Rep. Carlos Bilbao, R-Emmett, moved to send his bill, HB 530, to the full House with a recommendation that it "do pass," but Rep. Fred Wood, R-Burley, offered a substitute motion to hold it in committee. The bill would permit any Idaho insurance plan to exclude coverage of contraceptives, sterilization or any drug that induces abortion. Ultimately, the committee voted 7-3 in favor of an amended substitute motion from House Majority Caucus Chairman Ken Roberts, R-Donnelly, to hold the bill and bring it up again later for discussion of possible changes.

Wood, a physician, told the committee, "First of all, it's pre-empted by federal law and federal rule, so we're going to go down the road again of having to go to federal court, this will be set aside, and we'll spend Idaho's hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to defend something that we know already falls under a federal preemption." He also noted several other problems with the bill, including that it would permit employers to impose their religious beliefs on their employees; and that birth-control pills "are also used in a the treatment of a lot of disease processes that have absolutely nothing to do with contraception whatsoever. They are expensive. I think the cost now, even at Walmart prices, probably runs somewhere around $600 a year or so."

Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, also a physician, said the bill's definition of abortifacient is so broad - any substance that stimulates an abortion - that it would apply to chemotherapy drugs prescribed to a pregnant patient with cancer.

Rep. Steven Thayn, R-Emmett, said he thought Bilbao's intent was to maintain the status quo in Idaho, where there's currently no mandate that insurance policies include contraceptive coverage, and Idaho law already requires abortion to be in a separate insurance rider. "I believe if we passed this bill, most of the insurance companies would continue to offer these (contraceptive and sterilization) services because it makes financial sense for them to do so," Thayn said. "I would like to support the bill. Unfortunately, I won't be able to at this time." The vague definition, he said, "does open it up to many other things that I don't think are intended."


After Roberts offered his motion to hold the bill and bring it back up again later for discussion of possible changes, Rusche spoke against it, saying the bill is beyond repair, but Roberts' motion passed on a 7-3 vote. Wood and Rep. Sue Chew, D-Boise, were the only opponents besides Rusche.