Abortion in an Election Year: Constitutionality Central to the Debate Over Taxpayer-Funded Services

A bill that would remove Medicaid funding for medically necessary abortions has been drawing a lot of attention in the House since passing through that chamber’s Health Committee last week. While the issue is inherently divisive, many questions about House Bill 4012’s constitutionality have been raised — further drawing attention to the matter.

According to a recent Hart Research poll, nearly two-thirds of West Virginia voters support the state’s Medicaid program covering a range of reproductive health care services, including annual check-ups, prenatal and maternity care, birth control and abortion. House Bill 4012 would remove medically necessary abortions from a list of those services that Medicaid provides.

In 1993, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals overturned a law signed by then-Governor Gaston Caperton that included a provision banning abortions for low-income women when medically necessary. The court determined that it was discriminatory to not provide such services to low-income women.

 

Republican Del. Kayla Kessinger is the lead sponsor of House Bill 4012. She said the bill takes a different approach to the one that was struck down in 1993.

 

“The way that we are going about this bill is to redefine the medical procedure and we are well within our rights as the Legislature to define and redefine words. We do it almost every day in the Legislative and the legislative process,” Kessinger said.

 

“So, I believe that this bill is constitutional. But as with every piece of legislation we pass the Supreme Court can and may have a final decision.”

 

Kessinger also argues that some taxpayers object to paying for abortions and that the number and cost of them has increased in recent years.

 

According to data from the West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources’ Bureau for Medical Services, 1,506 abortions were provided by Medicaid in State Fiscal Year 2017 — coming in at a cost of more than $326,000. While the number of Medicaid funded abortion has more than doubled since 2008, the cost to the state has increased by about a third — an increase of just over $100,000.

 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes House Bill 4012. As an OB-GYN, House Health Chairman Joe Ellington is a member of that organization. His committee advanced the bill last week, sending it on to its second reference in the House Judiciary Committee. An amendment to House Bill 4012 was shot down in the House Health Committee that would have kept Medicaid funding in place for abortions if the pregnancy occurred as a result of rape or incest.

 

Chairman Ellington acknowledged the controversial nature of the bill, but said he could not speak to any issues of constitutionality.

 

“One concern is that having taxpayer money that goes toward performing an abortion but on the other side in the position the West Virginia colleague has is that you want to make sure that our citizens can obtain safe and legal abortions if they so desire,” Ellington said.

 

“Paying for that is how you would go about that, though. So, whether taxpayer funds go to it — or contributions — from private organizations or nonprofit organization that may supplement the costs for individuals that are seeking abortions. So, as long as they do it under the code of West Virginia, it should still be legal,” he said.

 

Top House Democrats, though, argue that the bill should not be a priority for the Legislature. Minority Leader Tim Miley also said the legislation addresses an issue that doesn’t need attention and, furthermore, gets in the way of decision made between a woman and her doctor.  

 

“This is par for the course for this leadership team of raising issues that try to divide people instead of bringing people together. But, in this case, I understand the bill is to address pregnancy terminations that are paid for by Medicaid,” said, Miley, noting that the the only pregnancies that are terminated by using Medicaid are those that are medically necessary and certified by a doctor.

 

“I’m not really sure what the issue is and why they’re trying to make it an issue other than having government inject itself into the lives of a woman and the advice she’s getting from her doctor,” he added.

 

House Minority Whip Mike Caputo echoed Miley’s concerns as far as legislative priorities. And with House Bill 4012’s constitutionality in question, Caputo says the Republican majority may be using the measure as a barometer for support for a joint resolution that could find its way onto a ballot as a constitutional amendment. But, if it comes to that, Caputo said the issue should stand on its own and away from election of state officials.

 

“If this Republican leadership team really believes that’s an issue that should be on the ballot — and if it’s about policy — then let’s have a special election and let’s do it prior to the general election,” Caputo said.

 

Caputo and other Democrats believe that putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot could be a way for Republicans to try to retain the majority in the Legislature.

 

“The only point I want to make is, if this is really about policy —  if this is something they think is good for West Virginia — then we should have it on a special election with no other candidates on there and just these issues. And let’s find out what people really want,” Caputo said.

