From an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
At birth, Houston Tracy let out a single loud cry before his father cut the cord and handed him to a nurse.
Instantly, Doug Tracy knew something was wrong with his son.
“He wasn’t turning pink fast enough,” Tracy said. “When they listened to his chest, they realized he had an issue.”
That turned out to be d-transposition of the great arteries, a defect in which the two major vessels that carry blood away from the heart are reversed. The condition causes babies to turn blue.
Surgery would correct it, but within days of Houston’s birth March 15, Tracy learned that his application for health insurance to cover his son had been denied. The reason: a pre-existing condition.
“How can he have a pre-existing condition if the baby didn’t exist until now?” Tracy asked.
So the unnamed health insurance company believed the baby existed before it was born. We can assume the company is staunchly pro-life?
If the baby was insured early in the pregnancy, would the infant’s condition be covered?
Does the insurance company’s ruling of a “pre-existing condition” violate the policies of a pro-choice government?
Will the “reproductive choice” movement publicly denounce the insurance company for suggesting that the baby previously existed?