires something of women and not men in the workplace you are discriminating against women. Men enjoy a freedom that women do not.

            Are you still standing by your statement “That does not matter”?

          • First Citizen

            Yes my statement still stands.

          • ima

            And so we have yet another example of the far-sighted, critical thinking of the pro-life person. Brought to you by First Citizen.

          • First Citizen

            I ment sponserd in my previous post. Anyway I was not trying to aviod your point. It would not work to purchase the rider once a pregnancy took place anyway so your senirio is off. Secondly I see no reason why a employer has to pay for coverage that goes agianst their conscience (most people do not know that abortions are automatically covered in MI).

        • http://www.facebook.com/momof4spuds Chell Gorny

          Here’s a novel thought… that 18 yr old shouldn’t be having sex… maybe she should have been taught birth control is not a 100% full proof… the only FULL proof way to not get pregnant is NOT to have sex… tell them to put a nickle between their knees..

          • ima

            State with the highest teen pregnancy rate is Mississippi. They teach what you want them to teach: abstinence.

            What conclusion does Chell draw?

        • C

          So basically, you are anti-choice about what employers have to pay for.

          • ima

            I am against the government allowing an employer to discriminate against employees (treating women of childbearing age differently than men) through the manipulation (I will allow it if I, PERSONALLY approve) of health insurance. Employees, and everyone for that matter, should NEVER have to discuss their medical concerns or history with ANYONE except their doctor. Doctor patient privilege. Hence, privacy issue.

            This will only affect the poor, not the rich.

            Is there a condition or procedure that only men get that an employer can vote down? Please tell us what that is.

          • First Citizen

            This would be a good argument except for the First Amendment. Because many believe abortion is murder their decision not to pay for it is protected.

          • ima

            Fine, law says he doesn’t have to pay, he doesn’t have to pay. Does not change the fact the law discriminates against women of childbearing age, specifically poor women.

          • First Citizen

            This would be a good argument except for the First Amendment. Because many believe abortion is murder their decision not to pay for it is protected.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Once somebody claims it’s an invasion of privacy to not provide a service or compel providing that service through government, they’ve exposed their complete ignorance of/indifference toward what rights, coercion, voluntary association, privacy, and the Constitution mean, and pretty much established that substantive, productive dialogue would be impossible.

          • ima

            Why so insulting? If you lack the ability to address what I wrote just ignore it. Why write an overly long sentence which gives the appearance of thought when, in fact, all you’ve said is ‘I can’t answer this’?

            The invasion of privacy has absolutely nothing to do with providing the service. It comes from being forced to reveal your medical issues to your boss in order to secure a procedure to which you are constitutionally entitled but can’t afford. The boss can say yes or no, doesn’t matter. This answer does not erase the disclosure required to get the yes/no vote.

            How must a pregnant girl desiring an abortion covered by health insurance communicate this to her boss?

            Is there a comparable constitutional right that a man has which must be disclosed to his boss to secure a health insurance payment?

            Are these too hard? Productive dialogue still impossible?

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            ” Productive dialogue still impossible?”

            With you, yes. I know the trolls when I seem ‘em, and I remember this isn’t our first rodeo, “ima.”

            First, “constitutionally entitled” is another false premise. Second, a boss deciding what insurance plan to carry and what it should cover doesn’t automatically entail such a disclosure requirement. Third, if there is one, that’s one of the terms and conditions an employee voluntarily agrees to by taking on the job. If it’s unacceptable, she has the freedom to seek work somewhere else.

            “Is there a comparable constitutional right that a man has which must be
            disclosed to his boss to secure a health insurance payment?”

            First, you’re not talking about a constitutional right. Second, we’re not advocating that government compel ANY service be provided to employees of EITHER gender.

          • ima

            My mistake. Change “constitutional right” to “constitutionally protected right”. That’s better. Don’t forget, wanting something to be false does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it is.

            I don’t know about this rodeo of which you speak. And if your definition of ‘troll’ is someone who asks questions you don’t want to answer, I’ll gladly accept the label.

            I am only speaking, of course, about the employers who require the disclosure requirement. This is why we’re here, right? And, as you say, this will be a condition a FEMALE EMPLOYEE must agree to before accepting the job. I’m sure leaving the word ‘female’ out of your sentence was an oversight.

            This raises a new question:

            Does this new law allow for a comparable terms and conditions clause in an employment contract which requires a male employee to disclose a medical issue to his boss to secure health insurance coverage for said medical issue? Or is this special clause exclusively reserved for women?

