Colorado Lawmaker Pushes Bill to Require Insurance Coverage of Birth Control and Maternity Care

Jodi Jacobson

A Colorado lawmaker is pushing a bill to require insurance coverage of both birth control and maternity care--not now widely available in the state--calling his bill a "no-brainer."

Colorado Independent reports that a proposed state bill
that would require Colorado insurance companies to cover maternity care would also require insurance companies to
cover birth control. 

Neither type of reproductive health care is widely available as an essential benefit in Colorado, so in most cases women must pay out of pocket for contraception and buy separate riders for maternity care. Women can
purchase maternity riders on some plans, but that process is riddled
with hitches. (See here for The Colorado Independent’s investigation of the maternity rider market.)

K. Jerry Frangas, D-Denver, the representative co-sponsoring the
bill called the birth control portion of the bill a “no-brainer.”

Frangas went on to say:

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

My understanding is that some insurance companies cover Viagra. If
we’re going to cover reproductive issues or issues related to one
gender, we should cover reproductive issues related to both genders.  It’s an issue of discrimination.

State Rep. K Jerry Frangas, D-Denver

State Rep. K Jerry Frangas, D-Denver

Colorado Independent notes that:

According to the Guttmacher Institute, Colorado has a very narrow
contraceptive mandate: on the small group and individual markets,
insurance companies are required to cover birth control pills (but no
other forms of birth control)–but only if the plan includes
prescription benefits.

For example, according to a representative at ehealthinsurance.com, in every other state in the Union where United Health Care
offers insurance, their plans would cover an Intra-Uterine Device (IUD)
insertion, he said.

But not in Colorado. Here, he explained, a woman
would have to pay for the IUD out-of-pocket, with no amount of that
payment going toward her deductible.

Colorado insurance companies are also not required to offer plans
that cover standard maternity costs on the individual market.
Employer-sponsored health care plans in Colorado, and all states,
provide maternity, per the terms of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

According to insurance agents in the state, companies simply don’t
offer maternity coverage because they’re not required to.

Frangas initiated the maternity bill after years of
complaints from constituents who were entrepreneurs, or otherwise
without employer-sponsored coverage.

“There are a lot of people in northwest Denver that are on
individual insurance plans, so through the years, I’ve gotten a number
of people complaining about this particular issue,” he said. “And it
didn’t seem like it was going to resolve itself, and the insurance
companies weren’t going to do anything, so I decided I was going to
carry it.”

Debate on the bill is expected to begin in January.

Frangas acknowledged that the bill will likely draw fire
from the insurance industry. He expects the industry lobby to argue
that covering birth control and maternity will drive up premium costs.

But, he notes:

“The one thing I think they’re not really seeing or acknowledging is
that no matter what, if somebody doesn’t have maternity care, we
ultimately pay for it,” said Frangas.

Frangas pointed out that a baby who doesn’t have good prenatal care
can wind up in a neonatal intensive care unit and cost an insurance
company up to $500,000.  Mothers who don’t have maternity
insurance, and can’t pay their medical bills, contribute to hospitals’
un-reimbursed costs. Those costs are passed on to health insurance
companies, and ultimately to health insurance consumers.

“Then you look at the birth control issue. You can go on endlessly [about costs] there,” he said.

“We always pay for it,” he said. “So any argument that this will raise your rates is invalid.”

Chaer Robert, a board member at the Women’s Lobby of Colorado, said
she’s hoping there will be a fiscal note in the bill suggesting that it
will cut state Medicaid costs.

According to Robert, over one-third of the babies born in Colorado
are born on state-sponsored health insurance. In part, she said, that’s
because the state is less stingy about assistance if a woman is
pregnant. But she also wondered if women are going on state assistance
because they have no other options.

“A certain percent of folks maybe would have maternity coverage if they could really get it at any realistic level,” she said.


