On March 19, the Senate Health and Social Services Committee held its first hearing of Senate Bill 276, a bill mandating insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives. The hearing presented the bill as positive, “common-sense,” no-brainer legislation. However, diving deeper into the details of the bill reveals disastrous consequences if the legislation passes.
In paragraph 2, section H, SB 276 provides for religious exemption for any “health care insurer that offers, issues for delivery, delivers, or renews in the state a health care insurance plan in the group market to a religious employer.” This provision seems to take care of any objections. Employers with religious convictions against contraception can rest easy.
However, the issue is not with who must pay, but with what medications are considered “contraceptives.”
SB 267 defines “prescription contraceptive” as “a drug or device that requires a prescription and is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to prevent pregnancy.” The problematic, FDA-approved contraceptive is ulipristal acetate. The FDA lists ulipristal acetate as an “emergency contraceptive.” However, it is not merely a contraceptive; it is an abortifacient.
Ulipristal acetate is structurally similar to mifepristone, commonly known as the abortion pill. According to a study published on PubMed: “Several lines of evidence suggest that a postfertilization mechanism of action is also operative. This mechanism of action is considered to be contragestive versus contraceptive.” Contragestive means that the medication does not prevent an egg and sperm from combining but prevents the implantation of an already formed embryo.
Although people with pro-life convictions disagree on the moral implications of contraception, pro-life supporters are united on this ground: life begins at conception. Once conception has occurred, the egg and sperm are no longer egg and sperm, but the beginning of a new little life. The embryo contains a completely unique set of DNA and immediately begins developing as a human being.
Protecting the inalienable right to life is more than a religious sentiment that can be assuaged by an exemption clause. It is a constitutional duty and a universal moral imperative. There is a clear definitional line between contraceptive and contragestive, between contraception and abortifacient. Alaska’s laws should reflect that definitional difference. Alaska should not mandate insurance coverage of drugs with abortifacient capabilities.
