Michigan
recently passed a controversial new law dubbed the Abortion Insurance
Opt-Out Act. This law forbids qualified insurance plans offered through the
health benefit exchange in Michigan from providing coverage for elective
abortion—which is considered any abortion for any reason other than the life of
the mother being at risk. Insurance companies can offer a separate rider which
may be purchased to cover abortion in all other cases—including rape and
incest.
The name of
the law is misleading. It has nothing to do with an insurance company,
employer, or employee “opting out.” It has to do with “opting in” through these
separate “rape insurance” riders. Given this fact, this is very different from
any issue that was covered in the recent Hobby Lobby case
decided by the Supreme Court. The idea of “opting out” itself can be
problematic. Should Jehovah’s Witnesses be able to opt out from plans involving
blood transfusion? Should adherents of some racist sect be allowed to opt out
of plans which provide transfusions or transplants from members of one race to
another? Should adherents of some homophobic sect be allowed to opt out of
plans which provide health coverage to homosexuals?
Elective
abortion is legal in the United States due to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. The abortion issue is
complex and difficult to say the least, but it is intimately connected with
self-ownership and the right to bodily integrity—the foundations on which all
natural rights stand. Unless and until Roe
v. Wade is overturned or a Constitutional amendment bans abortion on the
federal level—both extremely unlikely possibilities—then such controversies
cannot be said to have anything legitimate to do with the abortion issue.
The big
issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. The real issue is the
right to contract. Approximately 80
percent of all private insurance plans currently cover abortions. Whether
or not an insurance company in Michigan or anywhere else decides to offer
elective abortion as part of its plans is the decision of that entity and
nobody else. Whether or not an employer chooses to purchase an employee plan
that offers elective abortion coverage is up to that employer. Whether an
individual chooses to purchase an insurance plan that offers elective abortion
coverage is up to that individual. It is not the place of any government at the
federal or state level. Arguably, Michigan has the Constitutional power for
such regulation under the “police power” it may exercise under the Tenth
Amendment. However, just because a state may impose burdensome business
regulations, it does not mean that it ought to. Any and all regulations on the
right to contract are egregious violations of the liberty to contract. Treating
insurance companies, employers, and employees like children who do not have the
rationality to choose the terms of the insurance contracts in which they choose
to enter is paternalistic and collectivist. Such paternalism becomes a very
dangerous slippery slope. The more than government may dictate the terms of
contracts that autonomous individuals may choose to enter into, the more that
government enslaves individuals.
(For a much
more detailed discussion of burdensome business regulations, the abortion
issue, and the right to contract, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism
vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available
now on Amazon
in both print
and Kindle.)
No comments:
Post a Comment