So, will Nick's Law be discussed in the legislature?
After some political wrangling during the last session, a procedural move supposedly made it impossible to hear Nick's Law (mandated insurance coverage for autism) for two years. Talk is that it will be heard again, but perhaps in a different format. I confess that I'm not sure just what happened or how it can happen, but I believe the time has come (again) to at least give it a fair hearing.
Much like the campus concealed carry law.
Herein lies the problem: It is an election year and campaign contributions are the life blood of any campaign and the folks with cash flow aren't really interested in doing the right thing, but rather are proponents of wide open free markets. To some, the government should not only NOT mandate anything relating to business, but pretty much give big business a blank check.
I have been a supporter of Nick's Law myself for a long time but not for the reasons you would think. Sure, my son was diagnosed with a form of autism but today, he is a normal, video-game playing teen. I support it because it is just the right thing to do. Sometimes, conservatism means that we do the right thing and lean into the pitch and take one for the team and for the "least among us."
What is ironic is the opponents of Nick's Law are often the most outspoken advocates of Christian principles and ideologies. They often believe that we are a theocracy, a country that is truly Christian at its core. If that is the case, how can they also NOT support a simple law that requires insurance companies in Oklahoma to provide an option for autism coverage? It just doesn't make sense.
To read the entire blog, please click here.