Roundups Politics

The House Freedom Fund Bankrolls Some of Congress’ Most Anti-Choice Candidates

Ally Boguhn

With the 2016 election cycle underway, the political action committee seems to be working tirelessly to ensure the House Freedom Caucus maintains a radical anti-choice legacy.

In its short existence, the House Freedom Caucus (HFC) has made a name for itself through endless efforts to push Congress further to the right, particularly when it comes to reproductive health. Now with the 2016 election cycle underway, the caucus’ political action committee, the House Freedom Fund, seems to be working just as tirelessly to ensure the caucus maintains a radical anti-choice legacy.

Since its founding by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) in January 2015, the group of ultra-conservative lawmakers that make up the caucus has ballooned from just nine members to at least 36 members, as of October 2015, who have confirmed their own inclusion—though the group keeps its official roster secret. These numbers may seem small, but they pack a punch in the House, where they have enough votes to block major legislation pushed by other parts of the Republican party.

And now, the group is seeking to add to its ranks in order to wield even more power in Congress.

“The goal is to grow it by, and I think it’s realistic, to grow it by 20 to 30 members,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), one of HFC’s founding members, told Politico in April. “All new members.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

While the caucus itself reportedly does not endorse candidates, its unofficial PAC has already thrown money behind defending the seats of some of the group’s most notoriously anti-choice members, as well as a few new faces.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the Center for Responsive Politics’ campaign finance database, thus far in 2016, the House Freedom Fund has invested in seven congressional candidates currently vying to keep a seat in the House of Representatives: Rep. Rod Blum (R-IA), Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Rep. Scott Desjarlais (R-TN), Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ). The PAC’s website also highlights two candidates hoping to move from their state legislatures to the House: Republican Indiana state senator Jim Banks and Georgia state Senator Mike Crane. The PAC is also backing the Republican candidate for Florida’s 2nd Congressional District, Mary Thomas; and Republican candidate for North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District, Ted Budd.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who won a special election in early June to replace former House speaker John Boehner, also received funding from the PAC. He joined the House Freedom Caucus that same week.

The Republican Party actively works to deny access to virtually all forms of reproductive health care, so it is not surprising that the candidates supported by the House Freedom Fund, whose confirmed members are all members of the GOP, share similarly radical views on reproductive rights and health.

Here are some of the House Freedom Fund’s most alarming candidates:

Rep. Rod Blum

Rep. Blum, a freshman congressman from Iowa, considers his opposition to reproductive choice one of the “cornerstones” of his campaign. “It is unconscionable that government would aid in the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and I will vote against any of our tax dollars flowing to groups who perform or advocate abortions on demand,” asserts Blum’s campaign site. The Hyde Amendment already bans most federal funding for abortion care.

Blum spent much of his first year in the House attempting to push through a series of anti-choice bills. The representative co-sponsored the medically unsupported Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have enacted a federal ban on abortion at or beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy, in January 2015. He signed on as a co-sponsor for the failed Life at Conception Act, a so-called personhood measure that would have granted legal rights to fetuses and zygotes, thus potentially outlawing abortion and many forms of contraception, in March of that year. That July, Blum co-sponsored the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, which would have stripped the reproductive health organization of all federal funding for one year so that Congress could investigate it in the wake of the Center for Medical Progress’ (CMP) discredited videos smearing the provider. 

Blum’s co-sponsorship of anti-choice legislation was accompanied by a long series of like-minded votes throughout 2015, such as a January vote in favor of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, which, among other things, would have made the Hyde Amendment’s annually renewed ban on most federal funding for abortion care permanent. He also voted to block Washington, D.C.’s Reproductive Health non-discrimination law, and in favor of a measure allowing states to exclude from Medicaid funding any health provider that provided abortions, as well as other anti-choice measures.

