California forces insurance companies to cover abortion as supposedly ´´medically necessary´´ care

California has overturned a ruling that exempted Catholic colleges from providing insurance plans that covered elective abortions.

After Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente received approval from the state of California to exclude elective abortion coverage for employees of Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University, employees advocating for abortion lobbied the government to reverse the state’s approval of the plans.  The reversal was desired in spite of the fact that the schools did offer supplemental plans that covered abortion at an extra charge.

The disgruntled employees were successful in their battle against the conscientious objection to the Catholic universities.  They lobbied the California legislature and ultimately the California Department of Managed Health Care reneged on its prior approval of the abortion-free plans.  In a statement on behalf of the department, Michelle Rouillard said that the plans were originally approved “erroneously.”

Per this “clarification” on the part of the State of California, Pro-Lifers have presently lost the freedom to choose an insurance plan that aligns with their stance against murder.

The decision stems from an interpretation of California law that states that no “medically necessary” care can be excluded from any insurance plan.  Claiming that abortion can be “medically necessary” is ignorant at best. In actual fact, abortion is never medically necessary.  Ever.

Proponents of this view cite medical cases in which the life of a mother is at-risk due to her pregnancy, and ending her pregnancy is the only way to alleviate the issue.  These cases do indeed exist.  What the view culpably fails to acknowledge, however, is the fact that the safest, most humane way to end a pregnancy is to deliver the baby Abortion is the most violent, inhumane, and barbaric way to end a pregnancy, even in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

Rouillard attempted to explain the reasoning behind the State’s decision to renege on the initial ruling in favor of the conscientious objection of Catholic universities, saying: “All plans must treat maternity services and legal abortions neutrally.”

In transparent language, that statement reads: All plans must treat services relating to nurturing the healthy development of a wanted child and procedures designed to brutally kill and extract unwanted children neutrally.  In reality, the decision sets the standard that children are a commodity without inherent value, because children can, with equal ease, be discarded when unwanted or nurtured when wanted.

This view has been plainly called schizophrenic by an abortionist himself.  Abortionist John Szenes encapsulated the insanity of basing the unborn’s value upon his level of wantedness, saying (emphasis added):

You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby.  Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular… she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby… All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus.  That’s not fluid currents.  That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s to all intents and purposes, the death trauma… somebody has to do it, and unfortunately we are the executioners in this instance[.]

The official stance of the State of California is that this “death trauma” of abortion is medically necessary and on neutral ground with nurturing prenatal care.