The key word in the headline is “Also”. Essentially, the author is complaining that women will “also” be paying more — rather than just men.
From the article: “the Golden State already bars insurers from charging different rates on the basis of gender in the individual market.”
Given that women (on average) consume a lot more health care than men — the state law requires men to pay more than they should for medical insurance, in order to cross-subsidize women. If rates were based solely on actuarial considerations (as is the case for most insurance); then women would pay more than men for medical insurance (and less for auto insurance).
Why aren’t these women’s fathers or husbands paying for their insurance?