1. What I was addressing - employee's reluctance to disclose the reason for their medical travel to their employer
and
2. The legality of state bans on travel.
Employee reluctance to tell employer
There are existing systems for employers to pay for medical care for their employees without receiving any knowledge about the reason for that care. All of this, even in small businesses (third parties), is handled by third parties - generally insurance companies. This is true regardless of the system - from the system I had in my small firm, in which my employers reimbursed me directly for every medical expense not covered by insurance to standard insurance plans, to employers (like Microsoft) which are self-insured. In every instance of which I'm aware, the payment of medical expenses (to providers or reimbursement to employees) is made by a third party bound by HIPAA. This additional covered expense will be covered the same way. It will be similar to my employer's unusual reimbursement of all out-of-poclet expenses: I submitted all receipts to a third party. The third party reviewed them to make sure they qualified, that I hadn't double-billed them, etc. They informed my employer of the amount I was to be reimbursed. My employer cut the check. (In other instances, the third party reimbursed me directly from funds either I (or my employer) had deposited in advance.
Only the third party knows, and is bound by HIPAA not to disclose the information to the employer. The employer has no ability to disclose an employee has had an abortion because they don't know (unless the employee chooses to tell them).
The offer to provide travel assistance for non-local care is a good (and long overdue) thing. People with rare diseases often both incur extraordinary expenses because we hit the out-of-pocket maximum every year ($2,000 - $8,000 in expenses most people hit perhaps once every 10 years or so). In addition, our care is often so specialized that local care isn't good enough. I'm not aware of any employer who covers these expenses. There are a half a dozen centers which see enough individuals with my disease to be competent to treat it, and around the same for my daughter's. When we travel for care, it is completely out-of-pocket. Every single company which has offered to pay medical expenses has used similar language - travel for medical care which is not available locally.
Disclosing anything to your employer about your health is a two-edged sword. You may be entitled to accommodations and FMLA - but you can also be looked at as a resource drain (and potentially less competent). It's not an identical question to abortion - but deciding whether to take advantage of the resources available, when doing so means disclosing to anyone (a third party intermediary, HR, your employer) is not unique to abortion.
Legality of state bans on travel
That's a much bigger question, which goes well beyond (and isn't directly related to) the question I was answering.
Anyone getting an abortion (or assisting someone in getting an abortion) will have to weigh who to trust, and how much they are willling to trust the legal system to do the right thing.
I'm pretty confident that state bans on travel for abortion will be declared unconstitutional. Unlike privacy, interstate comerce is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and is governed by the Federal Government (not the states). Part of Alito's analysis in the draft relies expressly on the silence in the constitution as to abortion. Side-stepping the constitution and upholding a state ban on travel would be similar to upholding a state ban on possession of firearms (since the right to bear firearms is expressly mentioned in the constitution). I'm a bit surprised that the court used this case to overturn Roe v. Wade - but that surprise relates only to the instant reversal, as opposed to overturning it a couple of years from now, not to it being overturned.
There is certainly a risk in trusting anyone or the law, especially in the near future until the first laws start making their way through the courts and we see if they . Women who need an abortion in states where they are banned are going to need to make hard choices as to who to trust. If they have an employer who provides medical travel assistance, choosing to take advantage of it ill be just one of those choices. But having that option is better than not having it. Just like having friends/family in statew where abortion is legal is better than not - even if you ultimately choose not to trust them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
