Today I received an e-mail from Planned Parenthood saying that county commissioners where I live plan to pressure local bargaining units to stop providing health insurance plans that cover abortions to county employees. When I sent a message to my county commissioners objecting, I found out that at least one of them thinks provision of coverage for abortions in the case of rape or incest is an "elective" procedure.

The Planned Parenthood e-mail read in part:

Tomorrow, Tuesday, September 14th, Kent County Commissioners [Western Michigan in and around Grand Rapids] will consider the elimination of abortion care coverage from the health insurance policy that covers county employees. By prohibiting abortion care coverage, County Commissioners are threatening the health and safety of Kent County’s employees and their families based solely on their personal and political opinions about abortion. This reckless and dangerous move will place the health and safety of county employees and their family members at risk. This restriction on access to abortion services will only make it harder for County employees and their family members to access abortion care if they should need it. [...] We know that when women have limited access to safe, legal, high-quality abortion services, they are forced to seek other - often dangerous - alternatives. Are the commissioners really willing to sacrifice the health and safety of hard-working County employees and their families based solely on their personal opinions about abortion and their desire to advance their personal political agendas? If the County Commissioners really have an interest in reducing the need for abortion, they would work on expanding access to family planning services and other pregnancy prevention programs for all residents in Kent County.

Because a woman's right to choose when to be pregnant is an important issue for me, I sent the message that came with the PP e-mail to each of the county commissioners.

I promptly received responses from three commissioners. The first came in from Republican Commissioner Stan Ponstein, who interestingly and annoyingly claims endorsements from the anti-choice "Right to Life" and the Sierra Club of West Michigan. (That's how weird West Michigan politics are right now.) By e-mail he said, "Safe , legal abortions will still be available. Taxpayers won't be footing the bill."

When I responded that the county should provide coverage for such medical procedures, he retorted a little more sharply: "Abortions are not a medical procedure. It's a death of an unborn baby."

When I pointed out that he might be imposing his values on county workers, he retorted again, "My values? Didn't President Obama eliminate funding in the federal plan?"

I, of course, noted that that part of health reform was written and enacted by members of Congress and he should check into how a bill becomes a law.

I am sure that he is angry enough about the issue to keep writing, and I will report.

The second response from Commissioner Tom Antor, whose Tea Party page can be found here.

He said:

Thank you for your e-mail. While I understand abortion is legal, It should not be covered using tax

payers dollars. I am very saddened that County residents who oppose this

procedure like myself have had a part in paying for this in the past. I have always been a pro-life advocate and can not, in good concience [sic],

support the continued coverage under the counties [sic] health plan for its

employees. I also oppose any other elective procedures now or in the future as part of

our health benefits. If the opportunity arises I will vote accordingly. Thanks again for your input.

(True to Tea Party spelling standards.)

I responded by asking if taxpayers should pay for any medical procedures for County employees.

He said: "Tax payers should never ever be saddled with paying for "elective" procedures in my opinion. Do you think the county should pay for face lifts or other cosmetic surgery which are equally legal in Michigan?"

Clever as I am I replied:

Your point is a good one and I hope the Commission will make a careful study of the health plan to make sure taxpayers like myself pay nothing for electives such as coverage for contact lenses, ED medication, non-generic drugs, and so on. I hope you will take the lead on that. Finally, do you think that an abortion in the case of rape or incest is "elective." Please clarify if you would support coverage in such instances. Thanks for you input.

His reply:

"Rape & Incest has historically been the tipping point on this issue for many but I subscribe to the sanctify [sic] of all life in these matters. Jesus loves the little children and I trust his devine [sic] intervention to guide me as well."

The third response came from a Democratic member of the Commission, Brandon Dillon, who is also now running in my district for Michigan's state house. The point is a tricky one, because the Democrats control the state house by a slim margin and this election could see major changes.

Nevertheless, Dillon wrote:

