Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama’s frightening ‘adjustment’: ‘nobody pays for birth control because fewer births cost less’
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/obamas-frightening-adjustment-nobody-pays-for-birth-control-because-fewer-b ^ | 2/10/2012 | Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 02/10/2012 5:44:08 PM PST by Morgana

What Obama just said on Friday afternoon was extremely confusing. But once you get to the truth of it, it’s also extremely frightening.

The president was facing down a conundrum: trying to assuage religious groups appalled at being forced to cover birth control under an impending federal mandate, while making it clear to his base that he wouldn’t back away one bit from the “core principle” (his words) of giving women free birth control pills. The best way to achieve this goal is to find a funny way to reword what you already said.

So the way he rephrased was basically this: don’t worry religious groups, the insurance premium bill you’re footing for your employees won’t really pay for their insured birth control. Why? Insurance companies can really offer it for free because it avoids the cost of childbirth (not to mention the other health costs of a whole new person on the planet for 20-someodd years):

“The overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services,” Obama said, later explaining: “if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”

(In case that sounds like a concession note that Planned Parenthood and NARAL are simply delighted with this, because, they say, Obama hasn’t changed his commitment. Predictably, the Catholic Health Association is also “very pleased” to have gotten its fig leaf back.)

Meanwhile, the National Right to Life Committee immediately saw through Obama’s statement to exactly what it was: a free ticket to a future abortion coverage mandate. After all, if contraception is really an investment because it prevents births (thereby saving costs), abortion certainly is.

“President Obama today promulgated a scam that, if he is re-elected, will allow him to mandate that every health plan in America cover abortion on demand,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.

The “twisted logic” found in the Friday “scam,” said Johnson, has few natural bounds.

“By this form of doublespeak, one could say that the federal Medicaid program was not really ‘funding abortion’ when it paid for 300,000 abortions a year (prior to adoption of the Hyde Amendment in 1976), because after all, every abortion that the government paid for also saved the government money,” he said.

So too could legalized physician-assisted suicide become a “free” insurance service because it prevents the “waste” of spending any more money on elongating a life. Johnson also pointed out that there is nothing in the federal health care law stopping an abortion coverage mandate under the Health and Human Services Secretary’s list of “preventive” services - the only abortion ban applies to a different section of the law, regarding a list of federally mandated “essential health benefits.”

Obama was banking on media headlines distilling the White House’s message as a “compromise.” And because he was the first to extend “compromise,” that means religious people have to start playing nice or else come off as the bad guys.

Don’t buy it. Obama not only just flipped us the bird, but quietly gave the signal for a new and very ugly battle. We don’t have to play nice.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: contraceptives; democrats; moralabsolutes; obama; plannedparenthood; prolife; sourcetitlenoturl
Less Democrats maybe.
1 posted on 02/10/2012 5:44:17 PM PST by Morgana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana

In other words, killing Americans make for more money for Zero to spend. So die already!


2 posted on 02/10/2012 5:50:13 PM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel

I’m not so sure it is all about the money. I also believe they just don’t want anyone else on their beach.


3 posted on 02/10/2012 5:52:15 PM PST by Morgana (I only come here to see what happens next. It normally does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Roe Effect takes too much time.


4 posted on 02/10/2012 5:55:43 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Limbaugh: Tim Tebow miracle: "He had atheists praying to God that he would lose.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
“The overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services,”

so you say. the logic of euthanasia would follow. eliminating the non-productive and the obstinate would also, theoretically, "lower the cost of healthcare."

And that's really what it all gets down to, no? Now that medical services are a federal budget item, and the budget has to be balanced, well, now the president can dictate who should and should get medical care. You didn't need to read the bill to see that coming.

Now, then, y'all: this from the man who uttered the words, "I wouldn't want my daughter being punished with a baby." Have we any excuse to be surprised?

I submit to you that he has no soul. I am at the same time not surprised and also taken aback by his words and deeds.

5 posted on 02/10/2012 5:55:52 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (religion + guns = liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
they just don’t want anyone else on their beach.

that's highly quotable.

6 posted on 02/10/2012 5:56:55 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (religion + guns = liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

I’m just glad that in the USA we will never have forced abortions. Would forced abortions be enough to spark a fire? I doubt it, I think even the concerned people are sleeping and not able to fight it. Myself included, when will I flip?


