RICHMOND
For the second year in a row, a bill that opponents say could extend health benefits to some domestic partnerships has died in the General Assembly.
The bill’s sponsor and a statewide lobbying group for gays and lesbians counter that the measure is a recruiting tool for self-insured localities to attract the best employees.
The legislation proposed by Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple, D-Arlington, SB51, would allow cities and counties that self-fund health insurance – including Virginia Beach and Portsmouth – to provide that benefit to “any other class of persons” as agreed to by the locality and the policyholder.
That could include in-laws who live in a person’s home, siblings, grandparents, domestic partnerships or unmarried heterosexual partners, Whipple said. She acknowledged the fact that her measure could provide benefits to gay couples may have affected the vote.
“It’s certainly a concern,” she said after the bill failed to pass a House of Delegates panel this week. The Senate had already passed the measure.
One of the bill’s critics is more blunt. Chris Freund of The Family Foundation of Virginia, which advocates traditional family values, believes the legislation violates the state constitution by giving “marriage benefits to unmarried couples.”
“The bill’s language was confusing and ambiguous,” Freund wrote in an e-mail. “That was done for a reason as proponents didn’t want to mention the true purpose of the bill – domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.”
Dyana Mason, executive director of Equality Virginia, a lobbying group for gays and lesbians, said the bill is needed to help recruit the best public employees in competitive markets such as Northern Virginia.
She noted Arlington County had offered the benefits for a short time a few years ago but stopped when it realized state permission was needed. Whipple has since pushed her bill.
“We’re certainly disappointed that the General Assembly has not allowed self-insured localities to compete effectively,” Mason said. “The private sector has realized … it makes sense for the bottom line.”
Del. W.R. “Bill” Janis, R-Henrico, voted against the bill in committee. He said its language was too broad, never defining just who could be covered.
“The law is pretty good the way it is right now,” he added.
Whipple said she may work on the bill and reintroduce it next year.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Complete Idiots
These legislators and the man from the "family foundation" are complete idiots! They have no concept what it is like being denied health insurance. I wish someone would take their health insurance away so they understand the consequences. My husband got ill and since he could not be covered by my health insurance plan we had to seek alternatives to cover expensive health care. There is no free or reduced price health care in Hampton Roads so we went to Richmond, to MCV, and are in the process of applying for a reduced services plan there. This has taken four months so far. In the meantime we don't have the means to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for care. A municipality or company and their insurance provider should be able to cover whomever they choose. How dare the State government say otherwise? If these idiotic conservative "family" groups really want to focus on the family they should focus on helping all families. Imagine the outrage if the article read: "the committee said that covering Jews is just too broad."
Where is the problem?
We have a problem with people being uninsured. If this bill would help more people to have health insurance, where is the issue? Our legislators should not have a right to strike down things like this based on their religion or simple-minded prejudices.