The state exchange and Plan B and Ella

Under Obamacare, there is a requirement or mandate for health insurance companies to cover contraception, including Ella and Plan B. This is a necessary requirement for preventative services for women to be included in the Qualified Health Plans. I asked our Attorney General for an opinion. The general consensus from the Idaho Attorney General and pro-life groups (Idaho Chooses Life and Right to Life of Idaho) is that the "abortion opt-out language," S1115 passed in 2011, will only protect against surgical abortion and the abortion inducing drug, RU486. (Please see the attorney general's opinion attached) In other words: the opinion states that, with the state exchange, our insurance companies may not provide coverage for surgical abortions or RU486, but would be required to provide for Plan B and Ella since they are emergency contraceptives. Plan B and Ella are potential abortifacients since they can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (baby). These drugs also are known to prevent ovulation. If this emergency contraception would in fact prevent implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus, this is in fact an abortion. But because the woman is "not known to be pregnant" when she takes this emergency contraception, an abortion could not be definitively proven. The labels on Plan B and Ella show that they can cause an abortion. The literature advertising Ella says: "Ella may also work by preventing attachment to the uterus." In other words, it may prevent implantation of the fertilized egg, which is in fact an abortion. The same is true for Plan B. The FDA package insert states that Plan B One-Step may inhibit implantation by "altering the lining of the uterus." Again, this is preventing implantation of the fertilized egg which is in fact an abortion. (See links below). www.ella-rx.com

www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/plan_b_contrace....html
www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/which_birth_control...rtion Thus, by admission of manufacturer statements, these two drugs have the potential for causing the death of a newly conceived human child. To support this mandate of Obamacare through an exchange would require us to pay for potential abortifacients. There is no opting out of this mandate. Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute in DC said, "Refusing to create an exchange will block Obamacare from imposing a tax on employers whose health benefits do not meet the federal government's definition of "essential" coverage. That tax can run as high as $3,000 per employee. A state that refuses to create an exchange will spare its employers from that tax..." Oklahoma is now in a lawsuit over the issue that the ACA doesn't allow for the tax penalties to flow through a federal exchange. "In blocking that employer tax, state officials would likewise block Obamacare's effort to force religious employers to provide coverage for services they find immoral--like contraception, pharmaceutical abortions, and sterilization." In other words, blocking that employer tax, would thus block Obamacare's effort to force employers to provide coverage for the potential abortifacients Ella and Plan B.
https://chumly.com/n/1a4edef