by Renee McGuinness
Under Article 22 of the Vermont Constitution, Vermonters may be required to pay for medical procedures related to reproductive choice through increases in health insurance premiums. The Purpose section of Article 22, which did not appear on the ballot in 2022, purports under Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 7, that “reproductive liberty” is a common benefit and protection bestowed by government.
Fertility services bills H.369 and S.63 serve to define reproductive “common benefits” by requiring health insurance companies and Medicaid to cover fertility-related services such as, “fertility diagnostic care; intrauterine insemination treatment with donor or partner semen; at least three retrievals of oocytes under anesthesia for in vitro fertilization with a donor or partner semen or egg;” fertility-related medications; and fertility preservation services.
Both the House Committee on Health Care and the Senate Committee on Finance received testimony in early 2023 on H.369 and S.63, respectively. Both bills are expected to be passed in 2024.
According to the Billing Fertility Mandate submitted to the Senate Committee on Finance by Sebastian Arduengo, Esq., Vermont Department of Financial Regulation, premium costs would increase from between $6.69 to $17.40 Per Member Per Month (PMPM – see chart on page 16) depending upon three scenarios ranging from unlimited to limited coverage outlined on page three of the Executive Summary.
On top of inflation, the “Affordable” Heat Act, double-digit health insurance premium increases in 2023, and a potential 18.5% increase in property taxes across Vermont in 2024, H.369 and S.63 fertility services bills are an additional threat to the economic security and prosperity of Vermont families, seniors, and individuals.
Vermonters were told Article 22 was needed to protect women’s access to abortion in Vermont. This is untrue in at least three ways: 1) the Supreme Court of Vermont, Chittenden, determined the legislature cannot prohibit the safe exercise of abortion in Beecham V Leahy and Jeffords in 1972, a year before Roe V. Wade was decided; 2) there were no legal restrictions on abortion in Vermont prior to the passage of Act 47 in 2019, which expressly prohibits a public entity (government) from interfering in reproductive choice; 3) Article 22 would not prevent any future federal laws affecting abortion nationwide under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In addition, legislators failed to educate the public on their plans to introduce and pass legislation that requires financing the constitutional right to reproductive liberty, and the potential costs to Vermonters for funding this government-given “right.”
Author is an Addison County GOP Committee Woman.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Health Care, Legislation, Life&Death
When will the State of Vermont’s Legislature authorize printing money to pay for all their generous but unaffordable policies?
Oh, right, that ability is reserved for the federal government. And they’re pretty good at it…..
As the Administrative Laws invoked here would be neutral, if a medical facility as defined by the VSA was also known as a Pregnancy Resource Center and was providing prenatal counsel, care and ultrasound services it too should be eligible for same reimbursement…
May as well use their own extremism against them and in the service of the Lords wish that non shall perish…
Excellent article! Where was the Governor’s staff when Article 22 was under consideration? Couldn’t his legal team see trouble ahead? Instead of advising caution about the unclear language of Article 22, Scott went on a road show to promote passage by Vermonters as if it was “necessary.”
Well, now his team can figure out how to pay for it all.
I would like to point out that we will be covering “reproductive aid” which ostensibly includes fertility treatments to women who qualify for Medicaid and supposedly all other health insurance companies offering plans in Vermont. Meaning the poor get to have these services funded but those with private insurance, usually do not. Most private insurance companies put up barriers like denial processes and copay’s that would be cost prohibitive. So, people who cannot survive without public assistance are going to procreate and those that are self-sufficient still have to find the thousands of dollars it takes to become pregnant.
Yeah, that makes sense.
On the other hand, we do need more people in the state.
I dunno. This world makes no sense to me anymore.