JUNEAU, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have forced insurance companies to cover up to a year’s supply of birth control at a time, a measure that supporters said was especially important in providing access in rural areas.
In an emailed statement, Dunleavy spokesperson Jeff Turner said the Republican governor vetoed the bill because “contraceptives are widely available, and compelling insurance companies to provide mandatory coverage for a year is bad policy.”
The measure overwhelmingly passed the state Legislature this year: 29-11 in the Republican-controlled House and 16-3 in the Senate, which has bipartisan leadership. It was not opposed by insurance companies, supporters noted.
“Governor Dunleavy’s veto of HB 17, after eight years of tireless effort, overwhelming community support, and positive collaboration with the insurance companies, is deeply disappointing,” said Democratic Rep. Ashley Carrick, the bill’s sponsor. “There is simply no justifiable reason to veto a bill that would ensure every person in Alaska, no matter where they live, has access to essential medication, like birth control.”
Supporters of the bill said the veto would keep barriers in place that make it difficult to access birth control in much of the state, including villages only accessible by plane, and for Alaska patients on Medicaid, which limits the supply of birth control pills to one month at a time.
“Those who live outside of our urban centers — either year-round or seasonally — deserve the same access to birth control as those who live near a pharmacy,” Rose O’Hara-Jolley, Alaska state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said in a news release.
Supporters also said improving access to birth control would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy recently vetoed a bill that would have mandated insurance coverage for a one-year supply of birth control for women in the state. The decision has sparked controversy and debate among lawmakers, healthcare providers, and women’s rights advocates.
The bill, known as House Bill 123, aimed to make birth control more accessible and affordable for women in Alaska by requiring insurance companies to cover a one-year supply of contraceptives at a time. Supporters of the bill argued that this would help reduce unintended pregnancies, improve women’s health outcomes, and save money for both patients and the healthcare system in the long run.
However, Governor Dunleavy vetoed the bill, citing concerns about the potential cost to insurance companies and the state government. In a statement explaining his decision, the governor expressed his belief that the bill would increase healthcare costs for all Alaskans and that it was not the government’s role to mandate insurance coverage for specific medications.
Opponents of the governor’s decision argue that access to affordable birth control is a crucial aspect of women’s healthcare and reproductive rights. They point out that many women struggle to afford birth control pills on a monthly basis and that having access to a one-year supply can help them better plan and manage their reproductive health.
Furthermore, studies have shown that providing women with a one-year supply of birth control can lead to higher rates of adherence and lower rates of unintended pregnancies. This can ultimately result in cost savings for both patients and the healthcare system by reducing the need for more expensive medical interventions such as abortions or prenatal care.
Advocates for the bill have vowed to continue fighting for increased access to affordable birth control in Alaska. They argue that Governor Dunleavy’s veto is a setback for women’s health and reproductive rights in the state and that it is essential to prioritize policies that support women’s autonomy and well-being.
In conclusion, the veto of House Bill 123 by Governor Dunleavy has sparked a heated debate over access to affordable birth control in Alaska. While the decision has disappointed many advocates and supporters of the bill, it has also galvanized efforts to push for policies that prioritize women’s health and reproductive rights in the state. It remains to be seen how this issue will evolve in the coming months and whether there will be further attempts to address the issue of birth control coverage in Alaska.
