Gov. Mike Dunleavy has vetoed a bill that would have made birth control more accessible to Alaska women.
House Bill 17 would have allowed women to get a year’s worth of prescription birth control at once. Currently, most insurance providers in Alaska cover only up to 90 days’ worth of birth control pills at a time.
At least 24 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted laws enshrining the 12-month rule. Proponents say it is particularly important for rural women who may not be able to visit a pharmacy every 90 days, and for victims of domestic violence. Advocates for the bill also say it could prevent unintended pregnancies, thus leading to a reduction in abortions.
Similar legislation has been introduced in the Legislature since 2016. But this was the first year it had passed in both the House and Senate. It did so with solid bipartisan support.
The Senate voted 16-3 to approve the measure in May. The House voted yes 26-13.
Dunleavy wrote in a letter explaining the Sept. 4 veto that “compelling insurance companies to provide mandatory coverage for a year is bad policy.”
Fairbanks Rep. Ashley Carrick, the primary sponsor of the legislation, said she had attempted to speak with Dunleavy or members of his administration multiple times about the bill during the legislative session. All requests were “ignored or denied,” she said.
Carrick said the veto “after eight years of tireless effort, overwhelming community support, and positive collaboration with the insurance companies, is deeply disappointing.”
The bill was amended as it advanced through the legislative process to address concerns from conservative legislators. Specific exemptions were added to allow religious employers to deny birth control coverage. Provisions to provide coverage for emergency contraception drugs were removed from the bill as it advanced through the Legislature.
Still, some Republican lawmakers were unconvinced. Rep. Dan Saddler, an Eagle River Republican, voted no when the bill was before the House. Saddler said he felt some of the arguments were “unpersuasive” for 12 months of mandatory insurance coverage for contraception.
“I guess I would say that the existing structure of insurance, I felt, was sufficient to provide for the needs we heard about,” Saddler said. “Not everything requires a governmental, legal mandate as a solution.”
Reader Comments(0)