Thank you for writing to me with your opposition to removing coverage for elective abortions currently included in the Kent County employees standard medical insurance plan. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me on this issue. First let me start by saying that I respect and value your views on this matter. However, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what is actually being proposed by Commissioner Bob Synk. The action item that the Legislative and Human resources Committee will consider tomorrow does not ban abortion coverage for county employees. The action item, simply stated, expresses the sense of the Committee that this elective procedure should not be subsidized with taxpayer funds. Furthermore, since county employees are covered under collective bargaining agreements, any change to the current plan would require the agreement of each bargaining unit. Commissioner Synk's proposal asks employees to voluntarily remove this coverage from their plan effective January 1, 2011 and if they do not, it directs the County Administrator to propose elimination of this coverage when the current contract expires in 2012. There is nothing in the proposal that prohibits an employee or other covered family member from obtaining an abortion, nor is there anything that would prohibit an employee from purchasing a rider to the standard insurance plan to cover elective abortion if the benefit is eventually removed through the collective bargaining process. Most counties in Michigan do not offer this benefit in their medical plan and there is nothing in state or federal law that requires any employer, public or private, to provide insurance coverage for elective abortions. I understand we may disagree on this issue, but I certainly do not believe this proposal, if adopted, will harm women and their families. Once again, thank you for writing to me on this issue. If I can be of assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. With warm regards,

First, Commissioner Bob Synk is the commissioner in my district and is running for reelection. He lives nearby, and I met him during one of his recent canvasses. Because he is the one who has introduced this measure, I can't say I will support his candidacy right now.

Second, I replied to Dillon expressing my disappointment at his response and urged him to rethink it and to take a special consideration in the case of rape and incest, to at least not describe that as "elective." I also noted I would be reconsidering my support for his candidacy.

He replied just moments ago thusly:

The term "elective" is not meant in a pejorative way. It is how it is referred to in the plans coverage. This proposal in no way precludes any future plan from covering abortion under circumstances such as rape or incest. Thanks again for your input.

To me describing an abortion for a woman who has been raped as an "elective" procedure is little more than justification for rape and is a second violation on her. And when a government official intervenes to do that.... :-(

Somebody call Rachel Maddow and get her on the abortion crazies in West Michigan, please!

Update [9-14-10, 10:00]

The commissioner of my district just responded to my e-mail with this comment:

Thank you for your letter. I'm sorry we disagree on this issue. I'm sure we agree on most other issues. I am trying to be true to my values, and also trying to represent my constituents. If you'd like to dialog more, please reply.

Sincerely,

Bob Here is the statement I made this morning: The majority of my constituents are pro-life and so they do not want to pay for abortions with their tax dollars. I believe this is also true for the whole of Kent County, and I believe it is quite likely that the majority of Kent County employees do not want any of the insurance premiums they pay to go toward abortions. Because I am pro-life I want to support measures to help women and their partners choose life. I believe this action will prompt couples to talk about their values and take action to ensure that they will not be tempted into an abortion by an unwanted pregnancy. To my constituents who are pro-choice I would like to say that this is not an anti-choice action. The Supreme Court only requires that the government not put road blocks in front of women seeking abortions. It is my belief that this action will not result in any pregnant woman being unable to obtain an abortion she wants. I believe it will result in couples avoiding unwanted pregnancies because they will take more seriously their responsibility over their own reproduction.

I am unsatisfied with this statement, though I appreciate his offer to continue to talk about this. This is how I responded:

For me there are four values and related questions which the step you chose to take today raise: This is an issue of equity. This issue primarily (though not exclusively) affects women. Are they being treated fairly or because of the special interest in abortion, are they being singled out? Three other commissioners responded to my e-mail and each used the word "elective" to describe abortion and why taxpayers shouldn't pay for it. (I don't mind paying for good health plans for the workers who do the work of the county.) So, on equity, are other "elective" medical procedures, treatments, or medicines (not just for women) being targeted for elimination by the county commission in future bargaining with the county's workers? I am deeply concerned about the treatment of the workers that do the jobs of the county. Are they receiving pay and benefits they need to have a good quality of life? Do they believe forcing a change in health plans in this way will negatively impact the quality of their lives? Did you and other commissioners talk with them about this beforehand? What were the results, if any, of those conversations? Two of the commissioners who responded to my e-mail made what I can only describe as offensive remarks about a woman's right to choose. One went so far as to say that even in the case of rape and incest an abortion to his mind would be an "elective" procedure, implying that on some level that rape and incest are choices made by women. He did not mention his view on whether or not so-called Plan B drugs were acceptable or something county health plans should cover. What is your view on this? Finally, in your note you mention the issue of whether or not this represents a "roadblock" to abortion access. I think this walks a fine line. My guess is that not all county workers would find paying for supplemental insurance out of their own pocket to be easily affordable. Isn't it the case that requiring this additional expense (which some women may see as a necessity) when my guess is that health plans that do cover abortions are not much more expensive, if at all, than plans without them -- especially after the federal health reform law abolished discrimination based on gender. In other words, are we really saving any money? Or are we playing politics with the issue?

I also alerted him to the fact that should a candidate with views closer to mine challenge him in a future primary, I will support that candidate.