The state of Kansas has spent a hundred thousand dollars trying to defend a law that forbids insurers from allowing coverage of abortions in private insurance. Now, they are trying to wrap that case up, and they have some pretty unique ideas of why the suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union should be dismissed.
Supporters of the insurance restrictions contended people who oppose abortion shouldn’t be forced to pay for such coverage in a general health plan. Attorneys for Praeger — a Republican who supported abortion rights in the past while serving in the Legislature — said the law promotes childbirth over abortion, lowers insurance costs and protects the consciences of abortion opponents.
But Praeger’s attorneys also suggested the law will lead to better-informed decisions about abortion because deciding to pay for the procedure out-of-pocket or buy an insurance rider “necessarily results in a fuller understanding of the actual costs of an abortion.”
Of course, that reasoning doesn’t appear to apply to any of the myriad other procedures, surgeries, medications, conditions, and other needs covered by insurance. The argument also neglects the fact that terminating a pregnancy is far less costly than pregnancy and childbirth.