Fewer People Mean Less Government Cost: Planned Parenthood President

LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/26/10 | Kathleen Gilbert

[wagglebee]

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The president of Planned Parenthood has argued that the new federal health care reform ought to consider funding all contraception with taxpayer dollars because preventing new children leads to less government expense.

In an appearance on the Bill Press radio show, PP president Cecile Richards said that, although the costs of the federal health care bill already promise to skyrocket out of control, federal officials ought to consider covering birth control a priority because of the "cost savings" benefit of fewer children being born.

"I think it's important, Bill, to understand that unlike some other issues of cost, birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money," said Richards. "So an investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don't have children that they weren't planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy.

"So we actually feel that covering birth control is not only it's the right thing to do for women, it's good for women it's good for their health care, but it's frankly good public policy."

The remarks reflect sentiments aired by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when prompted to justify the contraceptive funding in last year's massive stimulus bill. The speaker explained that preventing births "will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Richards also touted artificial birth control as "the most normative medical care that exists in America," calling the push for its universal availability a "no-brainer."

Planned Parenthood and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently launched a massive campaign, called "Birth Control Matters," to pressure the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that all prescription contraception is completely covered by health insurers under "preventive care."

Rita Diller, the national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International, indicated that the true reason for the abortion giant's campaign was not expanded contraceptive availability, but an expanded profit margin.

"In reality, birth control is already widely available to women and even young girls, on a sliding scale basis, so that those who cannot afford the dangerous steroidal pills can receive them at little or no cost," Diller told LifeSiteNews.com. Therefore, she said, covering all birth control as preventive care "will not increase its availability, but will dramatically increase Planned Parenthood’s profit margin, by not only requiring new private health plans to cover 100% of the cost, but also requiring state Medicaid programs to pay 100% of the cost for all Medicaid recipients."

Diller noted that, according to the testimony of former Planned Parenthood chief financial officer P. Victor Gonzalez, the organization purchases contraceptives "at rock bottom prices and resells it at up to 12 times its acquisition cost."

"If Medicaid is required to pay 100 percent of the price Planned Parenthood charges for prescription birth control, it will be laughing all the way to the bank, at our expense," she said.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has challenged Planned Parenthood's campaign, arguing that contraception and sterilization "prevent not a disease condition, but the healthy condition known as fertility." In addition, the bishops pointed out the possibly severe repercussions such a mandate would pose for conscientious health care providers, especially in the case of abortifacient "contraceptive" drugs such as ella and other emergency contraception.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Planned Parenthood Pushes for Universal Birth Control as Coalition Fights Abortifacient Ella 'Contraceptive'
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101206.html

USCCB Officials Urge HHS Not to Require Coverage of Contraception, Sterilization
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10092004.html

[wagglebee]

In an appearance on the Bill Press radio show, PP president Cecile Richards said that, although the costs of the federal health care bill already promise to skyrocket out of control, federal officials ought to consider covering birth control a priority because of the "cost savings" benefit of fewer children being born.

How long before she openly advocates just killing the "worthless eaters"?

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

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 ]

[trisham]

This is incredibly disturbing.

[muawiyah]

Cecile Richards tells us that fewer people is a better condition for the rest of us.

I strongly encourage her to show us the way by jumping from a tall building or something.

We can judge if our lives have improved through her death (and I'd almost bet they will ~ in this one special case).

[flipper999]

Lets just take this to the extreme. If society benefits from fewer people, wouldn't it benefit even more if there were 0 people... oh wait, that won't work . Obviously society benefits from productive citizens. Being productive is the key... not killing off the unwanted.

[CommieCutter]

FEWER PEOPLE IN THE GOV'T MEANS LESS GOV'T COST!!!

[tiki]

OMG!

[jacob allen]

I’m sure she wants to deport all the Illegals????

[Alas Babylon!]

I would argue the opposite. More people in a 1st world, modern environment means more productivity, more consumers of goods, more wage earners, more tax revenues and a benefit to us all. With new technologies we pollute less, can have a smaller environmental footprint and “be fruitful and multiply” as the Good Lord instructed us.

For years the God/People hating elitists have said we have to have less people (always US, never THEM) and man is a scourge on the planet.

God made the Earth for us and us for the Earth. He gave us a very intelligent mind to be creative and not wasteful. If only our souls were as good!

[A message]

Human extinction would also lower government costs.

These population control freaks are insane.

[BigBobber]

Ms. Richards is espousing the ANTI-HUMAN world view shared by most liberals. People, human beings, are an ugly, defective race who always take more than they give, create nothing of beauty or value, and need to be eliminated.

This is the mindset that justifies the murders of tens of millions, hundreds of millions, in the name of the common good and the making of a better mankind.

Keep it in mind whenever you hear them speak, tell yourselves over and over, ANTI-HUMAN, ANTI-HUMAN, ANTI-HUMAN...

[trisham]

Bump!

[rbosque]

But that means less wealth created and less tax revenue.

But if she insists on less people, she can start with herself.

[free from tyranny]

It’s obvious from looking at her. She is one of them, an alien. Not the kind from Mexico, either. Her fellow kind have infested the gov’t just like the stink bugs in the eastern US. I’ll bet under that perfectly symmetrical exterior she is filled with bug like creatures. Time to call the Men in Black.
And not Obama, since he is only half black.

[beaversmom]

Exactly. You can shout that again. When I first read the headline, I thought that was what she meant. I thought, “that’s a mighty strange comment coming from someone at Planned Parenthood.” Then as I scrolled down the other headlines, I had to go back up to read the article once it dawned on me what it really meant.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Euthanasia for Liberals will also reduce government expense.

[beaversmom]

...and don’t forget, it would help the Earth too.

[Mr. Silverback]

Given where and how PP operates, Richards really meant that fewer black people mean less government cost. Racist scumbags.

[wagglebee]

Given where and how PP operates, Richards really meant that fewer black people mean less government cost. Racist scumbags.

You nailed it!