Local News

Wake County eliminates abortion coverage from employee health plan

Posted February 11, 2010
Updated March 14, 2010

Wake County logo
Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— Wake County Manager David Cooke decided Wednesday to eliminate coverage of elective abortions from the health plan for county employees.

County Commissioner Tony Gurley cited the law rather than politics as the impetus for the change. The state Supreme Court outlawed payment for the procedure by public entities in 1981, Gurley said, but the county did not notice when Blue Cross Blue Shield added that coverage to the plans it provides.

Apex leaders voted last month to eliminate coverage of elective abortions from town employees' health insurance plans.

"We don't believe it's a proper use of public money, taxpayers' money, to fund elective abortions," Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly said.

Taxpayers subsidize medical policy plans for government employees.

Apex and Wake County employees will still be reimbursed for abortions in cases of rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother.

Blue Cross Blue Shield, which provides coverage to Apex, says elective abortion coverage is standard in fully insured plans.

Weatherly said the federal government does not provide elective abortion coverage for its employees and that the town's decision is in line with federal standards.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • elcid liked Ike Feb 12, 2010

    It seriously may be time to revisit this issue. 1) Stam v. State needs to be reexamined in and of itself IMO and 2) this policy change far exceeds the limitations (erroneously) established in Stam v. State.

    If he intends to proceed on that basis, then he can start planning to strip coverage for ALL elective procedures from county health plans.

    I really dislike that man.

  • elcid liked Ike Feb 12, 2010

    "Insurance should only cover abortion if the life of the mother is in danger or if the baby was conceived during rape or incest."

    Insurance should only cover heart disease if the person did not smoke, drink or eat fatty foods.

    "If you don't want to get pregnant you should practice abstinence, use birth control, use contraceptives, use condoms, or keep your legs together."

    If you don't want to die from heart disease, you shouldn't smoke, drink or eat red meat.

    Why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize the consequences of the stupid decisions of heart patients?

  • DontLikeTheSocialistObama Feb 12, 2010

    Wake County made the correct decision.

    Insurance should only cover abortion if the life of the mother is in danger or if the baby was conceived during rape or incest.

    If you don't want to get pregnant you should practice abstinence, use birth control, use contraceptives, use condoms, or keep your legs together.

  • Frank Downtown Feb 12, 2010

    If its a medication neccesity then it falls under another catagory other than and abortion as far as insurance coverage goes. Its still is strange that insurance will cover Viagra but not birth control pills!

  • wakeconative4ever Feb 12, 2010

    I don't think diseases related to drinking too much should be covered. Isn't that a lifestyle choice?

  • sand castles Feb 12, 2010

    This appears to have sparked debates seperate in nature to the real facts here. My thoughts are why did they wait for so many years to remove this from the health care package? Is it acceptable that it was unseen? Has not the cost of health care been pounded in the last 10 years easily? We should be asking the employees who's job it was to evaluate the plan and look for ways to lower coverage costs, and for sure one that was deemed unlawful to have too provide. Think of the costs to us taxpayers. Thankfully some one finally found it. There are other programs available to help people with their "choices".

  • Garnerian Feb 12, 2010

    Why do you have to be religious to believe that abortion is wrong? Is it so Hypocritical to think something with arms, legs, a mind of it's own, and a beating heart shouldnt be killed? Are you telling me that a beating heart isnt a sign of life? Who are you to take the life of another that hasnt done anything to you. You want to take someones life try taking someones that could defend themselves.

  • elcid liked Ike Feb 12, 2010

    "Medical intervention is oftentimes needed to save a person's life who smokes. An elective abortion is not needed to save a woman's life."

    And yet both situations devolve to the consequences of personal choices. Hypothetically, I can be just as incensed about having to pay to save a smoker's life as you can about having to pay for an abortion. They chose to smoke, so why not let them bear the cost of that choice out of pocket?

    (Following the logic of this string of commentary anyway)

  • elcid liked Ike Feb 12, 2010

    "Sokers DO pay a lot more for their health insurance coverage."

    LOL, not really. EVERYBODY pays a lot more for smoker's health coverage, and, considering the portion of health coverage that is subsidized by public funding (i.e. the bulk of it), I don't think I should have to pay for their choices.

    The same goes for alcoholics and overweight diabetics.

    As long as we're arguing about personal responsibility and not paying for things you disagree with.

  • JustOneGodLessThanU Feb 12, 2010

    RaceCard Balker, if you need to read a 2000 year old book written by desert nomads to keep yourself from "committing violence, robbery, rape, and other crimes"....then PLEASE keep reading that book. :-)

    I mean, do you not cheat on your wife because you love her...or because of what a book says?

    Yep, morals are easy without dogma or gods. In fact, all of us (yes, you) already live this way. You ignore many, many "bad" passages in your handbook because they're just "not the right thing to do" in your mind anymore. Things that used to be ok (e.g. slavery, female subjugation) are not ok any more. Make sense?