Blum’s brief time in Congress has been marked by such extremism that Emily’s List, an organization that works to elect pro-choice women, put Blum on their “On Notice” list in July 2015, signaling their intention to prioritize unseating the Iowa Representative. “In less than five months into the 114th Congress, we have seen Representative Blum lead the crusade to restrict women’s access to healthcare, most notably when he cosponsored a national abortion ban,” explained the organization in a press release on its decision to target Blum. “It’s clear that Congressman Blum is more focused on prioritizing an extreme ideological agenda over enacting policies that benefit more women and families in Iowa’s First Congressional District.”

Rep. Dave Brat

Rep. Dave Brat gained notoriety for his win against incumbent representative and then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014, a victory considered one of “the biggest political upset[s] in recent memory.” Like many of his HFC colleagues, Brat has co-sponsored several pieces of anti-choice legislation, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in 2015 and the Conscience Protection Act of 2016, which claimed to “protect” against “governmental discrimination against providers of health services” who refuse to provide abortion care. Brat’s voting record in Congress earned him a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

In April of this year, the Virginia representative signed on to a letter with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and other anti-choice legislators, such as House Freedom Fund candidate Rep. Meadows expressing “serious concerns” about the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to update the label of abortion drug mifepristone to bring it in line with scientific research and evidence-based medicine. Though medication abortions are safe and result in complications in fewer than 0.4 percent of patients, the lawmakers nonetheless claimed that the regulation change could be dangerous, noting that the drug was originally approved during the Clinton administration and demanding a list of information about it.

In the wake of the deadly shooting at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility in November, when the alleged shooter parroted the same violent rhetoric about the reproductive health organization popularized by the CMP’s discredited videos, many in Congress called for the panel investigating Planned Parenthood to be disbanded and for lawmakers to distance themselves from the videos. Brat, however, saw no reason the anti-choice violence should affect the conservative crusade to shut down access to reproductive health care. “Principles are principles,” Brat said at the time according to the Huffington Post. “They don’t change on a news cycle.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp

Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp has been an anti-choice advocate since graduate school, when, according to the biography provided on his website, he was “active in assisting women in crisis pregnancies” while working toward a doctoral degree at American University. His advocacy continued as he made his way to Congress, eventually leading him to become the congressional “Pro-Life Caucus” whip.

Though he has cast plenty of anti-choice votes, the congressman’s most notable moment when it comes to reproductive rights may be a 2012 speech on the House floor, in when he compared abortion to slavery and accused Planned Parenthood and the Obama administration of being racist. “Perhaps the biggest war against our liberties is the war that is being waged against those that are not here today, the unborn,” claimed Huelskamp. “Besides slavery, abortion is the other darkest stain on our nation’s character and this president is looking for every way possible to make abortion more available and more frequent. And he wants you to pay for it. Even if you disagree with it.”

Huelskamp went on to falsely accuse Planned Parenthood of targeting people of color. “I am the adoptive father of four children, each of them either Black, Hispanic, Native American, and I am incensed that this president pays money to an entity that was created for the sole purpose of killing children that look like mine; a racist organization and it continues to target minorities for abortion destruction,” said the congressman. “Shame on this president and shame on that party.”

It wouldn’t be the last time Huelskamp exploited race in order to promote his anti-choice agenda. In 2015, the Kansas Representative lashed out at those who accepted awards from Planned Parenthood, tweeting that they were supporting a “racist” agenda.

Rep. Mark Meadows

Rep. Mark Meadows, who has a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee, co-sponsored anti-choice measures such as the House’s 2015 fetal pain bill, the 2015 Life at Conception Act, and the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2016 (PRENDA). He also once badgered a pregnant doctor testifying during a House committee hearing about the importance of offering maternity coverage through the Affordable Care Act. However, the congressman’s recent vendetta against Planned Parenthood stands out the most.

In July 2015, in the wake of CMP’s deceptively edited videos, Meadows latched onto the discredited films in order to justify defunding Planned Parenthood. “In addition to cutting funding for abortion providers, I strongly urge Congress to investigate the legality of the practices engaged in by Planned Parenthood,” said Meadows at the time.

