No, no, no.

Not too happy about this plan. 

State may become first to require insurance to cover abortion.

Making the attempt to keep the whole 'abortion is right/wrong' thing out of the conversation(and I'm not sure HOW you do that), I am pro-choice.  I'm still 100% against this proposed change, and mostly, it's because of my opinion of the purpose of 'insurance'.

Insurance should be protection against the expenses caused by emergencies.  If this law was worded that it had to cover abortions where the mom's life was in danger  if she carried a pregnancy to term(bad preeclampsia, under going cancer treatments, blood clotting disorderes), I would be okay with it.  That is a justifiable medical procedure that is preventing an emergency from occuring.

But to narrow it down to it's purest, coldest terms, as a medical procedure, I feel an 'I don't want the baby' abortion is no more an emergency than a breast augmentation or a nose job....and NONE of those should be covered by medical 'insurance'.