Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signs bill to tap unused ACA insurance funds for abortion grant program
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland will become the first state to use money collected from a surcharge on insurance plans sold under the Affordable Care Act to fund a program to pay for abortions, regardless of a patient's insurance coverage, under a measure signed into law Tuesday by Democratic Gov. Wes Moore.
The law will make about $25 million available when it takes effect July 1, because a $1 surcharge has been unused and growing over the last 15 years since the ACA took effect in 2010. It's estimated to make about $3 million available annually in future years.
'The lieutenant governor and I were very clear from Day 1 — that Maryland will always be a safe haven for abortion access,' Moore said, highlighting the measure among SOME 170 bills signed at a ceremony.
The program will be paid for through the transfer of certain insurance premium funds collected by carriers that can only be used for abortion coverage in accordance with the ACA. Supporters say other states have access to a similar surplus of funds through their state exchange insurance systems.
'If programs like ours are duplicated across the country, we could help millions of Americans access essential abortion care — without relying on taxpayer dollars,' said Del. Lesley Lopez, a Democrat from Maryland's Montgomery County, in the suburbs of the nation's capital.
Officials in New York and Illinois already have reached out to Maryland officials to learn more about the program, said Lopez, who sponsored the bill.
A dozen states require abortion coverage in ACA marketplace plans, according to KFF, a nonprofit that researches health care issues. They are California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
'This money exists in every state that has abortion as a required type of care under their state's benefit exchanges," Lopez said. "It's basically all the blue states that mandated abortion be covered when the Affordable Care Act was starting to be implemented.'
The law creates a grant program fund in the state's health department to improve access to abortion clinical services. It requires the department to award grants to nonprofit organizations to support equitable access.
Lynn McCann-Yeh, co-executive director of the Baltimore Abortion Fund, which helps pay costs associated with abortion for people who live in Maryland or who travel there, said it's hard to keep up with an annual budget of about $2 million.
'We would need many, many more times over that to fully be able to meet the full logistic and medical support for each caller,' she said.
She said the $3 million that would be made available annually under the new law could make a major difference. The fund could apply to administer a share of that money.
'The $3 million is a great start, but it will take more than that and it will take sustained funding,' she said.
Maryland's legislature is controlled by Democrats, who hold a 2-1 advantage over Republicans in voter registration statewide. Last year, Maryland voters approved a constitutional amendment with 76% support to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution, in response to the 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The court's decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization gave control over abortion to the states.
'I think before the Dobbs decision, there just wasn't quite the same type of urgency as there is now," Lopez said. "We've seen abortion bans in some form or another in double digits in states across the country, so we've got to make sure that we shore up all the support we can in a state like Maryland that has it as a constitutionally protected right.'
Twelve states currently enforce abortion bans with limited exceptions at all stages of pregnancy. Four more have bans that kick in after about six weeks, which is before many women know they're pregnant.
The Dobb decision and an influx of people from other states seeking abortions in Maryland has made the financial need more urgent, supporters of the law say.
Maryland has been seeing an increase in patients from other states where abortion has been banned. Last year, 15% of abortions in Maryland were obtained by patients from other states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. That's a decrease from 20% in 2023.
___
Associated Press journalist Geoff Mulvihill contributed to this report from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Why Ozempic users should be extra careful during heatwaves
Talk about melting the weight off. Summer may be filled with beach days and barbecues, but it can also bring blistering temperatures. This week, millions of Americans — including New Yorkers — are bracing for what forecasters are calling a 'very sweaty' heatwave. People who are on GLP-1s need to be on particularly high alert amidst the high degrees. New Africa – And people who are on weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro need to be on particularly high alert amidst the high degrees. That's because these drugs work by suppressing appetite, which means they can wind up curbing thirst as well. This, in turn, can unwittingly lead to dehydration — a dangerous condition that can cause dizziness, headaches, low blood pressure, blurred vision, kidney problems and, in extreme cases, fatal heatstroke. Since eating normally stimulates saliva flow, eating less while on Ozempic can mean less stimulation to the salivary glands, which can in turn lead to dry mouth — another symptom of dehydration left unchecked. And if you've heard about Ozempic teeth, you know some of the most common side effects of GLP-1s pose their own dangers during a heatwave. 'You'll need to be extra careful about hydration during hot weather as these medications often cause nausea, vomiting or diarrhea — all of which can lead to fluid loss,' nutritional therapist Deborah Grayson told The Daily Mail. 'This is particularly important for new users of the weight loss medication, whose bodies are still adjusting.' 'You'll need to be extra careful about hydration during hot weather as these medications often cause nausea, vomiting or diarrhea — all of which can lead to fluid loss,' Grayson said. millaf – To remain vigilant, Grayson recommends the following: Drink plenty of water, even if you don't feel thirsty Put a timer on to remind you to hydrate Avoid alcohol and caffeine Avoid being outdoors during peak heat hours Eat easy-to-digest foods such as those on the BRAT diet In addition to suppressing thirst and potentially inducing vomiting/diarrhea, GLP-1s could mess with your body's ability to regulate body temperature, making it harder to tolerate heat. This is all the more reason to drink lots of water — sprinkle some electrolytes into the mix to stay hydrated longer. Use urine as your barometer — light yellow means you're in the clear, whereas darker colors are a bad sign. And avoid physical exertion, especially outside. It might be excruciatingly hot, but perhaps the heatwave is a good excuse to stay on your Ozempic butt for a bit.