In September, as Congress faced the looming threat of a possible government shutdown if they didn’t pass a budget bill, Meadows exploited the opportunity to push for Planned Parenthood to be defunded, no matter the cost. With the South Carolina congressman leading the charge, pressure from conservatives to pull funding for the reproductive health-care provider played a role in prompting then-House Speaker John Boehner to resign his position. Meadows was a co-sponsor of the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, which passed in the House as part of a compromise to narrowly escape the shutdown. 

But Meadows’ quest to attack Planned Parenthood didn’t end there. In September, the congressman also participated in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s hearing to “examine the use of taxpayer funding” by Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, a sham hearing used by the GOP to repeatedly push misinformation about the organization.

Rep. Scott Desjarlais

Rep. Scott Desjarlais, a medical doctor, is perhaps best known for his attempt to pressure his patient, with whom he was having an affair, into having an abortion when she became pregnant. While the congressman has repeatedly run on his anti-abortion credentials, his divorce papers also revealed he had supported his wife in having two abortions. Politico‘s Chas Sisk labeled DeJarlais  “the biggest hypocrite in Congress.”

Desjarlais made headlines again in 2015 for voting for a later abortion ban. A spokesperson for the Tennessee Republican told the Times Free Press that the vote was in accordance with the congressman’s record:

“Congressman DesJarlais was proud to vote in favor of this legislation,” said his spokesman Robert Jameson, who added that DesJarlais has maintained a “100 percent pro-life voting record” during his five years in Congress and “has always advocated for pro-life values.”

Indiana State Sen. Jim Banks

Indiana state Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) is one of the few candidates backed by the House Freedom Fund that has yet to win federal office, but his time in the state legislature has given him more than ample opportunity to demonstrate his opposition to reproductive health and rights.

Banks’ campaign website highlights the candidate’s “pro-life” position as a key issue for his race for the House, providing an extensive record of his anti-choice credentials and claiming that he is “running for Congress so that northeast Indiana continues to have a strong voice for innocent lives in Washington, D.C.” That page includes a laundry list of campaign promises, including amending the U.S. Constitution to give a fetus legal human rights, which could outlaw abortion and many forms of contraception; banning federal funding for abortion, though such a ban already exists; eliminating federal funding for any organization that performs abortions domestically or abroad; and opposing any change to the Republican platform on abortion.

The state senator’s site goes on to suggest that “it has been far too long since the Supreme Court discovered that women have a ‘right’ to have an abortion,” lamenting that much of the anti-choice movement’s work to shutter access to abortion in state legislatures hasn’t been replicated on a federal level and promising to address the issue if elected.

Included in his anti-choice resumé is a note that both Banks and his wife have been working in the movement to oppose choice since graduating college, when the two joined Focus on the Family, an organization that has spent millions of dollars promoting its extreme agenda, even devoting $2.5 million to run an anti-abortion ad during the 2010 Super Bowl. The two also worked together on the Allen County Right to Life Board of Directors, and Banks’ wife, Amanda, remains the board’s vice president.

But most extreme of all was the legislation Banks spearheaded while in the state legislature, which included several targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) measures. Most recently the state senator sponsored Indiana’s SB 144, a bill that would modify the state’s 20-week abortion ban to outlaw the procedure once a fetal heartbeat could be detected, typically around six weeks’ gestation. In a statement on the bill, Banks claimed the law was needed because it “would protect unborn Hoosiers’ right to life and also includes important women’s health protections.”

