The Affordable Care Act’s “Cadillac Tax” — that’s the new name for the tax on health insurance plans that are sold through state and federal exchanges — could end up hitting women, especially in states where many insurers have decided to drop coverage for maternity care, according to new data.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a new analysis on Tuesday showing that the Cadillac tax would likely cost women about $9,000 annually in premiums in 2020 if they didn’t have insurance.

That’s about a third of their total family insurance premiums in 2018, and about one-fourth of their annual premiums in 2017.

The CBO also found that women with employer-sponsored insurance would be more likely to face higher deductibles, deductibles that can add up to up to $5,500 for a family of four, and other costs that women might otherwise be able to absorb.

But in states that are participating in the Affordable Care Plan, the CBO found that most of the higher-income women would still have access to affordable plans, with the lowest-income group having the highest deductibles.

The premium increase would likely be even larger if women were required to pay more for coverage, the nonpartisan office found.

The study found that the tax would apply to individuals, including married couples and families, and employers, including small businesses and nonprofits.

The tax would kick in in 2020 for plans sold through exchanges, as well as plans sold directly to individuals through a government-run exchange.

It would apply only to individuals who buy coverage on the exchange.

If the law were to go into effect in 2020, it would have to be approved by the House of Representatives, which hasn’t yet voted on whether to pass it.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Leadership Fund said the law could pass if a Democratic-led Senate is allowed to proceed to the House and the bill can pass with only 51 votes.

It noted that Democrats had the support of at least six Republicans in the House on Tuesday, and that they had the votes to pass the bill on Tuesday night, but they weren’t allowed to vote on the legislation.

“This is a good example of why the American people are opposed to the Affordable Health Care Act.

This tax will be in place until 2020, and it will be on the backs of women and families in the future,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a statement.

“Women have been the backbone of the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Now that we’re about to see the first tax hike in a generation, we need to make sure we don’t end up with women paying more for health care and the insurance companies paying more to support them.”

Pelosi also said the tax should not be used to punish companies for covering employees or customers in their states.

“Instead, we should be using this to help middle-class families afford their health insurance premiums,” she said.

“If you’re a woman who has been in a long-term relationship, and you’ve been thinking about moving, don’t worry.

You’re not alone.

If you have a job, don.

If not, don;t worry.

And if you’re in the middle class, don.”

But many experts questioned the accuracy of the CBO’s numbers.

“The CBO does not have any solid estimates of the impact of this Cadillac tax on premiums in the individual marketplace, and they are relying on anecdotal information and anecdotes,” said Emily Cain, an economist at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“These reports, if accurate, would not reflect the true cost of premiums for many middle-income families.”

The CBO estimated that premiums for women would increase by an average of 6.1 percent in 2020.

That is about $1,500 more per year than they would have in 2020 had they not purchased health insurance through the exchanges.

Women would have about $2,400 less in health insurance costs in 2020 than they did in 2020 without the Cadillac Tax, the Congressional Budget Act’s authors wrote in a report released last week.

And the ACA’s subsidies are intended to help women buy health insurance, not to penalize them for having insurance.

But that isn’t necessarily a good thing, according