'will not pay for' is not the same as 'law preempting' and countries don't have 'best interests' only people do, so speak plainly: you see greater financial equality as a good thing.
Insurers who share your philosophy would drive men away. So you advocate market-meddling as the solution. Which adds regulation, compliance, bureaucracy, etc, costs that are pushed onto everybody.
OR realize that women marry men (and thus buy share insurance). OR charities exist to support single mothers. OR they can use contraceptives --- unless you're arguing that women have a right to take risky business ventures while pregnant on other peoples dime.
Insurers who share your philosophy would drive men away. So you advocate market-meddling as the solution. Which adds regulation, compliance, bureaucracy, etc, costs that are pushed onto everybody.
OR realize that women marry men (and thus buy share insurance). OR charities exist to support single mothers. OR they can use contraceptives --- unless you're arguing that women have a right to take risky business ventures while pregnant on other peoples dime.