7 posted on 02/10/2012 6:02:53 PM PST by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Well, use of wonder-drug aspirin (among MANY others) probably results in “less cost” and certainly deals with more actual illnesses than contraceptives — how about all OTC meds be “free”??


8 posted on 02/10/2012 6:10:56 PM PST by mikrofon ("If You Think Health Care is Expensive Now, Just Wait Until itÂ’s Free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBall; wagglebee; little jeremiah; Chode

Did you hear Sean Hannity today? A woman called in and was saying that birth control and abortion should be included in “health care” because it is a right no matter what some church says. She said they (the church who hires people) should provide it for the people who work there but are not church members. Sean said “just don’t work there” which I agree. No one has to be a Catholic, we don’t convert the way Islam does. Nor do we force one to stay in the church. If they feel they would rather sin and use contraceptives then they are free to go at anytime. Sorry to sound harsh but no one is forcing them to believe. I knew the rules when I became a Catholic, now more than ever I am glad I followed the rules.


9 posted on 02/10/2012 6:12:58 PM PST by Morgana (I only come here to see what happens next. It normally does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

The flawed argument here is that ``birth`` control infers directly that a birth is the result of `non-control`, i.e., a childbirth.

Ergo,
Abortion, contraceptive service(s)” {Obummer`s own words) prevents a child from being born [childbirth] by destruction of the child.

Ergo, murder of a child.

Abortion is therefore murder.

Insurance companies could have really offered abortion to Obummer`s mother for free because it would have avoided the cost of his childbirth.


10 posted on 02/10/2012 6:31:43 PM PST by bunkerhill7 (Obummer was aborted by his mother to save insurance costs money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

In a country which stinks to high heaven with attorneys (especially in government) can we not find at least one who notices the President does not have the authority to violate the first amendment by preventing military chaplins relaying a message from Catholic Bishops and violating that same amendment by forcing religious organization to violate their beliefs and finally can one of these bottom feeding attorneys find where in the constitution the President is allowed to force a business to give something away for free?


11 posted on 02/10/2012 6:38:04 PM PST by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

Geez, I really will celebrate the day when we no longer have one of Satan’s own ruling over us in the WH.


12 posted on 02/10/2012 7:11:12 PM PST by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
if it's a RIGHT, let her point it out in the Bill of RIGHTS then...
13 posted on 02/10/2012 7:35:42 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Ranks as one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.


14 posted on 02/10/2012 8:01:38 PM PST by rbg81 (scillian's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

The point everyone is missing is why does this administration want to offer ‘free’ birth control? Is it because it is so concerned about the costs of childbirth? No, it’s because it is so concerned about the costs to the government of the children.

You see, most responsible people pay for their own birth control, if it’s something they have chosen for their families and they do not have a religious objection, because having additional children costs money, to name just one of many reasons, and they have made a personal decision about the number of children they want.

People who irresponsibly use children as a means to an end (i.e. more kids = bigger welfare/WIC checks) choose not to use birth control because it means more kids, which means more money in their pocket. This administration foolishly believes that this population who irresponsibly procreates must be doing it because they are unable to afford birth control. So if were free, they believe they might actually use it and stop creating all these welfare babies, thus saving the government loads and loads of cash.

Well, as the saying goes, “A fool and his money are soon parted.” This president proved today, once again with his ‘compromise’ which demonstrated his ignorance of self-insured plans, that he is most definitely a fool—and that’s putting it nicely. This attempt to manipulate those who aren’t using birth control will fail, because it’s not because it’s too expensive that they don’t use it—it’s because it’s too lucrative not to!


15 posted on 02/10/2012 9:16:43 PM PST by erkyl (We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office --Aesop (~550 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Well, can’t argue with him. Obamacare is cheaper when you snuff them in the womb.

It’s even cheaper than knocking off the old people through denial of care because the socialists still have to give grandma pain meds and minimal care while she dies. Progress to euthanasia will reduce the cost of granny dying for the collective. Then they can save money by aborting granny, too. Dead people saves health care money, meets the watermelon agenda of population reduction, and feeds the Left’s hunger for innocent blood. It’s a threefer.