 

While not yet on the agenda, the House Judiciary Committee is expected to take up House Bill 4012. As for the larger issue of abortion, lawmakers from either chamber have yet to introduce a joint resolution that would address the matter.  

Tort Reform is Discussed on the House Floor

When a vehicle accident occurs, who is at fault? And how much should those at fault pay in damages? These are questions the House of Delegates grappled with Tuesday as they discussed abolishing joint liability and implementing comparative fault.

House Bill 2002 seeks to do away with joint liability in our state and instead introduce comparative fault. What this means is currently, before the bill, if someone is involved in an accident, and are responsible for 30% of the fault, but the other person responsible for 70% of the fault can’t pay their share, the person receiving 30% of the fault would take in all the fault.

House Bill 2002 would change this and only require the person who is 30% at fault pay 30% of their share.

The bill, while many in the House supported what it was trying to convey, many Democrats stood to offer amendments to the bill. Ranging from suggestions to offer exceptions to people who are intentionally harmed by someone to protecting children fourteen and under from taking any blame, to an economic impact statement, all of the Democrats amendments were rejected.

Republicans felt all of the additions would just muddy up the focus of the bill; to protect everyone.

During the fall election campaign, Republican candidates were clear that the state needs tort reform. Tuesday in the House, they got their chance. Delegate John Shott, chairman of the House Judiciary committee explained the party’s position.

“So one thing the leadership, or the basic thrust of leadership on both the House and the Senate side is try to identify those features of our state that are making, or creating a perception that this is not a good place to have a business, to grow jobs, to move to have a career or a profession,” said Shott, “And the legal system is one of those areas that’s been examined, and there are features of the legal system that contribute to that perception, and there’s no one that stands out, but among those features the concept of joint and several liability is one that is seen as unfair, because it creates an uncertainty among the business people, among the community, and among individuals as to the fact that you may end up having to pay more than the share of fault that you bear in an accident.”

But Delegate Tim Miley, once the House Speaker now Minority Leader, resented Shott’s assertion that the state is not business friendly.

“You know we hear a lot about the business climate of the state, perhaps someone should have shared that with the cracker plant coming, someone should have shared that with Antero that moved its corporate headquarters to north-central West Virginia, someone should have shared that with Mark West Energy who has built processing plants in north-central West Virginia and spent billions of dollars doing so. Someone should have shared that with, I think it’s Southwest Energy, a company who’s taken over the assets of Chesapeake Energy and we’re going to have a bill that benefits them up in the Energy Committee today,” said Miley, “I stand up on the floor every Thursday, and will continue to do so to talk about the jobs available in this state. Someone should have told all those business employers who have jobs available how bad it is to do business in this state. So it gets a little old justifying every effort to take rights away from consumers with the mantra, we need to make our state business friendly, when the unfriendly nature that’s been described from West Virginia has been done by these shady outside groups with no objective data to review.”

For years, West Virginia has been labeled a judicial hell hole by the American Tort Reform Association. This group accuses the state’s legal system of being out of balance. It’s a campaign the West Virginia Association for Justice, representing the state’s trial lawyers, has criticized. Shott maintains this Legislation and says its necessary to polish the state’s legal image.

“To the gentlemen from the 48th, I am exceptionally pleased that things are going well in north-central West Virginia,” said Shott, “I wish they were going as well in southern West Virginia. What we’re really looking at folks is a change in an approach, an approach that’s been underway for 83 years or so that the results, I think, speak for themselves. Our children are leaving the state, our grandchildren are leaving the state, except in north-central West Virginia where a spark, has of, discovery of the Marcellus shale, has caused a, I’ll call it a mini-boom, and our, certainly, as West Virginians are all pleased about that. But unfortunately, that’s not what we see all over our state. I sometimes ask myself, why would businesses come to West Virginia, and I think the problem now is that they won’t come unless there’s something they have to take from us that’s already here, like the Marcellus shale. If a business can go anywhere, it’s not going to come to West Virginia. It’s just not deemed a friendly place to do business.”

The bill passed 74 to 25, with some of the Democrats voting for it. House Bill 2002 now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Exit mobile version