They will also be mandated to pay for contraceptives.
Washington’s state politics have long leaned fairly hard to the left, much like most of the west coast of the United States of America. They have pushed many of the same leftist policies that have ruined California and Oregon, though they have not been as quick to embrace those ideas.
On Saturday, the Washington Senate passed a bill mandating that insurance companies must pay for abortions, contraceptive drugs, and other procedures as part of their maternity plans. They passed Senate Bill 6219 to codify that idea into law.
Passed in a 27 to 22 vote, SB 6219 forces abortion coverage on any company that provides maternity care.
The bill also requires that any such company must cover a wide variety of contraceptive methods, including drugs, implants, and sterilization.
In fact, such a company must cover ALL contraceptive methods under this new law.
Further, the bill does not allow any exceptions to such coverage for moral or religious objections, such as those of many Catholic organizations.
Catholic organizations in general, bar the practice of abortion except in extreme medical emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies. The Catholic church also believes it is a grave sin, among the gravest, to help someone attain an abortion, and paying, even in part, qualifies according to many religious experts.
She said that the “legislation has been a long time in coming and will make a big difference in many women’s lives.”
On the other hand, the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, Peter Sartain, said that the state needs to consider its obligations to protect religious freedom and the free practice and expression of such religion.
The Archbishop also said that the bill would “require contraception and abortion coverage while violating the constitutionally protected conscience rights of individuals, churches, businesses, and others.”
The federal government has run into similar issues before with attempting to foist unconstitutional requirements upon various organizations, specifically during the passage of Obamacare.
As it currently stands, federal law doesn’t allow taxpayer-funded abortion except under two exemptions.
The first is in cases of rape.
The second exemption is in cases where the life of the mother is threatened (again, ectopic pregnancy is a great example).
Currently, Medicaid does not cover most abortions in the state of Washington.
Of course, California is currently considering an even more extreme abortion requirement.
In California, Senate Bill 320 is under consideration.
The bill would mandate that public colleges in the state of California would have to offer abortion drugs at their health centers.
SB 320 will require that such public educational facilities offer up to 10 weeks’ worth of abortion pills so that students don’t ‘face a burden’ by traveling somewhere off-campus to get an abortion in the state where abortions are more accessible than ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY.
At this point, Washington’s pro-abortion (the preferred marketing nomenclature is ‘pro-choice’) bill is headed to the desk of Governor Jay Inslee for his signature.
Given Democrat Jay Inslee’s signature likely won’t represent too much of a stumbling block, however. After all, Inslee, when he was a member of Congress, voted for the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare), which required all businesses that offered health insurance to cover medications defined as ‘abortifacients.’
That term generally means medications that will cause miscarriages.
However, just because the bill has passed and the governor of Washington is extremely likely to sign the bill, that does not mean that the story is over.
When Obamacare required that any organization that offered health insurance would have to cover abortifacients, groups like the Catholic Church and Hobby Lobby challenged the legality of that requirement.
They also won.
For many religions, abortion is a very touchy subject. In many religions, killing an unborn child, or helping to kill an unborn child, or providing material assistance in the killing of an unborn child is a grave sin.
Because of that, Hobby Lobby has already won a similar case in front of the Supreme Court, who held the idea that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act covers such freedoms.
However, the state of Washington has no similar act.
It will be interesting to see how much the free practice of religion actually matters when the First Amendment is considered by the courts during lawsuits against the liberal desires of local politicians.
However, in the state of Washington, much like in California, religion is likely to be on the losing end.