Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Men pay higher insurance premiums based on evidence that they are higher risk, or at least that's my impression of the rationale. There's also no state action involved in an insurance company setting premium rates, which removes it from constiutional scrutiny (at least in terms of the equal protection clause) from the start.
I don't know that this argument would be a winner, and I'm definitely not the eprson who would be crafting a winning argument in this area, but there's certainly an argument to be made. State action that discriminates against a protected class gets a strict scrutiny review, so the odds would be stacked against the state should it get to that point.
|
At any rate, your argument about this being discriminatory is simply wrong. There would be no law stating that women have to pay additional premiums for abortion coverage, they would simply have the
option to should they wish to have such coverage. Additionally, there is nothing to suggest that men couldn't pay the same premiums and have it cover their spouse/daughter(s). Nothing discriminatory about that.