PER CURIAM.
The only issue raised by this appeal is whether two statutes enacted by the Rhode Island General Assembly, R.I.Gen. Laws 1956, § 27-18-28, and R.I.Gen. Laws 1956, § 36-12-2.1, restricting the availability of insurance coverage in that state for the performance of induced abortions, runs contrary to the precepts of Roe v. Wade, et al., 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), and its progeny. The district court ruled that they did and issued a permanent declaratory judgment and injunction against their enforcement. See National Educ. Ass'n of R.I. v. Garrahy, 598 F. Supp. 1374 (D.R.I. 1984). After careful consideration of the briefs and record and after hearing argument, we find we are in overall agreement with the conclusions reached by the district court. Without necessarily endorsing every particular therein, we affirm substantially for the same reasons provided by the lower court in its well-reasoned opinion.
Affirmed.