Abortion services and abortifacient contraceptives continue to plague the healthcare industry in America and around the world. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, now many individuals are either being forced to purchase abortion subsidizing policies for the first time, or otherwise realizing their current policies have been subsidizing abortion all along. At any rate, the issues of abortion and the value of life are again at the center of ethical and political discussion in religious and non-religious circles. Bioethical thought on the value of life is structured by one’s worldview criterion—either humanity is seen through the eyes of utility as an indication of value (which would include defining value as the capability of desiring to continue existing), or humanity is seen through a criterion of inherent value, or standalone human dignity (which would include valuing human life at all stages of development). As early as 1972, before Roe v. Wade, bioethicists such as Michael Tooley and Peter Singer published articles defending abortion and infanticide (killing children) by interpreting an individual human’s value through the criterion of utility. Such thought increasingly shaped how bioethics and healthcare intermingled to form public policy and, eventually, law. This paper analyzes one area of the interaction between bioethics, healthcare, and law by reviewing the historical development of the concept of mutual aid throughout history, the relatively new development of health insurance, and the current legal landscape of both as they relate to bioethical concerns in healthcare. The Affordable Care Act, for better or worse, has invigorated a nation to examine important bioethical issues, such as one’s beliefs regarding the defining attributes of life, and how those convictions correspond with taking part in healthcare products like health insurance, and the rise of mutual aid among members of similar sincerely held religious beliefs.