Skip to comments.Sebelius: Fewer Babies Born Will Save Health Care Costs
Posted on 03/04/2012 1:41:08 PM PST by NYer
At a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius confirmed the fears of many pro-life advocates who worry that the recent HHS mandate requiring all insurance plans to cover contraception and sterilization, regardless of an employers moral objection, is just the beginning.
The same statutory authority of the Administration to mandate contraception could just as easily mandate abortion on demand. The Administration believes in essence that employers are not really paying for contraceptives or abortion since they would be cheaper than providing for prenatal care, childbirth or child care.
In an exchange with pro-life Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA), Sebelius claimed, The reduction in a number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception. To which Murphy responded, So youre saying by not having babies born, were going to save money on healthcare? The exchange becomes just another example of the Obama Administrations willingness to trample on basic rights of conscience in order to pay for the massive 2010 federal healthcare law and expand abortion.
As a means of cutting costs under Obamacare, the Secretary of HHS has the authority to mandate coverage of anything he or she adds to a preventive services list. The recent HHS edict was the result of contraception being added to that list. Because the list is fluid and left solely to the whim of the Administration, there is no statute preventing an abortion mandate.
Certainly abortion coverage is the next logical step. Even in its initial passage in 2010, Obamacare contained new streams of federal funding for abortion. The Obama Administration fought against pro-life amendments like the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to gut abortion funding from the bill. It has continued to fight against efforts to limit federal funds for abortion. The Obama Administration was willing to allow a government shutdown unless full federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nations largest abortion provider, was in place. Its clear; the Administration would have no qualms about mandating coverage for abortion.
The Blunt Amendment, which sadly failed on a 51-48 vote today in the Senate, would have allowed employers to opt out of the mandated contraception coverage if it went against their convictions. However, it also would have protected pro-life employers from having to cover abortion on demand. Eyes are now on the House where a similar bill (H.R. 1179) sponsored by pro-life Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) is advancing to continue the fight for conscience rights. The bill already has 220 co-sponsors (more than half of the House), including members of both parties.
Pro-life advocates should contact their members of Congress and urge support for H.R. 1179 and conscience protections. Visit http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=60964701.
Death Panels, too.
Are the people tuning in to this crap. Do they understand how stupid and absurd the national conversations have become?
And how soon will the China ‘one child per family’ policy come from these pigs?
By that line of thinking, we could completely eliminate all health care costs by eliminating all live births.
Remember, those not born can only owe, they CAN'T pay!
The 0bama cabinet....
Fewer Government workers that believe this will save untold millions.
As quickly as possible. Once implemented, within three generations, all ANY person "in compliance" would have is their mother and father as relatives. Once mom and dad are gone, there is no one directly related to that person; all they have are friends and government.
Think on that for a while...Another freeper posted that thought about three months ago and it's stuck with me ever since. We WILL see China have some big time problems. And our libs will be sure to follow down the same path.
There will also be fewer people born to pay taxes to support all the government programs
Too bad this kind of thinking wasn’t around when this wretched woman was conceived.
“Sebelius: Fewer Babies Born Will Save Health Care Costs”
Hey, Kathy, too bad your mother was not on the pill after.
There. Fixed it.
I don't think you're appreciating the policy in its fullness. It's to apply economic and social pressures which make it "one child for Whitey, because he can't afford any more, or 'cause it's his right to choose" and plenty of children for the oppressed. Do the math. Some have--for example, it's been said that the greatest weapon against Israel is the Palestinian womb, that Muslim infiltration of Europe and the US is the way towards conquest, and don't get me started on Azatlan.
And eliminating the old will save health care cost.
And eliminating the disabled will save health care cost.
And eliminating the mentally impaired will save health care cost.
And eliminating the genetically flawed will save health care cost.
And eliminating the poor will save health care cost.
And eliminating all the “Useless Eaters” will save health care cost.
Quick - time to make more babies!!
Kill tham all and in 75 or a hundred years we won’t have to pay anything.
