Seems like everybody’s talking about mandated health insurance benefits and women’s reproductive issues these days. Anything happening here in the City On A Hill on that score? Well yes, two things.
In the health insurance field, legislators have filed bills to allow insurance companies offer plans that include fewer mandates about which medical benefits are covered, the idea being that mandates are not necessarily a good thing either economically or medically. The bill would require that, before any new medical benefit could be mandated, a study be made not only of the financial impact of the proposed mandate but also its medical efficacy — to see whether it improves the quality of patient care.
For fifteen of the legislators who support this restriction on mandates, however, there’s one medical benefit (if that’s the right term) that is not being mandated now and should be. A different bill these fifteen legislators also support would prohibit a pregnant woman from having an abortion until she has had an “opportunity for an ultrasound so that she can view her fetus and see its heart beat.”
The legislators who apparently believe that this mandate would pass the new test while others would fail? Adams, Barrows, Boldyga, deMacedo, Frost, Harrington, Hill, Humason, Hunt, Kuros, Levy, Lombardo, Peterson, Poirier, Smola.