            I’ll illustrate:

            Imagine a female boss. One of her male employees wants a vasectomy. Are you in favor of forcing him to disclose this to his boss in order to secure health insurance coverage for this procedure? This particular female boss feels vasectomies are morally wrong. Why should she have to pay for something her conscience says is wrong?

            She can then write a terms and conditions clause requiring a prospective MALE EMPLOYEE to ask her to cover certain medical procedures that shock her conscience. If it’s unacceptable, he has the freedom to seek work somewhere else.

            Is she allowed to do this under the new law?

            Discrimination is no fun. I can tell it’s not one of your favorite topics. You feel abortion is totally different than anything else, therefore, discrimination is off the table. But it will never be off the table. 83% of U.S. legislatures are male and they will never get pregnant. This not only puts abortion on the table, it puts it on top of the heap.

          • lia

            By this logic, employers should have to pay for their female employees botox, plastic surgery, etc.

            Fact is, when you are poor, you don’t necessarily get to have all sorts of elective stuff.

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.platten.7 John Platten

      As a business owner and a Catholic I support law as it philosophically protects in a greater sense human rights.. As the right to life exists as the primary right afforded all people to which all other rights are afforded.. As a most closely alligned derivative the right to freedom of religion (christian) to which all peoples are afforded the right to expression , worship and faith..One must remember that this republic (not a democracy) was founded on christian values, under the dominion of the G-d of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and the Lord Jesus Christ, from which all powers of authority are gained and held by his pleasure and at his leisure. As the secondary derivative, can never have power over or dominion over the primary agent. The state may never be greater or divorced from that which extends authority to it or has authority and dominion over it… So don’t talk to us of “our morals” as if separate to the principles to which this country are founded on and that are American.

  • First Citizen

    Two more pro-life bills passed the Michigan Senate yesterday! I was there it was wonderful. The abortion opt out passed, as well as the employee conscience protection act.

  • Blue Stater

    When you think about it, it’s pretty diabolical of small-government advocates to do a complete about face when it comes to women’s rights. The same people who grouse about the Fed and cry “totalitarianism” when gun-control legislation comes up are only too happy to see the big bad government dictating what health care women are allowed to have access to.

    Oh well, just another piece of legislation (or three) to get canned when it’s found unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds. The Republicans are certainly making it easy for people to see them as a bunch of sexist white men. And the Republicans will keep losing elections when women return the favor.

    • lj

      This doesn’t deny anyone being able to have an abortion. It just allows people to say they aren’t going to pay for it.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      You do realize that your comment only works when you substitute euphemisms like “women’s rights” and “dictating what health care women are allowed to have access to” in for the actually policies in dispute, right? If you accurately describe critics’ actual positions on abortion and the HHS mandate, the “about face” disappears entirely.

      Also, the only people who genuinely see the GOP as sexist are gullible and uninformed. And here’s the truth on how abortion factors into the female vote: http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/11/why-gop-doesnt-need-to-shift-on-abortion.html

    • elizabeth

      I am 23 & female, and I’m against abortions of both female and male babies. Because I believe in women’s rights, I believe women have the right to be born. True human rights are not based on age, gender, race, or religion. And the unborn females are no less female just because you don’t value them.

      Nor does being republican or prolife make me a sexist white man. Go study some embryology, gun control statistics, and question your ethics before making such ridiculous statements.

    • Julia

      Hello, it’s not the government dictating it unless you are talking about obamacare, it’s the employers deciding that they are not going to pay for elective procedures, especillay if they consider said procedure murder.

  • http://www.facebook.com/momof4spuds Chell Gorny

    @blue_stater:disqus I am a female… who is a mother of 4 children… and I am republican… abortion is murder… we (my husband and I) have been through 9 miscarriages to have our children…. we looked into adoption and really considered it… and still are… we would like to adopt in the future… my whole life is dedicated to my children… i also fell everyone has the right to own a gun… and if we are going to discuss womens health… hello… i had a heart attack 2 months prior to getting pregnant with our baby son… and was told to have an abortion… guess what he is 6 months old and i am alive…. the chance of women dying during pregnancy is very unlikely…

  • Pingback: Michigan Republicans on The move Conscience Clause Abortion Riders Next - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  • Pingback: Catholic News Roundup 12-10 « ChurchMilitant.TV Blog