16 posted on 02/10/2012 9:38:50 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Now you know why young 18 year olds are encouraged to run for the border. Central America picks up the cost of children and the States get the productive hard work cheap. Can you say “liberal bullshit” Little Johnny?


17 posted on 02/10/2012 9:47:14 PM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Obama and his handlers are a step behind the Chinese, who are encouraged to kill/abort females so that they can’t later give birth to propogate the population.

Obama is EVIL.


18 posted on 02/11/2012 1:24:51 AM PST by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erkyl

Kudos for an excellent synopsis in #15 of what is happening!!!


19 posted on 02/11/2012 1:38:51 AM PST by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: erkyl

No, it’s because it is so concerned about the costs to the government of the children.


Actually, I think its you who is missing the point. Obama and the Libs WANT more dependency. They want more clients on the Government dole. To them, the more dependent the population is, the bigger their power base. Are you aware they have recruiting drives to get people on food stamps? That is also behind the lax enforcement of immigration laws.

In the long term, this is (of course) unsustainable. Eventually, the Entitlement state will collapse of its own weight, but not before sucking the productive part of society dry. Not sure what their Plan B is. Frankly, I’m doubt they have one (or really care). The way they look at it, by that time they’ll be retired or dead and it will be someone else’s problem.


20 posted on 02/11/2012 5:45:47 AM PST by rbg81 (scillian's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Morgana; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

There are so many articles about this but I thought this one was interesting. The left hates babies and children, and mothers. Mothers means that women and men are different. Leftists don't like that either. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" etc. I'm pinging a companion piece, link follows shortly.

21 posted on 02/11/2012 10:14:13 AM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

More discussion on why leftists luv birth control.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2845321/posts?page=48


22 posted on 02/11/2012 10:23:39 AM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Actually, no..Margaret Sanger, the queen of eugenics and creator of birth control, launched this notion of controlling who ought to procreate and who oughtn’t and the racist that she was insisted that blacks should not be procreating. Look it up.

Now, reach back all the way to the civil rights movement. Which political party was hell bent on stopping it? That’s right...it was the liberals, the democrats who wanted to keep the blacks ‘in their place’. No different in the historical record of pre-civil war America, when the democrats were also against freeing the slaves.

Their goal? It’s not to create dependency amongst the poor, but to be rid of the poor, the ignorant, the ‘inferior’. They are trying to control who can be born—and thus have a society that not only has no poor (which they can then claim to have eradicated), but also has no ignorant—a ‘clean’ utopian society filled with only intellectually englightened equals to themselves.

This is the reason they are so anxious to keep the abortion mills open, when everyone knows the vast majority of abortions are performed on black women. It’s genocide of the greatest magnitude cloaked in the clarion call of ‘women’s reproductive rights.’ It’s even more sinister and evil than you have imagined.


23 posted on 02/11/2012 3:19:10 PM PST by erkyl (We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office --Aesop (~550 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel
In other words, killing Americans make for more money for Zero to spend.

My guess would be "makes more money for Zero to rob". Somebody should do an accounting as to how many millions (billions?) of dollars have disappeared, not being able to be accounted for. Also, how many different ways and how much of our money has been laundered into various culpable pockets

24 posted on 02/11/2012 7:22:48 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

First and foremost abortion, in any country with even a smidgen of morality, must be illegal. Abortion is the abomination of murdering innocent children and must not be allowed to be covered in any insurance policy. It being in insurance means that all the people who pay for their insurance are paying for abortion. We have the right to form and use insurance companies that do not provide for abortion or contraceptives which also, more often than not, cause abortions and go against God’s command for us to be fruitful and multiply. Nobody should be made to be guilty of murdering children. Nobody.


25 posted on 02/11/2012 7:35:53 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: erkyl
but also has no ignorant—a ‘clean’ utopian society filled with only intellectually englightened equals to themselves.

And, of course, we who believe in God are intellectually the inferior, needing extermination.

In the end, though, it will be they who, by The LORD, are cleaned off from the surface of the earth and shushed into everlasting torment, not us who believe. We shall inherit the earth.

26 posted on 02/11/2012 8:17:36 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

shushed=shooshed


27 posted on 02/11/2012 11:07:42 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson