CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A week after they rejected the bill, members of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee revived legislation Thursday to require health care insurers to extend maternity and contraception coverage for dependent daughters of insurees.

The amended version of the bill (SB194) advanced on a voice vote that was apparently unanimous. Last week, committee members rejected it on a 7-6 vote.

"The bill is alive," Margaret Chapman Pomponio of reproductive rights group WV Free said Thursday of the committee's reconsideration of the bill. "A lot of West Virginians want this bill. We need this bill to address the state's high teen pregnancy rate."

Without discussion, committee members approved a couple of changes to the bill, including a revision to define contraceptives as drugs or devices intended to prevent pregnancy.

In its earlier version, the bill used the phase, "to prevent maternity." The bill's lead sponsor, Sen. Ron Stollings, D-Boone, said he believes that confused the debate on the issue last week.

The committee also added an amendment that would exclude coverage for emergency contraceptive pills, commonly known as "morning-after pills."

The amendment states that covered contraceptives do not include, "drugs or devices that may cause the demise of a zygote or embryo at any time after its fertilization by the combination of sperm and egg."

Pomponio said that while she would prefer not to have that amendment, it would be preferable to losing the legislation outright.

"The senators have answered the call. We're thrilled to see them addressing the issue of pregnancy services," she said.

On the motion of Sen. Mike Hall, R-Putnam, the committee voted to have Chairman Joe Minard, D-Harrison, recommend that the bill be referred to Finance Committee. Last week, Banking and Insurance members raised concerns that the bill was not slated for review by that committee, even though projections are that the additional coverage would cost PEIA $12.6 million over the first three years.

The bill also states that health care insurers are not required to provide benefits that exceed those covered under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the federal health care reform law.

Hall got clarification that coverage requirements in the bill are linked to the viability of the federal law.

"It's very much tied to what happens with the Supreme Court debate, or what happens if there is a change in Washington," Hall said, referring to cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, as well as possible changes in power following the November elections.

Reach Phil Kabler at ph...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1220.