ok so I don't think we're in disagreement here.
I agree that there are issues with someone using suicide to get an insurance payout. we probably disagree on WHY that's not ok, but we agree that it shouldn't be a thing.
that is also already a thing that is already covered via clauses in life insurance contracts, so this bill is either unnecessary or seeks to expand the scope beyond suicide.
if it expands the scope beyond suicide & the sole determinant for denial of coverage is that it is labeled as terrorism/a death occurring in the pursuit of terrorist aims, we need to seriously address how we define terrorism and how we apply that label, if not to deal with how it HAS been used, then to codify how it WILL be used going forward to avoid reckless use of the label to benefit life insurance companies.