UPDATE: As I hypothesized below, it turns out the number that Planned Parenthood and other reproductive rights groups were citing encompassed individual plans inside and outside of the Affordable Care Act's federal insurance exchange. (Individuals who earn less than $45,000 can apply for insurance through the exchange and qualify for premium subsidies, while those who earn more will purchase plans outside of the exchange.)

As Planned Parenthood Public Policy Director Jennifer Allen explains, "What we had understood was that the information dealt with plans inside the exchange, but it's really inside and outside the exchange, which frankly is worse news. This makes it even more clear that coverage access is eroding everywhere, and it’s even more imperative that we pass the Reproductive Parity Act."

Why is this worse news? Because the federal exchange is shiny and new, while regular individual insurance plans have obviously existed for years. This basically means that insurance companies are taking advantage of the legislature's failure to pass the RPA these past two years to change a historic status quo in our state: That every insurance carrier covers abortion.

"I’d venture to say that the very complexity of this conversation is the very reason we need the RPA," Allen adds. I've posted the lists of all the companies that have filed plans inside or outside of the exchange, and whether or not their plans cover abortions, after the jump.

***Original post below***

The Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner is pushing back against a claim made earlier today by Planned Parenthood and a number of other women's reproductive rights groups that only half of the 10 individual insurance exchange policies currently filed with their office would cover elective abortions.

“I’m not sure where Planned Parenthood got their numbers but of the nine plans filed to be in the exchange, eight are covering abortion and one is a maybe," says Insurance Commissioner spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis. She explains that the one insurance company that's currently not covering abortion—Bridgespan Health Company—is reconsidering their decision.

"We definitely got our numbers from [the commission]," counters Jennifer Allen, Public Policy Director for Planned Parenthood Votes NW. "Perhaps, based on public scrutiny or interest from legislators, those numbers have changed. But we definitely got our numbers from them.”

The confusion could also stem, in part, from insurance companies that are filing new insurance policy bids both within and outside of Washington's exchange. Marquis promised to send over breakdown of all the various policies soon so I can eyeball them for myself.

Regardless, the state legislature should still pass the Reproductive Parity Act to ensure that insurance policies cover abortion, because the number of filed policies (and whether or not they cover elective abortions) could still change: the deadline to submit policy bids is July 31, after which the insurance commission reviews the rates and punts the plans over to the federal insurance exchange program to determine whether they’re qualified to be sold inside the exchange starting on October 1, 2014.

Continue reading »

Hey Ladies, you better be prepared, because you know, accidents will happen:

A group backed by Right to Life of Michigan has been approved to circulate petitions seeking a new state law prohibiting health insurance companies from covering elective abortion procedures.

The ballot committee No Taxes for Abortion Insurance wants to require women to purchase optional riders to cover abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.

... Asked by a reporter how women could be expected to purchase abortion insurance in preparation of being raped, [Right to Life Michigan president Barbara] Listing responded: "Nobody plans to have an accident in a car accident, nobody plans to have their homes flooded. You have to buy extra insurance for those two."

Of course, nobody plans to to get cancer either (and most states require auto insurance), but why let logic get in the way of public health policy?

So yeah, if you're a teenage girl who gets pregnant after being raped by her uncle, and you didn't buy that rape and incest rider on your health insurance, well, that's what you get for not planning ahead.

The 300,000 women hoping to purchase affordable insurance coverage through Washington state's insurance exchange when the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented next year had better choose wisely: Only half of the 10 insurance exchange plans currently filed with the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner elect to fully cover abortion costs.

Why, you ask? Because our state legislator—lead by that dissembling fink Senator Rodney Tom (Who the fuck knows?, Medina)—has failed to pass the Reproductive Parity Act, which would ensure that all insurance plans covering maternity care are also required to cover abortion costs. (Even though the bill already passed in the House and has the votes to pass in the Senate, on paper at least.)

“The future that we've been warning legislators about is coming true," says Planned Parenthood Votes NW Public Policy Director Jennifer Allen. "It’s our understanding that the number of plans—10—that’s all the plans that will be available on the exchange. That’s it.”

I have a call into the state insurance commission to confirm; I'll update this post when I hear back.

“Because of the barriers to abortion coverage that were put into the Affordable Care Act by anti-women’s health extremists, carriers face business decisions about abortion coverage that will affect their bottom lines,” said Elaine Rose, CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, in a press release. “This news makes it crystal clear that in order for Washington women to not lose the coverage they have today for all of their legal pregnancy options, the legislature needs step up and pass the Reproductive Parity Act now." Which they could totally do now, during the special session.

Planned Parenthood and other women's reproductive rights groups note that only five exchange plans filed with the state insurance commission will include the voluntary termination of a pregnancy, four plans will completely exclude abortion, and one plan will cover abortion only in instances of rape, incest, or serious endangerment to the health of the mother.

ThinkProgress.org grimly illustrates what happens when state and local municipalities lose revenue and have to slash vital services, like law enforcement, primarily at the expense of vulnerable populations, like women and children.

Last August, a woman in Josephine County called 911 and pleaded with dispatchers to send police—“my ex-boyfriend is trying to break into my house. I’m not letting him in but he’s like, tried to break down the door and he’s tried to break into one of the windows.” The woman had good reason to be afraid of this man, as she told the dispatcher on the other side of the phone, this same abusive ex had put her in the hospital just a few weeks before. But the dispatcher has no one to send. Because the local sheriff’s department recently lost millions in federal funds, it laid off 23 of its 29 deputies and limited their availability to eight hours on Mondays through Fridays. The woman’s call to 911 took place on a Saturday.

With no deputies available, the 911 dispatcher transferred the woman to the state police—but they would not come rescue the woman either. In the words of the state police dispatcher, “I don’t have anybody to send out there. You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away? Do you know if he’s intoxicated or anything?”

The woman's ex-boyfriend later plead guilty to kidnapping, assault, and sex abuse.

Josephine County, the county where this woman lives, is overwhelmingly conservative; its voters have twice rejected property tax levies to fund more law enforcement (the most recent vote was held yesterday). ThinkProgress notes that after the first round of cuts, law enforcement sent out a press release encouraging victims of domestic violence to move, noting that they would no longer be safe in Josephine County. But what's one woman being raped by her ex-boyfriend if it saves homeowners a few bucks every year, right?

Hat tip to Robert for shitting in my morning coffee.

A post on Craigslist says they're looking for "young sexy calendar girls for the new Hempfest calendar" who are "between the ages of 18-21 and want to get paid up to $50 an hour."

I know that Hempfest is a volunteer operation, but that's terrible money for young sexy calendar girls—and where are the young sexy Hempfest calendar boys? Hempfest should do better. Hempfest would do better than this, right? That's why I doubt this is the Hempfest people at all. At least, I hope it's not them. For what it's worth, young sexy calendar models who are 18, 19, and 20 may be young and sexy, but they can't legally smoke pot. E-mails to the advertiser and Hempfest personnel have not yet been returned.

UPDATE at 11:50 PM: Hempfest director of operations Sharon Whitson confirms my suspicions: Hempfest isn't behind this ad. Which means someone is apparently trying to use Hempfest's name to lure young sexy girls.