7 hours ago
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.
The Hill
12 hours ago
- The Hill
Thanks to imported drugs, America has lost control of its medicine cabinet
America is facing a growing crisis in its medical system — not from a lack of talent or innovation, but from a breakdown in the control, safety and supply of essential medicines. Our growing reliance on imports is now driving serious drug shortages, destabilizing supply chains and increasingly making medications unsafe. At the root of it is a hard truth: We no longer have control of the medicines we depend on every day. In 2002, America manufactured 83.7 percent of the pharmaceuticals it consumed. By 2024, that number had dropped to just 37.1 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. pharmaceutical trade deficit has soared, reaching a record $118.3 billion in 2024. We didn't just outsource manufacturing — we outsourced the sovereignty and safety of our health care system. This means that nearly two-thirds of America's pharmaceutical supplies are now imported. Most critical medications, such as generic drugs, now come from China and India. China controls 80 to 90 percent of the global supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients — the chemical building blocks of modern medicine. Even drugs labeled 'Made in the USA' often chemically originate in China. And India, which produces about half of America's finished generic drugs, relies on China for up to 80 percent of its active pharmaceutical not a supply chain — it's a ticking time something goes wrong, American patients suffer. In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration shut down a single Indian plant responsible for 50 percent of the U.S. supply of cisplatin, a critical chemotherapy drug, after uncovering a 'cascade of failure' in safety practices and shredded documents soaked in acid. With no domestic backup, patients nationwide had their treatments delayed. That wasn't a fluke. 40 percent of U.S. generic drugs have only one FDA-approved manufacturer. Because of that single chokepoint, when one factory fails, the whole system can crack. We are now seeing widespread drug shortages across the medical system. Hospital pharmacists report an average of 301 critical drug shortages at any given time. And 85 percent say these shortages are moderately or critically affecting care. Doctors often lack crucial medicines such as antibiotics, sedatives and cancer drugs. These aren't obscure drugs. They're foundational medicines. But America no longer makes them. Even when imported drugs do arrive, they're not always safe. A 2025 study found that Indian generics are 54 percent more likely to cause serious side effects than their U.S.-made counterparts. Indian factory violations have also been tied to at least eight U.S. patient deaths. China's record is equally disturbing. In 2008, dozens of Americans died after receiving contaminated heparin from Chinese suppliers. This isn't what the American people want. In a national survey, 85 percent of hospital pharmacists said they would pay more for safer generics. But under today's rules, price overshadows quality. Hospitals have little oversight of drug quality — and foreign producers face few consequences for cutting corners. Even the federal government is flying blind. A 2023 Department of Defense review found that 22 percent of essential military-use drugs had unknown ingredient sourcing. That's a national security April, the Trump administration took a necessary step by launching an investigation into generic pharmaceutical imports that correctly frames the issue as a national security threat. But that recognition alone isn't enough. To address this crisis, Washington should impose targeted tariffs on generic drugs from adversarial nations. It must also rebuild domestic pharmaceutical production through tax credits and long-term contracts. America urgently needs full transparency in drug labeling to disclose where drugs and their ingredients are made. The FDA must step up — with stronger enforcement abroad and a ban on imports from repeat safety violators. And to secure critical ingredients during market disruptions, Washington must pursue a long-term vision that includes a 'strategic pharmaceutical reserve.' This isn't just protectionism. It's a restoration of America's medical security. No nation can call itself sovereign if it can't produce its own medicines, and no patient is safe if their health care depends on quality control in a factory 8,000 miles decades, we were told that offshoring production would make things cheaper, smoother and more efficient. But America can no longer depend on unstable foreign suppliers. It's time to restore our pharmaceutical independence and take back control of our medicine cabinet. Andrew Rechenberg is an economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America.