News LGBTQ

Dignity Health Sued Over Refusal to Offer Insurance Coverage for Transition-Related Care

Imani Gandy

“I was shocked when Dignity, which is supposed to be in the business of healing and holds itself out to the public as a bastion of ‘human kindness,’ told me they would not authorize insurance coverage for my doctor-prescribed treatment,” Joe Robinson said in a statement released by his attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Joe Robinson, a transgender man and operating room nurse at a Dignity Health medical center in Arizona, has alleged in a lawsuit filed Monday that his employer’s insurance policy of depriving coverage for gender dysphoria is discrimination on the basis of sex, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Because Dignity Health, which operates the fifth-largest health-care system in the country, excludes insurance coverage for gender dysphoria—or “sex transformation surgery,” as the insurance policy states—Robinson has borne the cost of his transition treatment. This included hormonal therapy and a double mastectomy. According to Robinson’s complaint, he requested coverage for phalloplasty, but his claim was denied; he says he cannot afford to pay for that surgery out of pocket.

“I was shocked when Dignity, which is supposed to be in the business of healing and holds itself out to the public as a bastion of ‘human kindness,’ told me they would not authorize insurance coverage for my doctor-prescribed treatment,” Robinson said in a statement released by his attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

“All I want is the same health benefits other, non-transgender Dignity employees receive, which is coverage for medically necessary treatments,” he continued.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

On May 16, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency tasked with enforcing workplace anti-discrimination laws, determined that Robinson could proceed with a lawsuit against Dignity Health. That lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in California, alleges that Dignity Health’s policy singles out transgender employees employees for unequal treatment.

In response to Robinson’s original EEOC complaint, Dignity Health claimed that its policy was not discriminatory because “health benefits under the Dignity plan are not provided for any personality disorders, including sexual/gender identity disorders and behavior and impulse control disorders.”

Robinson counters that the medical community does not consider gender dysphoria to be a “personality disorder.” His complaint notes that insurance companies have previously excluded coverage for transition-related care based on the erroneous assumption that such treatments were cosmetic and experimental—assumptions, he says, that have no basis in medical science today.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health has published standards of care for gender dysphoria that have been recognized as authoritative by leading medical organizations, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and federal courts, according to the complaint. Under those standards, it reads, medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria “may include hormone therapy, surgery (sometimes called ‘sex reassignment surgery’) and other medical services that align individuals’ bodies with their gender identities.”

In September of last year, Robinson’s fiancée, who also works at Dignity Health, emailed Dignity Health’s CEO, Lloyd Dean, to ask him to remove the “sex transformation” exclusion from the company’s health plan so that Robinson could receive coverage for his medically necessary care, according to the complaint.

Nearly two months later, the complaint continues, Dignity Health’s chief human resources officer informed Robinson’s fiancée that Dignity Health had found no evidence of discriminatory practice in the administration of its health plan.

Robinson’s lawsuit comes at a crucial time in the legal battle for transgender rights. The primary focus of that battle has been on bathrooms, with states and school boards across the country rushing to propose discriminatory legislation that prohibits transgender people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

Eleven states and state officials in late May filed a joint lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s “Dear Colleague” letter sent to public schools nationwide, arguing that the letter, which says Title VII and related statutes protect transgender people from discrimination under the federal definition of “sex,” is beyond the scope of the administration’s authority.

North Carolina, meanwhile, is embroiled in a pair of lawsuits with the Department of Justice over HB 2, the recently enacted legislation that forces transgender North Carolinians to use the bathroom that does not align with their gender identity in public buildings and schools. Gov. Pat McCrory (R) sued the Obama administration for its “radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which would prevent plaintiffs from protecting the bodily privacy rights of state employees while accommodating the needs of transgendered [sic] state employees.”

Also in North Carolina, Joaquín Carcano has sued the state, alleging that HB 2 discriminates against him and all transgender people on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII and Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972.

Robinson’s attorneys see his lawsuit as complementing the ongoing lawsuits regarding bathroom discrimination.

“Transgender people continue to face discrimination in a wide array of contexts, including employment, housing, education, healthcare and more,” ACLU staff attorney Joshua Block wrote to Rewire in an email. “In each of these contexts, as courts are recognizing that discrimination against transgender people is discrimination on the basis of ‘sex,’ transgender people are finally able to fight this discrimination as a violation of our civil rights laws.”