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

[PGalt]

Euthanasia for Liberals will also reduce government expense.

Exactly. Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of anti-life totalitarians.

[PGalt]

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

GRRRRRRREAT point! BTTT!

[Walts Ice Pick]

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 .

Yes, you're right, you do have to be careful about taking arguments to the extreme. Too few people or too many people should be avoided. Your soup shouldn't be too hot or too cold. You should try not to be too fat or too skinny.

Some of us don't have any objection to contraception, used moderately of course. :)

[OldPossum]

I have no problem with contraception. Sometimes it takes total sense. I personally went the route of making sure that my wife and I would have no children, not even a possibility of any. Shortly before getting married I had a vasectomy. And some 39 years later, there have been none.

It worked.

[mvpel]

Planned Parenthood: “Better Dead than Poor.”

[Waryone]

If they eliminated welfare, a lot fewer children would be born into poverty. They could eliminate scores of govt welfare workers. If they also eliminated planned parenthood funding, perhaps people would be encouraged to learn to live more responsibly.

[redgolum]

As the economy worsens, the call for the killing of the feeble and costly, young and old, will become louder and louder.

Lord have mercy.

[sport]

Not only will the cry become louder and louder,under obama care, the killing of the feeble and afflicted will begin. The two groups most affected,the young and old, were heavy obama and Democrat voters in 2008. Perhaps this is the change they voted for.

[little jeremiah]

Next stop on this train to hell is Soylent Green.

[little jeremiah]

Leftists always believe that there are too many [other] people.

And, btw, where does this B.O.D. get her money from? Doesn’t PP get tons of money from the - government, hmmm?

[reg45]

Only if you assume that all additional people will be non-productive. Otherwise, additional productive people will pay more taxes.

[rockinqsranch]

To “H” with PP less, or elimination of Liberals/Leftists in government will reduce costs of government extraordinarily.

[Maceman]

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.

She has it exactly backwards. The people are not a cost to the government; the government is a cost to the people.

And we need to drastically cut that cost, before it drowns us in a tsunami of debt and oppression (and I pray that is still possible).

[Antoninus]

See that? People are just an expense for government.

[wagglebee]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

[meadsjn]

If Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards were really concerned about government costs, she would be advocating something to prevent the "births" of new government agencies, programs, and positions, and to "abort" many or most of the existing ones.

[MBA4Life]

Yes, and now someone else’s children will have to support you in your old age.

[MBA4Life]

Thanks to Planned Parenthood, we’ve eliminated an estimated 120 million people under age 40. That’s the demographic reason behind the current long term economic crisis. If all those kids had been born, there would be a housing shortage, not a surplus, and the tax burden would be more widely shared. And the economy would be 30-40% larger. This is nothing but valuable human resources going down the drain. If we put the money government gives PPF every year into education, we’d all be far better off.

[OldPossum]

Well, not having children enabled us to save and invest our earnings (both of us worked all our lives), so you could put those investments that benefited society into the equation.

But I suppose one could stretch the matter to arrive at the conclusion that other people’s children are supporting us in our old age.

We’re enjoying our financial—and personal, I would add—no personal interactions between and among adult children to negotiate and no pesky grandchildren to lavish costly gifts upon—lives at this point. Which must irk the hell out of you. :)