By the way this woman is a nut. A nut who has the power of life and death through Obamacare.
That should frighten you.
How about more babies and fewer old folks? Would also save on Sosha Security payments.
What an idiot! Aside from the fact that responsibly having children is a blessing for parents and none of the government’s business, if she got her wish for significantly reduced birth rates, Social Security will be totally hopelessly doomed in 20 years.
In addition to a borderline evil statement, she is just plain WRONG. It might save a little money in the short term, but our ponzi-scheme based Social Security system only works if the population is growing. And anyone with a brain knows that the vast majority of health care costs are incurred in the last 10 years of life.
Fewer babies born means fewer people paying into Socialist Insecurity.
Birth-control use among singles means wider spread STD outbreaks. Which leads to HIGHER health care costs.
Then there are the infertility problems from years of taking birth control (starting in puberty) which we can then pick up the costs of.
What is it about homosexuals that makes them anti-breeder?
With four children, I did my part!
Modern day Eugenics.
This was Jocelyn Elder's stated position ("Those old people are just gonna die anyway!") and I suspect the real reason she was fired.
“And how soon will the China one child per family policy come from these pigs?”
This would not harm them too much...conservatives and Christians tend to have much larger families then liberals. Our problem is that we also tend to send our children to public schools to learn from the liberals...I just don’t understand why...
Now that home schooling is growing they (the liberals) need to reduce the family size...
...and more imported labor - much of which will have a backwards uncivilized religion to which it adheres fanatically.
If her plan works out there will be no one to grow food,manufacture anything, etc.etc... Never could understand why they would want to live in their CREATION.
If they are willing to kill the unborn how do you think the elderly fair in this
I would suggest viewing the documentary “Demographic Winter” for a better understanding as to why the liberals would think this way...
The LESS babies, the LESS tax base in the future; unless of course the liberals are working overtime on eugenics and the management thereof (*cough* sanger *cough*)
No they’re counting on the illegals to keep them in office where they can then tax the crap out of all the workers.
It’s a trick question of course, and one loaded with assumptions. If a system like Obamacare is assumed, you would want more relatively healthy workers to prop it up for the elderly and ailing (at least if you covet the latter’s votes). That makes it a bigger item in the budget, but that’s not necessarily a measure of how well it fulfills its ostensible purpose. However of course the whole Obamacare system is an abomination and should be abolished yesterday.
Where do we go to now?
I applied a rule that led to extinction.
Boy, she’s a regular Margaret Sanger, ain’t she?
Economically, we are already there (or worse) for Americans; now our children are those of the imported “replacement Americans” - check out any maternity ward.
It is “Twilight Zone” stuff, like you went to sleep in the US and woke up in Juarez.
“We’ll just do what Europe has been doing for a long while now: import Muslims.”
Here in NJ we import masses of Aztecs & Incas; maternity wards are filled with their broods, along with one or two “Anglo” babies, and a similar number of black and Asian babies. They’ve bankrupted our hospitals and municipalities; that is why companies and Americans have fled NJ.
“What an idiot!”
An affirmative action token, compliments of our affirmative action president; if a white guy said something this ignorant (and plain evil) he’d he shown the door. This administration is at war with thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition, including something as basic as parenthood.
The same argument propelled Margaret Sanger. This is nothing more than Eugenics reborn.
Kill the babies and old people. There useless anyway. More food to go around. More money for us. Is that what you’re saying?
I’m ashamed to be a human. Most (MOST) animals have more sense.
I guess her statements are to be expected since she works for a man who embraces and distributes evil, both personally and institutionally.
Sebelius is in so far over her head that if she were to take a breath, she would immediately sink straight to the bottom. If she had a brain, she would no doubt be charged with smuggling $hit. This bimbo makes Big Sis look like a genius.
Otherwise they'd secure the borders and scale back the 1 million plus new legal immigrants entering every year.
They need the useless eaters to win at the ballot box.